The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Wes on May 18, 2015, 05:17:09 PM
-
This poll is for those who believe in a flat Earth. Thank you.
-
Many members of FES are agnostic or atheists. Some of us like to argue tediously about whether those two terms are mutually exclusive. We also don't like circular logic (or globular logic, as I like to call it), so I suspect the third option will be popular.
-
I'm hoping those who don't believe the Earth is flat not answer. I'm wanting to get a sense of where people who do believe are coming from.
-
Observable evidence.
-
Observable evidence.
Also,
I'm hoping those who don't believe the Earth is flat not answer. I'm wanting to get a sense of where people who do believe are coming from.
I have a feeling that won't happen.
-
What is 'observable evidence'? It's not scientific, though...?
-
What is 'observable evidence'? It's not scientific, though...?
I believe evidence that can be observed is a major part of science.
-
I believe evidence that can be observed is a major part of science.
I agree with that. But one has to be careful to draw conclusions from observations.
For example I observe that it is raining, and the streets get wet. This does not mean that if the streets get wet it is raining. There is maybe just a pipe burst.
Or for example, I see my colleague at work, and I conclude he exists. It does not mean that if I cannot see my colleague he does not exist. Or that other people do not exist, although I never saw them. I never saw Barack Obama with my own eyes, this does not mean he does not exist.
Or, for example, I see the world around me flat. This does not mean that the whole world is flat. Maybe its just because I am small and the world is so huge...
-
Or for example, I see my colleague at work, and I conclude he exists. It does not mean that if I cannot see my colleague he does not exist.
How do you know?
-
Yes, you are right. Maybe you do not exist. Maybe I am the only entity in existance, and all around me is a kind of simulation...
However, to assume all around me is not real I need to settle with some basic believes:
1. I exist in a physical form called 'human'
2. People around me are real and exists too
3. The world around me exists as I can perceive it (see, hear, smell, ...)
Without those basic assumptions there is no need to do anything. Just jump from a building, as nothing exists! However, if you do not believe other people are real, why responding to questions and comments in the first place in this Forum?
-
Yes, you are right. Maybe you do not exist. Maybe I am the only entity in existance, and all around me is a kind of simulation...
However, to assume all around me is not real I need to settle with some basic believes:
1. I exist in a physical form called 'human'
2. People around me are real and exists too
3. The world around me exists as I can perceive it (see, hear, smell, ...)
Without those basic assumptions there is no need to do anything. Just jump from a building, as nothing exists! However, if you do not believe other people are real, why responding to questions and comments in the first place in this Forum?
It is a good thought, but ultimately you are making some serious assumptions about the world around you. All I assume is that I experience something, and I piece it together as it happens. This is why observational evidence is key. It's the zetetic method in action.
But like you said, I could live in a simulation... in that case, nothing matters? But why? Everything matters equally to me, even if I live in a simulation. How would I know the difference? For life as we know it is little more than a grand simulation. Is it not, young Alex?
No I did not just take a hit.
-
Great; even if life is a simulation, why not assume the most simple logistic explanations of things around us?
If its a simulation, the shape or size of earth does not matter in anyway.
If it is NOT a simulation, there must be things you do not see. Like atoms. I never seen an atom myself, but taking all observations, books, reports, scneitific achievements there is no reason to doubt in atoms.
Either way: Your basic argument ("It looks flat") does not hold.
How old do you think I am?
-
How is the poll going?
My answer is not up there, so I am not participating :)
-
Me neither...
-
What is 'observable evidence'? It's not scientific, though...?
Science is based on observations and hypotheses.
-
... and experiments!
-
What is 'observable evidence'? It's not scientific, though...?
I believe evidence that can be observed is a major part of science.
It is a part of the experiment portion of the scientific method. Another equally large part of the scientific method is repetition. If you perform an experiment and use a simple observation to conclude your results yes that is valid, but get ready to feel the heat as more rigorous experiments are done on the same subject.
-
... and experiments!
.... and numbers!
