|
Post by David on Jan 30, 2018 20:14:43 GMT
The problem with lack of empirical evidence is not unique to the whirlpools, however they are at the forefront of this model and it is still a problem hence it being brought up.
You don't have to repeat the evidence section, I don't agree with your definition of evidence or your attempts at evidencing the whirlpools.
You can use the deus ex machina that it's your model and what you say goes, but anyone can do that with anything. I don't think that what you have presented in your model is enough to rule out space travel.
The problems with the mutual exclusive nature of space travel and your model is what was discussed in the previous thread. If your model can only exist in the absence of space travel the space travel itself disproved your model.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 30, 2018 20:34:54 GMT
If you disagree with the evidence I expect you to point out a problem, not dismiss it solely because it doesn't give the results you want to. The definition of empirical evidence you used is nonsensical, as I have already explained. The reason I am referencing the evidence section is because you are ignoring it; you are favouring RET because it is what you already believe, not because you have been able to provide any more evidence. What I say goes when it comes to defining the model. Applying that model to reality is where evidence comes in.
You are trying to rewrite the model, and you are using an unworkable definition of evidence, and you are repeating this endlessly no matter how often it is pointed out. Space travel has not disproven my model if it does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 30, 2018 21:33:17 GMT
I told you exacerbated my problem was with your evidence.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Do I think the available body of information indicates we live on dual disks surrounding by ether whirlpools? I do not.
I'm not rewriting your model, per se. I'm saying I don't believe impossible space travel is a conclusion of it.
What evidence would you accept to disprove DET?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 30, 2018 21:53:40 GMT
Except at no stage have you objected to any of the contents of the evidence section. You are complaining about the result, but the result follows from the premises. The definition of evidence, observations of reality. The only 'problem' you have raised was by trying to apply a nonsensical definition of evidence. That is all you are relying on. You are complaining because my model does not allow for space travel, not because of any logical problem but just because you believe in space travel and you are giving it special treatment.
I will accept as counter-evidence any observation contrary to what DET predicts. Space travel does not qualify. As I have tried to explain to you, what matters is the observation, not the theory. The observations we have that you use to lead to space travel are simple: claims from people and organizations, images... They could imply space travel on a RE, but they are also in line with what would happen if space travel turned out to be impossible. Given when the space race occurred, both sides would want to save face, we would get claims, we would get doctored and faked images. The observations we actually have are in line with DET. Space travel is not an observation, it is a proposed explanation that I reject. Don't treat it like anything else.
We are on the seventh page and I am still repeating the overview.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 30, 2018 22:17:01 GMT
My problems with your evidence section begin with your definition of evidence. I've made it clear that what you classify as evidence is not in line with what I classify.
I don't want space travel to be possible, what I want has no impact on reality. It matters not to me whether we live on a sphere, a cuboid, a disk or a mobious strip, I will continue to live my life doing what I'm doing regardless.
This is your problem, you have inconsistencies in your process. We can use Google to extrapolate the size of a meteor but we cannot use Google to verify space travel.
Tell me an observation that would directly contradict DET, because the biggest contradiction is space travel and you have dismissed that due to the damage it does to your model. Which again is not something that should concern you.
You only repeat the overview because you think it answers the questions I've posed, it answers none of them. Doing the same thing over and over again doesn't change that.
No matter how many times you reference the evidence section it will not change your poor definition of evidence.
No matter how many times you reference the overview it won't change that the only indication of impossible space travel is because you say so.
You interchange between facts and opinions depending on if it suits your model and you do this in an inconsistent way.
I repeat questions when you fail to deal with them, I antagonise you by staying on point and not getting caught up in petty name calling. The unwavering way I stick to the point at hand rattles you because you are unable to provide answers.
The only people who truly know the shape of the earth are those who saw it with their own eyes, but for some reason you won't believe them despite their observations being far superior to yours.
Failing our own observations we have to look at evidence. That is what the body of information indicates most strongly. That is by far that we live on a globe and space travel is possible.
Your evidence section does not give a strong enough indication to the existence of ether, the existence of the whirlpools or the existence of the two disks. The final nail in the coffin is your insistence on it being mutually exclusive with space travel.
People might wonder what my aim is, as you've noticed I've not actually tried convincing you of anything, my aim is to open your mind. It has become closed by your devotion to this model and that is die to emotional investment. Keep an open mind and look at what the body of evidence screams at you.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 30, 2018 22:59:30 GMT
Again, space travel is not an observation, it is the explanation you use for other observations. I already explained this. Your idea of 'staying on point' is an unwavering need to repeat yourself endlessly, never acknowledging or responding or adjusting your argument the slightest amount, no matter how much it is shown to be flawed. You 'antagonise' me when you waste my time, you openly lie, you act like a hypocrite and move the goalposts to illogical grounds, just so you can stand by an argument you have already decided must be a death knell for DET, no matter how many times it is shown to be flawed. Your entire basis for this 'space travel does not follow from the model' that you have been lying about for seven pages now is sheer ignorance. You refuse to listen when the model is explained to you, to the point of starting a second thread to ask I repeat the exact same things, and then you resort to just asserting it. You just don't realise you're doing that because you still give special treatment to space travel. You completely ignore when I point out that it is not an observation we can make and instead how you choose to interpret things we can observe; yet another instance of your wilful dishonesty.
