|
Post by JRowe on Jun 17, 2017 9:08:34 GMT
There is an entire section dedicated to the evidence which you yourself have quoted, and satellites and space travel are absolutely mentioned and dealt with. What are you talking about? What's hard to take seriously is when you outright lie. The reason behind the whirlpools is explained, the speed of them depends on your distance from the center as you ought to be able to conclude based on the description of their effects, whirlpools are dangerous because of the transition between two both-moving concentrations functionally tearing an object apart while at the equator that just doesn't hurt you as there is negligible distance. Aether only flows up at a position just beyond the equator which we can't reach as shown explicitly in the overview. Plenty of answers have been given. You are just either ignoring what is in the overview, or openly lying about what you've seen. There is no double standard, only your misrepresentation.
But, let's simplify. Lose the questions that have no bearing on whether or not a phenomenon occurs. Lose the distractions, lose the straw men, lose the arrogant proclamations of how superior you are (if you were, you shouldn't need to keep stating it). You have stated the impossibility of space travel is an assumption; I have stated it is not, it is a conclusion. I justify this by appealing to a pre-existing aspect of the model, whose existence is well-defined, responsible for variations in gravity with respect to altitude, the rotation of celestial objects, the Coriolis effect, for starters; for our purposes let's simplify it to a rotational force which increases discontinuously with altitude. This is undeniably part of the model. None of this is up for debate, it is the model, pure and simple. If the impossibility of space travel is not a conclusion, then please explain to me how it does not follow. Given the explanations I have given multiple times before, given the properties of the model that were stated long before space travel was even considered, explain to me how a rocket passing through an altitude with a vast discontinuity in forces on each end is not going to break it; that seems to me to be the immediate conclusion.
If you want to then move onto discussing formation, that's great, but discussing two topics simultaneously just distracts from crucial issues.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 17, 2017 11:01:45 GMT
There is an entire section dedicated to the evidence which you yourself have quoted, and satellites and space travel are absolutely mentioned and dealt with. What are you talking about? What's hard to take seriously is when you outright lie. The reason behind the whirlpools is explained, the speed of them depends on your distance from the center as you ought to be able to conclude based on the description of their effects, whirlpools are dangerous because of the transition between two both-moving concentrations functionally tearing an object apart while at the equator that just doesn't hurt you as there is negligible distance. Aether only flows up at a position just beyond the equator which we can't reach as shown explicitly in the overview. Plenty of answers have been given. You are just either ignoring what is in the overview, or openly lying about what you've seen. There is no double standard, only your misrepresentation. But, let's simplify. Lose the questions that have no bearing on whether or not a phenomenon occurs. Lose the distractions, lose the straw men, lose the arrogant proclamations of how superior you are (if you were, you shouldn't need to keep stating it). You have stated the impossibility of space travel is an assumption; I have stated it is not, it is a conclusion. I justify this by appealing to a pre-existing aspect of the model, whose existence is well-defined, responsible for variations in gravity with respect to altitude, the rotation of celestial objects, the Coriolis effect, for starters; for our purposes let's simplify it to a rotational force which increases discontinuously with altitude. This is undeniably part of the model. None of this is up for debate, it is the model, pure and simple. If the impossibility of space travel is not a conclusion, then please explain to me how it does not follow. Given the explanations I have given multiple times before, given the properties of the model that were stated long before space travel was even considered, explain to me how a rocket passing through an altitude with a vast discontinuity in forces on each end is not going to break it; that seems to me to be the immediate conclusion. If you want to then move onto discussing formation, that's great, but discussing two topics simultaneously just distracts from crucial issues. I'm going to ignore every single insult you've just hurled at me. It is your model, if you are saying these whirlpools are part of the model that is your prerogative, I'd say that's a further assumption as to the behaviour of aether but fine, it's your model. So to answer your ultimate question, if your model involved whirlpools which are powerful enough to destroy any matter which passes through them (again another assumption) that is again your prerogative. So assuming you have those two assumptions, nothing can pass through these whirlpools without being destroyed. That leaves us back at my original point, space travel proves your model wrong. The easiest way to prove something is possible is to observe it happening. An example of this when I was you get I was taught by an uncle that dogs couldn't look up. He explained to me it was because of the neck muscles in dogs. How couldi prove him wrong? Simply by observing a dog looking up.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 18, 2017 15:07:36 GMT
It is not an insult to accurately recount the fact you have knowingly misrepresented what I have said to you. As in your most recent post, you ignore the fact that, as I have informed you before, the reason aether forms whirlpools is covered in the model. And, here, you refuse to justify your claim yet again despite the fact I explicitly ask you to. You are insisting you can observe it happening, yet your evidence took ages to be presented and was lacking then, and regardless that is not an answer. If dogs can't look up because of their neck muscles, then the reply would be "Ok, tell me about the structure of their muscles, and how this leads to what you claim." Then you would listen, you would compare that to known facts, and see if the logic held up. In a scientific discussion, that is what you should do. You should not respond with "You're wrong, but I'm not going to tell you what the problem is." Your claim is that the space travel conspiracy is an assumption. I claim it is a conclusion. To justify my point of view I simply need to show it follows from the model. To justify yours, you need to show it does not. Whether it is true or false does not enter into this discussion; you did not claim that it was wrong, you claimed that it was an assumption. If you want to debate whether or not it's real there are countless sites out there far better at it than mine. But, here, you claimed that it was an assumption. I am asking you to justify this claim.