-
This should be in complete nonsense. When you set a survey that doesn't complete until 3 months later, who is going to be still reading the thread to observe the results? The OP himself is statistically likely not to be around then with such a low post count.
-
I believe in the FET because the Vatican burned people at the stake for not believing it.
-
I believe in the FET because the Vatican burned people at the stake for not believing it.
Thankfully they have come to their senses since then :)
-
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.
-
There are two requirements for a theory to work:
1. Matches observations.
2. Makes fewer assumptions (Occam's Razor).
Contrary to popular opinion, theories are not required to fit Occam's Razor. Simplicity does not equal correctness. Sometimes things really are more complicated than you want them to be.
-
There are two requirements for a theory to work:
1. Matches observations.
2. Makes fewer assumptions (Occam's Razor).
Contrary to popular opinion, theories are not required to fit Occam's Razor. Simplicity does not equal correctness. Sometimes things really are more complicated than you want them to be.
But when competing theories are examined, you remove as many unsupported assumptions as possible. That is how it works.
Unless you are going to choose a theory that relies on more unexplained elements, the only scientific choice is the one with fewer assumptions.
-
There are two requirements for a theory to work:
1. Matches observations.
2. Makes fewer assumptions (Occam's Razor).
Contrary to popular opinion, theories are not required to fit Occam's Razor. Simplicity does not equal correctness. Sometimes things really are more complicated than you want them to be.
But when competing theories are examined, you remove as many unsupported assumptions as possible. That is how it works.
Unless you are going to choose a theory that relies on more unexplained elements, the only scientific choice is the one with fewer assumptions.
Do you mean unsupported assumptions like aether? No, it isn't so much a question of unsupported assumptions, it's a question of how well available evidence supports your assumptions. A theory with a lot of small holes but plenty of good supporting evidence is still better than a theory with one huge, gaping hole with no supporting evidence of any sort.
-
There are two requirements for a theory to work:
1. Matches observations.
2. Makes fewer assumptions (Occam's Razor).
Contrary to popular opinion, theories are not required to fit Occam's Razor. Simplicity does not equal correctness. Sometimes things really are more complicated than you want them to be.
But when competing theories are examined, you remove as many unsupported assumptions as possible. That is how it works.
Unless you are going to choose a theory that relies on more unexplained elements, the only scientific choice is the one with fewer assumptions.
Do you mean unsupported assumptions like aether? No, it isn't so much a question of unsupported assumptions, it's a question of how well available evidence supports your assumptions. A theory with a lot of small holes but plenty of good supporting evidence is still better than a theory with one huge, gaping hole with no supporting evidence of any sort.
Aether is well-defined and known to exist, in the Dual Earth model. The only assumptions would be its two properties, and both of those are logical deductions and common sense.
I am fully aware that evidence needs to support assumptions. That is what the first point was. You are aware that it is necessary to observe evidence? Once again, to be scientific, a theory must:
- Match observations (evidence)
- Require fewer assumptions
And that's all.
If two theories explain all observations (which covers not only evidence, but when there's evidence lacking: a stronger claim), the one accepted is the one that requires the fewest unjustified assumptions. Gravity alone, being fundamental to RET, centers around two assumptions I have already explained, and that's just one aspect of the whole model.
-
Aether is well-defined and known to exist, in the Dual Earth model.
Perhaps it's "well defined" and "known to exist" in your model, but the rest of the scientific community seems to disagree with you.
The only assumptions would be its two properties, and both of those are logical deductions and common sense.
If you need to assume its properties, then aether can't be "well defined" or "known to exist", can it?
I am fully aware that evidence needs to support assumptions. That is what the first point was. You are aware that it is necessary to observe evidence? Once again, to be scientific, a theory must:
- Match observations (evidence)
- Require fewer assumptions
Require fewer assumptions than what?
And that's all.
No, in order to become a theory, a hypothesis must be subjected to rigorous testing and peer review.
-
Perhaps it's "well defined" and "known to exist" in your model, but the rest of the scientific community seems to disagree with you.
