|
Post by David on Jun 23, 2017 15:46:02 GMT
Those are the only properties of aether. I list consequences of this behavior, and why it follows. You are making a claim, you are not justifying it. Give that supposed observations of space travel are explained by the model, as a 'conspiracy' from the fact space travel is impossible, DET is in no way proven wrong until you can provide more than assertion. I am tired of having to ask you to do so. If your model contains your assumption (aether) and you are saying this assumption will destroy anything that passes between its whirlpools then it does follows that nothing can pass between its whirlpools. However the fact that man has travelled beyond the atmosphere proves this cannot be the case. As you said earlier I don't need to observe space travel personally, I can appeal to the evidence that exists from observations of countless other people. If you can prove your conspiracy right then go right ahead and do it. If you can't you need to accept space travel and thus reject your model.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 24, 2017 22:57:12 GMT
I have proven the conspiracy within the framework of the model. That's all I'm interested in. You handwave the observations of others, but that's circular as you're assuming you know what those observations are. I could just as easily appear to 'the evidence that exists from observations of countless other people,' that space travel's faked, if all you're going to do is assume what they did. There is a difference between some people claiming to go to space, and repeatable, testable, accessibly verifiable scientific experiments.
I am tired of needing to constantly repeat this.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 25, 2017 2:23:10 GMT
I have proven the conspiracy within the framework of the model. That's all I'm interested in. You handwave the observations of others, but that's circular as you're assuming you know what those observations are. I could just as easily appear to 'the evidence that exists from observations of countless other people,' that space travel's faked, if all you're going to do is assume what they did. There is a difference between some people claiming to go to space, and repeatable, testable, accessibly verifiable scientific experiments. I am tired of needing to constantly repeat this. For starters you don't need to constantly repeat anything. Yes you've proved that in your model space travel is impossible, however space travel itself proves that model impossible. You are the one who said we don't need to observe every experiment ourselves you said we can appeal to the evidence of others. There's plenty of evidence that space travel occureyou are unable to prove it a conspiracy therefore you just accept your model is false.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jul 28, 2017 22:12:17 GMT
I don't need to prove it a conspiracy, you need to prove it isn't. The default is not to accept it.
Evidently I do need to constantly repeat it as you are ignoring the point.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 29, 2017 9:51:29 GMT
I don't need to prove it a conspiracy, you need to prove it isn't. The default is not to accept it. Evidently I do need to constantly repeat it as you are ignoring the point. The default is to accept whatever the evidence shows. There is plenty of evidence in favour of space travel. An overwhelming amount of evidence. If you choose to go against the consensus and not believe the overwhelm amount of evidence that is fine, but the if you want to convince people of such the burden of proof lies solely with you. Again we reach a crossroads. You either prove this conspiracy in which case DET atleast has a possibility on this front, or you you reject this conspiracy in which case DET is also rejected.
|
|
|
Post by David on Nov 16, 2017 21:05:19 GMT
This was a great victory.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 26, 2018 22:12:04 GMT
This discussion is over. You have been repeatedly ignoring every word I have to say. The conspiracy is proven as a result of the model. It follows from the model.
To break down into the most basic logical components:
1 If DET is true, space travel is impossible. 2 There is a [insert whatever degree of unlikelihood you prefer]% chance space travel is a conspiracy 3 From 1 and 2, if DET is true, space travel is a conspiracy
This is all there is to it. 1 is objectively true, nothing could reach space without being torn apart under DET, so you have to disprove 2. Hence, you have to show that the probability is 0, and if you do not do that, 3 follows from DET. You are evading the necessity of proof in this case, appealing only to a popularity fallacy.
If you do not have anything new to add, please do not continue this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 26, 2018 23:46:32 GMT
The discussion was over with my opening post.
DET and space travel are mutually exclusive, you have actually admitted that yourself, to the detriment of your model.
You have also acknowledged that we can appeal to the observations of others as usable evidence.
Many, many people have observed space travel and those observations prove that your model can not work.
I'm glad to see you posting again, there was a very callous post about you by another member on this site.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 27, 2018 1:42:35 GMT
You are not paying attention. Your argument remains circular. You are giving nothing that is not explained by my model, you just prefer your explanation and reject any alternatives, for no reason.
Honestly I'm not sure why I'm posting. You're adding nothing new, you admit as much, and your argument has never acknowledged my response in all the four pages this has been going on. The fact you felt the need to add 'this is a victory!' when I had been unable to come to this site was childish.
If you can supply no more than this circular insistence, I will lock this thread. there is no point in this.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 27, 2018 9:48:11 GMT
Of course you will lock this thread, why wouldn't you. I've exposed a huge hole in your model and shown how the model as you describe it cannot be possible.
I've used your own definitions against you and left you in a position where you cannot possibly defend it without changing aspects of your model's premise.
Did you begin this journey to further your own knowledge or to blindly defend an impossible argument?
If it is the former then you need to consider who I've proven your model false and begin to look for alternatives explanations. If it is the latter then go ahead and lock the thread.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 27, 2018 10:50:52 GMT
My response has stood since the first post. As nothing new is being added, I will lock this thread and allow readers to make up their own minds.
|
|