If you have a problem with the evidence section, then do more than assert it is a poor definition. Let us do the simple thing. It is a challenge I have given to many REers, and most don't even attempt it. As I suspect you are doing, they insist the definition is not good enough simply because it supports a non-round model, and they balk when they are asked to prove it. My definition of a theory supported by evidence is a model that a) is in line with observations and b) relies on fewer assumptions than alternatives. If the flaw is with the definition, then provide either: 1. Something that is in line with all observations and relies on the fewest assumptions, but is not supported by evidence. 2. Something that is a scientifically justified position, but is not in line with observations, or relies on extra assumptions. These would appear to be the only ways the definition can be flawed. Leaving aside the topics we of course disagree on, like DET and space travel, thus removing any potential special pleading, can you demonstrate that there is an actual problem with my evidence?
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 31, 2018 6:42:11 GMT
There is no need to adjust my points when your rebuttals fail to argue against them.
Apace travel is impossible to observe? What about those who watched a rocket launch into space? What about those who tracked the rockets flight path through the solar system? What about those on the space rockets who witnessed their own ascent? Do you realise how ridiculous you sound when you say things like that?
You have not shown me anything other than your own say so to indicate space travel is impossible. We do not know if the meteorites got tore up by your whirlpools or by another force. Even if they whirlpools did, that would not necessarily follow that the same would be true for a rocket.
I have told you my problem with your definition of evidence. I could theorise that a big spaghetti monster with a parrot on his shoulder is responsible for every you claim about whirlpools, I could then use all your evidence as my own evidence. Would that make my claim true? Of course not because I have just made it up.
Again, your loyalty should not be to this model, your loyalty should be to the truth.
If you want to discuss another matter please start another thread.
This thread is purely about the impossible nature of space travel according to you.
No matter how often you hide behind your overviews some explanation it does not change the following points:
1) we do not know that the cause of a meteorites explosion is a whirlpool.
2) there is not enough information available in your overview to conclude space travel is impossible.
3) there is not enough information available to conclude these whirlpools exist.
4) the second space travel becomes plausible we can then take into account the observations of those involved in the space travel, thus rendering your model false.
5) for you this should be a positive as it brings you one step close to the truth.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 31, 2018 14:21:56 GMT
Instead of assuming I fail to refute them, take the time to read and consider. Look at what you argue for; you argue that seeing a rocket goes up means it goes into space, that we should just take peoples' word for it when they say they have gone there. You are being a hypocrite.
Yes, you could make your flying spaghetti monster claim. I would then reject it for being reliant on too many assumptions. This is yet again covered in the overview. You are basing everything you have on wilful ignorance and dishonesty.
My loyalty is to the truth. Yours, however, is to your preconceptions. No matter how many times you repeat your claims, they do not get any more support. By the standards you are applying to DET, we cannot know ANYTHING, but you do not dare apply the same to yourself. We cannot 'know' that the claims of astronauts are genuine, we cannot 'know' rockets reach space. But you refuse to apply the standards you so eagerly apply DET to your own beliefs, firmly establishing yourself as a hypocrite when you repeatedly ignore this fact. I am tired of needing to repeat myself. When you have an argument that actually addresses this, I would like to hear it.
I again repeat my challenge to you. Instead of insisting my definition for evidence is not good enough give me an example. You have not told me your problem, if you think your response there is a problem, the the response is with your open dishonesty as such a claim in no way matches my definition of evidence. I even gave it to you in that post. You are openly lying, right to my face. You have two routes to actually demonstrating a flaw, why do you refuse to use them?
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 31, 2018 15:17:21 GMT
So you're on using Google to verify the measurements taken of a meteorite, but not OK trusting people who say they've been to space? Or those who saw them go to space? Or this who built the vessel that took them into space? Or those that greeted them when they arrived in space? Or those that charted their journey through space?
I make no other assumptions other than my monster can do the things you say whirlpools can do. That's all I have to do.
I dont have to test anything to any sort of standards, there's a system in place called peer review, submit your findings and see how the scientific world respond.
I don't refuse any of your two paths, I merely said put them on a separate thread.
This thread is purely to discuss space travel.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 31, 2018 15:32:57 GMT
Measurements that can be verifies by everyday people with no motive to lie are far more reliable than claims from a select few that, if you had paid attention to the DET model, could well have reason to lie. Again, this is the crucial part. What we would see would be identical in either case, because the impossibility of space travel thus means such groups have to save face. There is no such motive for meteorites.
That is a lot of assumptions. Not only are you claiming its existence, but you are saying it can vary gravity, it is either invisible or not directly observed, that it is sentient... Long before we get to meteorites. Have you paid the slightest bit of attention to anything I have said? This is a ludicrous comparison as you should know full well. I list the assumptions of DET, look at the actual assumptions of your nonsense. Stop evading. You are basing your entire argument around my evidence not sufficing, you should justify that claim rather than making excuses. This is the topic. You have two ways to answer. Do so.