If you need to assume its properties, then aether can't be "well defined" or "known to exist", can it?
The scientific community completely agrees that the Dual Earth form of aether exists. The only point of contention is the traits it possesses. I said as much in the post you're responding to.
For example, many people believe aliens exist. The controversy is in how we define them. Grey slimy things with a fondness for probing, or unfathomable beings on a distant world we'll probably never contact?
I fail to see how some people disagreeing means I have not put forward a complete definition.
Require fewer assumptions than what?
Competing theories.
No, in order to become a theory, a hypothesis must be subjected to rigorous testing and peer review.
Rigorous testing is still covered under option one. Those tests are experiments: if the hypothesis explains the results of those experiments (both positive and negative results), then it passes those tests. The Dual Earth model, as it matches all observations, has passed exactly the same amount of tests as Round Earth Theory, even assuming a Round Earth works to explain all of the world. If you're going to hold the Dual Earth model to a higher standard, please explain why. Otherwise, don't be so dishonest.
Peer review of the kind you seek is not feasible in a community biased against the idea. The fact is, working model or not, none of your popular scientists will be interested in reading about a Flat Earth: that's no fault with the theory, it's a lack of scientific integrity. Peer review is achieved by this site.
-
Perhaps it's "well defined" and "known to exist" in your model, but the rest of the scientific community seems to disagree with you.
If you need to assume its properties, then aether can't be "well defined" or "known to exist", can it?
The scientific community completely agrees that the Dual Earth form of aether exists.
Which "scientific community" might that be?
The only point of contention is the traits it possesses.
How can they agree that something exists if they can't agree on what it is that exists?
I fail to see how some people disagreeing means I have not put forward a complete definition.
A complete definition of something would include its properties.
No, in order to become a theory, a hypothesis must be subjected to rigorous testing and peer review.
Rigorous testing is still covered under option one. Those tests are experiments: if the hypothesis explains the results of those experiments (both positive and negative results), then it passes those tests. The Dual Earth model, as it matches all observations, has passed exactly the same amount of tests as Round Earth Theory, even assuming a Round Earth works to explain all of the world.
Just what experiments have you carried out to falsify the existence of aether?
If you're going to hold the Dual Earth model to a higher standard, please explain why. Otherwise, don't be so dishonest.
If you think that your Dual Earth model explains observations better than current RET, then why shouldn't it be held to a higher standard? After all, you are proposing a higher standard, aren't you?
Peer review of the kind you seek is not feasible in a community biased against the idea. The fact is, working model or not, none of your popular scientists will be interested in reading about a Flat Earth: that's no fault with the theory, it's a lack of scientific integrity. Peer review is achieved by this site.
I don't think that you truly understand the purpose of peer review. Peer review is your chance to convince the skeptics with experiments that prove your model to be superior to the existing model.
-
Which "scientific community" might that be?
How can they agree that something exists if they can't agree on what it is that exists?
A complete definition of something would include its properties.
Scientists. Academia. What term would you like to refer to them as? It's the scientific community. I disagree on a total of two details, but there are more than just those two properties: the other properties are either true by definition, or overwhelming evidence.
I have given a complete definition of aether multiple times. Only two details are under dispute, but both are logical deduction.
Just what experiments have you carried out to falsify the existence of aether?
I have not personally conducted the experiments because they rely on resources I don't have: a lack of budget is no flaw with the theory. The majority of experiments performed universally could have falsified my theory: none have. You seem to be implying that if I had made this theory a few years earlier, before certain experiments were performed, it would be more reliable: that's absurd. Time isn't going to alter how true my model is.
If you think that your Dual Earth model explains observations better than current RET, then why shouldn't it be held to a higher standard? After all, you are proposing a higher standard, aren't you?
Occam's Razor, as I said. You can't just ignore half my post and act like that makes a point.
Peer review is your chance to convince the skeptics with experiments that prove your model to be superior to the existing model.