No more trolling, lying, or evading. I have put up with your timewasting for long enough.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 31, 2018 16:58:19 GMT
How do you define every day people? Have you ever measured a meteorite yourself? Have you ever measured a rocket yourself? Haver you tried traversing these whirlpools yourself?
DET hinges on a conspiracy involving too many people, it involves on an assumption that this large number of people are lying. That is one of its huge flaws, I agree with you there.
I only assume my spaghetti monster can do the same thing as your whirlpools. One assumption.
Hurl all the insults you want at me, it hadn't bothered me yet and it won't bother me now. My points remain the same as they've always been.
This is your forum, create a thread for any debate you wish.
This thread is about space travel. It is about the way in which not only does the conclusion of its impossible nature not follow on from your defined axioms, but also the way in which your model can only exist if space travel is a huge conspiracy.
I don't class you as wasting my time, I do think you are someone who has repeatedly sought to avoid my questions, and has his behind a deus ex machina at every opportunity. You are some one who picks and chooses which evidence they can use and when they can use it. You are happy to use an object from outer space to back your theory, but are unhappy to use outer space travel as it hurts your theory. You are happy to take the words of those who've measured a meteorite but unhappy to take the word of those who have travelled to space.
Note I do not hurl any insults at you, I list your faults in this debate, in the hope that you will address them.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 31, 2018 18:36:18 GMT
Again, these are not insults. I do not insult, I state facts. You are lying, you are evading. These are the 'faults' in your debate. Your nonsense is not one assumption, as I explained: you ignored that. The question of evidence of space travel is central to your entire argument: you ignored that. There is no motive for people to lie about meteorites whereas there is for space travel: you ignored that.
You base absolutely everything on ignorance, and I am tired of putting up with it. Every single time you make a post, you expect me to waste my time repeating things I have already had to say far too much, and you do so with an intolerable air of smugness. Take the evidence case; you base everything you have on my evidence not being good enough, but you are perpetually evading actually proving this. You bring it up, and you run away when a challenge is delivered, and spend most of your time completely ignoring and even lying about the contents of the evidence section. So here is your ultimatum. Stop evading and stop lying. No excuses.
Questions I expect you to answer, or we are done:
1. Demonstrate how all of the existence, abilities, motivations, properties of your spaghetti monster can be summed up in one assumption give that 'the spaghetti monster exists' tells us nothing about said monster. Or, concede that you are being an intentional troll. 2. As you brought up my definition of evidence as being flawed, and as evidence is pretty obviously core to this discussion of space travel, answer the challenge posed, or concede you cannot and my definition stands. 3. Give me a motive for people to lie about the size of meteorites that does not require any further assumptions about the nature of the world.
I am sick of your blatant dishonesty. Here are transparent, explicit questions. I expect you to answer them. if you do not, it will confirm that it is a waste of time to engage with you.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 31, 2018 19:41:56 GMT
No air of smugness, I just won't be dragged into petulant discourse.
As I've said many times now, not only do you not have to repeat the overview, but it is also insufficient,furthermore I will happily answer those questions on a different thread.
My thread is about space travel.
I know you find my unwavering nature hard to take because you'd rather me stoop to your level and get dragged from my points, but that is not going to happen.
The body of information available to us does not suggest there are these whirlpools that prevent anyone leaving the planet.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 31, 2018 20:09:31 GMT
I am not asking you to be dragged from your points, I am asking you to justify the ones you have made. Stop evading. None of what I say comes from nowhere, all of them are topics you needed to appeal to. Just because you realise you have no ground to stand on does not mean you get to hide behind excuses.
Stop wasting time. Three simple questions. Why do you refuse to answer them? They are relevant to the topic, they are key to the discussion, they underly your points.
1. Demonstrate how all of the existence, abilities, motivations, properties of your spaghetti monster can be summed up in one assumption give that 'the spaghetti monster exists' tells us nothing about said monster. Or, concede that you are being an intentional troll. 2. As you brought up my definition of evidence as being flawed, and as evidence is pretty obviously core to this discussion of space travel, answer the challenge posed, or concede you cannot and my definition stands. 3. Give me a motive for people to lie about the size of meteorites that does not require any further assumptions about the nature of the world.
I am tired of your constant timewasting. I am not starting another thread to talk to you because we are already talking in this one. Everything here is key to the conversation on space travel. They have already been brought up in the thread. Stop. Evading. Stop. Wasting. Time.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jan 31, 2018 20:32:57 GMT
1) let's use your answer for this one. I'm telling you it's the model. The spaghetti monster is able to replicate the abilities of your whirlpool.
2) I've posted a definition of evidence already but here goes again "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
3) I don't the know the situations behind those who measured the meteorites, nor the people who uploaded said measurements, not the people who retain the measurements on the internet.
So now let's try the same for you.
4) prove to me that there is no way for any matter to traverse whirlpools at a higher altitude.
5) what verifiable observation of space travel would satisfy your needs that it is not a big conspiracy?
Let's just settle on those two. I hope you show the same manners I've just shown you.
|
|