Which this site allows for. Dual Earth Theory is not the same as classical Flat Earth theory, so I can gain honest insight from open-minded people, rather than your so-loved community which would refuse to even consider the possibility of a Flat Earth from sheer bias.
-
Just what experiments have you carried out to falsify the existence of aether?
I have not personally conducted the experiments because they rely on resources I don't have: a lack of budget is no flaw with the theory. The majority of experiments performed universally could have falsified my theory: none have. You seem to be implying that if I had made this theory a few years earlier, before certain experiments were performed, it would be more reliable: that's absurd. Time isn't going to alter how true my model is.
Would you care to detail some proposed experiments that would falsify the existence of aether and possible help clarify some of its unknown qualities?
-
Just what experiments have you carried out to falsify the existence of aether?
I have not personally conducted the experiments because they rely on resources I don't have: a lack of budget is no flaw with the theory. The majority of experiments performed universally could have falsified my theory: none have. You seem to be implying that if I had made this theory a few years earlier, before certain experiments were performed, it would be more reliable: that's absurd. Time isn't going to alter how true my model is.
Would you care to detail some proposed experiments that would falsify the existence of aether and possible help clarify some of its unknown qualities?
In my signature, I outline my model. There may be qualities I'm unaware of, but I see no need to suppose them. It is well defined, as I said. If you learned about my model, I've no doubt you could find many experiments capable of falsifying it: I doubt they would do so.
I can't think of any way to falsify the existence of aether. It is fundamental, even under Round Earth Theory, according to my model. There may be a way, but it would be something so obviously impossible I can't think of it. Being able to move and still ending up in the same place, for example.
What you're asking for would seem to be a means to falsify the properties. I have pointed this out to you before.
If it became impossible to cross the equator, if gravity was stronger at the equator than the poles, if the stars stopped moving around two points... things like that would do.
If that is not enough, I ask you to give me an idea of what you're after. Please can you detail a proposed experiment that could falsify the existence of, say, gravity?
-
I can't think of any way to falsify the existence of aether.
Then your "theory" can join the ranks of String Theory which makes makes no testable predictions and therefore is not generally accepted as a scientific theory, despite having the word theory in its name.
What you're asking for would seem to be a means to falsify the properties. I have pointed this out to you before.
If it became impossible to cross the equator, if gravity was stronger at the equator than the poles, if the stars stopped moving around two points... things like that would do.
I'm not quite sure that I understand the implications of these observations. Are you saying that if you can't cross the equator, then aether must be the cause?
If that is not enough, I ask you to give me an idea of what you're after.
What observations can aether explain that gravity can't?
Please can you detail a proposed experiment that could falsify the existence of, say, gravity?
The Cavendish experiment. (http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k16940&pageid=icb.page80669&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent277503&state=maximize&view=view.do&viewParam_name=indepth.html#a_icb_pagecontent277503)
-
Then your "theory" can join the ranks of String Theory which makes makes no testable predictions and therefore is not generally accepted as a scientific theory, despite having the word theory in its name.
Stop ignoring half everything I say, it's just getting pathetic at this point. If, as I have asked multiple times, you would educate yourself on my theory, you would see that aether is accepted to exist even by Round Earthers. The only query is whether or not it possesses two specific traits. Plus, I did actually give a reason why, and a hypothetical experiment, but sure, feel free to ignore all of that just so you can make a dishonest point.
Are you saying that if you can't cross the equator, then aether must be the cause?
No, I'm just saying that if it couldn't happen, then it would falsify my theory. That is what you asked for, or are you now changing your question?
What observations can aether explain that gravity can't?
For a moment, let's suppose there's nothing: let's suppose they both explain things the exact same amount. Occam's Razor still favours my theory, as you consistently ignore. What does gravity explain that God pulling everything down can't? Nothing, we just remove unnecessary assumptions.
That's all I need. You can't hold Dual Earth Theory to a higher standard than everything else you accept, to do so would be dishonest.
Still, in answer:
Aether actually explains why things are pulled to the surface of the Earth: gravity is no more than a placeholder and assertion (why does mass bend space? Why does that exert a force? Both of those are assumptions inherent in gravity). It explains why the inverse square law applies to the force, and given the simple definition of aether (two properties, beyond the trivial) it explains everything. The fact such a simple concept explains so much is a strength.
That's to begin with.
-
Then your "theory" can join the ranks of String Theory which makes makes no testable predictions and therefore is not generally accepted as a scientific theory, despite having the word theory in its name.
Stop ignoring half everything I say, it's just getting pathetic at this point. If, as I have asked multiple times, you would educate yourself on my theory, you would see that aether is accepted to exist even by Round Earthers. The only query is whether or not it possesses two specific traits. Plus, I did actually give a reason why, and a hypothetical experiment, but sure, feel free to ignore all of that just so you can make a dishonest point.
If aether had the qualities that your model requires it to have, then it wouldn't be the same aether that the rest of the scientific community accepts. It's like saying that everyone accepts that water exists, but my model requires water to have 3 hydrogen atoms per molecule. In other words, it ain't the same thing.
Are you saying that if you can't cross the equator, then aether must be the cause?
No, I'm just saying that if it couldn't happen, then it would falsify my theory. That is what you asked for, or are you now changing your question?
So the fact that people can and do cross the equator proves your model false? Good to know.
What observations can aether explain that gravity can't?
For a moment, let's suppose there's nothing: let's suppose they both explain things the exact same amount. Occam's Razor still favours my theory, as you consistently ignore.
That's a might big supposition, considering that you can't prove that aether has the properties that your model requires it to have.
-
If aether had the qualities that your model requires it to have, then it wouldn't be the same aether that the rest of the scientific community accepts.
It is in crucial respects. There are many details we agree on: if we remove those two properties, we're agreed. Thsoe two properties are the only point of contention, and that is why I offer scientific justification for them.
Water with three hydrogens defies the definition of water. None of my model defies the definition of aether. A better analogy would be if I said pure water remains solid at 10C. In this case, it's an untrue claim; but it doesn't defy the definition of water, and evidence could make it true.
My model has observational evidence. It explains observaions with fewer assumptions than the competing alternatives. That is the definition of a scientific theory.
So the fact that people can and do cross the equator proves your model false? Good to know.
I said the exact opposite of that, but sure, keep lying, apparently that's all you're capable of. Are you aware of what 'couldn't' (as in 'couldn't cross the equator') means? That would falsify my theory. The fact is, we can.
That's a might big supposition, considering that you can't prove that aether has the properties that your model requires it to have.
They're logical deductions as you like to ignore, but even beyond that, even if they were pure unjustified assumptions, Occam's Razor still prefers my theory over yours.
-
If aether had the qualities that your model requires it to have, then it wouldn't be the same aether that the rest of the scientific community accepts.
It is in crucial respects. There are many details we agree on: if we remove those two properties, we're agreed. Thsoe two properties are the only point of contention, and that is why I offer scientific justification for them.
Except that those two properties make your aether completely different from the scientifically accepted aether. No amount of justification will change that.
Water with three hydrogens defies the definition of water. None of my model defies the definition of aether. A better analogy would be if I said pure water remains solid at 10C. In this case, it's an untrue claim; but it doesn't defy the definition of water, and evidence could make it true.
If your model requires that pure water stay solid at 10 degrees C, the the fact that it doesn't would defy your definition of water, not the scientifically accepted definition of water. Do you not understand the difference?
My model has observational evidence. It explains observaions with fewer assumptions than the competing alternatives. That is the definition of a scientific theory.
No, it isn't, because there are two properties of aether that you can't experimentally demonstrate.
So the fact that people can and do cross the equator proves your model false? Good to know.
I said the exact opposite of that, but sure, keep lying, apparently that's all you're capable of. Are you aware of what 'couldn't' (as in 'couldn't cross the equator') means? That would falsify my theory. The fact is, we can.
Maybe if you could construct a more coherent sentence, then it wouldn't be so hard to figure out what exactly you're trying to say. So now you're saying the fact that we can cross the equator means that your theory is true? How is that any different from what gravity predicts?
That's a might big supposition, considering that you can't prove that aether has the properties that your model requires it to have.
They're logical deductions as you like to ignore, but even beyond that, even if they were pure unjustified assumptions, Occam's Razor still prefers my theory over yours.
No, you prefer your theory, Occam's Razor doesn't.
-
Except that those two properties make your aether completely different from the scientifically accepted aether. No amount of justification will change that.
Why does two additions render something completely different?
Fine, but undeniably the basis for my aether is accepted to exist. The problem isn't its existence, it's the details of two specific properties. There is a difference between refinement and replacement.
No, it isn't, because there are two properties of aether that you can't experimentally demonstrate.
Aside from how logical deduction is enough (because how else do you interpret an experiment if you don't deduce with logic?), my model explains observations. That is the definition of experimental evidence.
So now you're saying the fact that we can cross the equator means that your theory is true? How is that any different from what gravity predicts?
You asked what would falsify my model. I said that, if we were unable to cross the equator, that would falsify it. Are you going to stop pretending you asked a different question, or are you just going to keep being intentionally idiotic?
No, you prefer your theory, Occam's Razor doesn't.
You have already been shown that this is an outright lie.
-
Except that those two properties make your aether completely different from the scientifically accepted aether. No amount of justification will change that.
Why does two additions render something completely different?
Because the scientifically accepted version of aether doesn't have 2 of the properties that your version of aether requires. In other words, you're describing something else.
Fine, but undeniably the basis for my aether is accepted to exist. The problem isn't its existence, it's the details of two specific properties. There is a difference between refinement and replacement.
Yes, it is a problem of existence because aether with the 2 specific properties that you need hasn't been shown to exist.
No, it isn't, because there are two properties of aether that you can't experimentally demonstrate.
Aside from how logical deduction is enough (because how else do you interpret an experiment if you don't deduce with logic?), my model explains observations. That is the definition of experimental evidence.
Dark matter in interstellar space has the property of gravitationally lensing light from far off galaxies. Since gravitational lensing has been observed, that means that dark matter exists. Wow, that was easy.
So now you're saying the fact that we can cross the equator means that your theory is true? How is that any different from what gravity predicts?
You asked what would falsify my model. I said that, if we were unable to cross the equator, that would falsify it. Are you going to stop pretending you asked a different question, or are you just going to keep being intentionally idiotic?
Do you understand what falsification means? It means that you make a testable prediction that only your theory can explain and then you test it. The ability to cross the equator is just as easily explained by RET as it is by your model. In fact, RET explains it better because it doesn't require some undocumented property of aether in order to go from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere or vice versa.
No, you prefer your theory, Occam's Razor doesn't.
You have already been shown that this is an outright lie.
I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just saying that you're wrong.
-
Yes, it is a problem of existence because aether with the 2 specific properties that you need hasn't been shown to exist.
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.
Dark matter in interstellar space has the property of gravitationally lensing light from far off galaxies. Since gravitational lensing has been observed, that means that dark matter exists. Wow, that was easy.
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.
Do you understand what falsification means? It means that you make a testable prediction that only your theory can explain and then you test it. The ability to cross the equator is just as easily explained by RET as it is by your model.
Except that's not what you asked. You asked for something that would show my theory false, with no reference to any other theory. Besides, a possible route of Dual Earth Theory explains the Cavendish experiment: so by that logic you haven't provided what I asked for.
Nothing is uniquely explained by one theory. It's always possible to come up with some alternative. Intelligent falling for example: the hand of God pulling everything. How science works, is taking two theories that explain equal amounts (a charitable assumption for RET, sure) and applying Occam's Razor to choose between them.
In fact, RET explains it better because it doesn't require some undocumented property of aether in order to go from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere or vice versa.
Undocumented how? It relies only on the notion that space is how we define distance. That's completely true. There is no special property at work. You can't ignore correction and act like that's a point.
I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just saying that you're wrong.
So, just asserting then?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png)
-
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?
-
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:
(http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
OK, going to read this thread for the third time........ because the first two reads made my teeth hurt.
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
You have had centuries to come up with a model that fist your preconceptions. What part of that is confusing?
Ummm... To which "classical planar map" are you referring?
Google 'world map'.
Have you peer reviewed every single RE experiment?
No. Have you?
I have however researched all the ones which seem as though they could have been relevant. If you disagree, and believe one has disproven DET, I await correction. None I've seen have done so.
You go with the theory that has the best supporting evidence.
...Did you even read the question?
I have asked this multiple times. You have an explanation for all observations, and the results of multiple experiments. You have another explanation for the exact same observations and results, which was initially disproven, but refined when multiple excuses and special cases were brought in.
The best supporting evidence would seem to be the one with evidence for its assumptions: that is, the one with fewest unjustified assumptions. You're literally using Occam's Razor, just refusing to call it such.
Have any experiment supported the "simple" properties of aether?
Multiple experiments have demonstrated what DET would expect to happen if those properties were accurate. They have been given before.
What controls have you included in your "observations" of aether?
And those controls are yet again just things that are observed. You really seem to be struggling with the fact that experiments are useless unless you observe what happens. Observations can be set up.
Some controls were included: clearly not enough, which is why some people still cling to RET. However, I rejected the theory with more ad hoc, unjustified assumptions.
DET not making any sense is reason enough for me.
I am still waiting for evidence for why you believe it does not make sense. Do you take pleasure in constantly evading the question?
To which "universal tendency" are you referring?
Huh?
See sig. If you're trying to comment on the model, you could always try finding out the simplest things about it.
Then why don't you?
I tried. It didn't work. The fact something has not been falsified does not mean it's unfalsifiable. Do you really need to be walked through that too?
Or, that no one takes DET seriously enough to waste their time on.
You should see the old site, multiple threads were dedicated to it. The fact is, DET still works. Refsuing to educate yourself is your problem, not mine.
If you're not interesting in even trying to learn about Flat Earth Theory, why are you on this site? At the very least you should know what you're arguing against.
No, you just need to show me a repeatable experiment that you have performed that supports DET over RET. Thought experiments don't count.
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
If you believe a theory with more unjustified assumptions must automatically be true, you are being intellectually dishonest, and that's all there is to it.
I have explained in my sig how Dual Earth Theory explains the world, and why it s more justified than RET, because the two properties it relies upon have some experimental evidence, rather than the multitude of unjustified assumptions in RET, such as the two assumptions inherent in gravity alone with no scientific or logical basis.
-
DET not making any sense is reason enough for me.
I am still waiting for evidence for why you believe it does not make sense. Do you take pleasure in constantly evading the question?
How does DET explain the clockwork precision of the movements of the celestial objects? Can you explain not only the regular movements of the stars and planets, but also the precession of their movements? How does the sun regularly and predictable move from one side of the disc to the other and back? Can your model demonstrate the workings of solar and lunar eclipses?
-
DET not making any sense is reason enough for me.
I am still waiting for evidence for why you believe it does not make sense. Do you take pleasure in constantly evading the question?
How does DET explain the clockwork precision of the movements of the celestial objects? Can you explain not only the regular movements of the stars and planets, but also the precession of their movements? How does the sun regularly and predictable move from one side of the disc to the other and back? Can your model demonstrate the workings of solar and lunar eclipses?
It explains the movements just fine. Without further time and resources I can't give you math, but there is nothing to prevent the movements being regular as we observe.
The mechanisms, including that of the Sun, are explained in my sig. Everything would be predictable, as we observe.
Eclipses are a lengthy topic. Solar eclipses are simpler, purely to do with the relative moments of the moon and rotation of the Sun. Lunar eclipses are just a matter of dispersion due to the relative location of the Earth. The variables are similar to the RET case, which is wher ethe mistake comes from, but if you stop assuming RET it works just fine.