I have explained the formation of the whirlpools, I have explained the forces at play in them, and we can observe objects being torn apart passing through just the weaker ones. I ask you yet again why you exempt rockets from all logical rules of the universe and expect them to survive quite literally being pulled in two directions at once by the same forces responsible for, for example, the moon's rotation.
You made one specific claim: that the impossibility of space travel is an assumption of the model, and not a conclusion. I have given the model, and explained why I think it follows from the model. Are you going to explain your problem with the implication yet, on our third page of discussion, or are you going to continue to evade? I apologize if you dislike my choice of words, but at this stage there is no better description. We are on the third page and you have not even attempted to justify your initial claim, rather altering the subject entirely.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 18, 2017 19:46:48 GMT
It is not an insult to accurately recount the fact you have knowingly misrepresented what I have said to you. As in your most recent post, you ignore the fact that, as I have informed you before, the reason aether forms whirlpools is covered in the model. And, here, you refuse to justify your claim yet again despite the fact I explicitly ask you to. You are insisting you can observe it happening, yet your evidence took ages to be presented and was lacking then, and regardless that is not an answer. If dogs can't look up because of their neck muscles, then the reply would be "Ok, tell me about the structure of their muscles, and how this leads to what you claim." Then you would listen, you would compare that to known facts, and see if the logic held up. In a scientific discussion, that is what you should do. You should not respond with "You're wrong, but I'm not going to tell you what the problem is." Your claim is that the space travel conspiracy is an assumption. I claim it is a conclusion. To justify my point of view I simply need to show it follows from the model. To justify yours, you need to show it does not. Whether it is true or false does not enter into this discussion; you did not claim that it was wrong, you claimed that it was an assumption. If you want to debate whether or not it's real there are countless sites out there far better at it than mine. But, here, you claimed that it was an assumption. I am asking you to justify this claim. I have explained the formation of the whirlpools, I have explained the forces at play in them, and we can observe objects being torn apart passing through just the weaker ones. I ask you yet again why you exempt rockets from all logical rules of the universe and expect them to survive quite literally being pulled in two directions at once by the same forces responsible for, for example, the moon's rotation. You made one specific claim: that the impossibility of space travel is an assumption of the model, and not a conclusion. I have given the model, and explained why I think it follows from the model. Are you going to explain your problem with the implication yet, on our third page of discussion, or are you going to continue to evade? I apologize if you dislike my choice of words, but at this stage there is no better description. We are on the third page and you have not even attempted to justify your initial claim, rather altering the subject entirely. Again I will ignore any and all insults. My opening post is there to see and re read if you so desire. Again, my uncle and I need not debate the structure of such muscles, as soon as I saw a dog look up, I knew he was wrong. Your model is entitled to have these destructive whirlpools, it is your model. However by insisting upon their existence you back yourself into a corner dooming your model to fail. Your model only works if space travel is impossible. Space travel being possible disproves your model which is what I opened with. Easiest way to prove space travel is possible, go to space. Failing that consider all the evidence by those who have been to space. At that point you are left with the same two choices I gave you a couple of pages back 1) there's a conspiracy to pretend we went to space (in which case you need to prove this claim) 2) space travel has in fact occured just as all the evidence points to (in which case your model has failed). At this point I would like your reply to contain either proof of the conspiracy or acceptance in your models defeat.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 19, 2017 22:11:59 GMT
If you are claiming there is solid evidence of space travel, why are you proposing a conspiracy as a valid explanation? This undercuts your entire argument. Once you acknowledge this as a possibility, then your claimed disproof of the impossibility of space travel fails immediately. And so everything I have said still holds. DET predicts that space travel is impossible. As I said before:
"I have given the model, and explained why I think it follows from the model. Are you going to explain your problem with the implication yet, on our third page of discussion, or are you going to continue to evade?"
You have done nothing to respond to my argument. if you are claiming that space travel is proven then that's all very well, but that is very different to the argument you are making. You claim that the conspiracy is a separate assumption. I have shown it is not. Your only rebuttal to this is to object to the notion of a conspiracy, and not to the fact it is a prediction and so conclusion of the model.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 20, 2017 14:05:30 GMT
If you are claiming there is solid evidence of space travel, why are you proposing a conspiracy as a valid explanation? This undercuts your entire argument. Once you acknowledge this as a possibility, then your claimed disproof of the impossibility of space travel fails immediately. And so everything I have said still holds. DET predicts that space travel is impossible. As I said before: "I have given the model, and explained why I think it follows from the model. Are you going to explain your problem with the implication yet, on our third page of discussion, or are you going to continue to evade?" You have done nothing to respond to my argument. if you are claiming that space travel is proven then that's all very well, but that is very different to the argument you are making. You claim that the conspiracy is a separate assumption. I have shown it is not. Your only rebuttal to this is to object to the notion of a conspiracy, and not to the fact it is a prediction and so conclusion of the model. Ultimately it's your model so if you say x, y and z can't happen in your model then x, y and z can't happen. You changed the thread title, I said that space travel disproves your model when I created the thread. Tbh you have said yourself there "why I think it follows from the model" you can play semantics bas a straw man all you want my initial point still stands. Your model only exists if we assume space travel is impossible. So traveling to space is enough evidence to disprove your entire model.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 20, 2017 15:08:44 GMT
However your whole concept is reliant upon assuming space travel is a conspiracy. That's a huge assumption to make and one which you try to brush over in your model. I changed the thread title based on your post, originally it gave no indication as to the thread's topic. I recount what happens in the model based on evidence. You state explicitly in the OP that believing space travel is a conspiracy is a 'huge assumption,' as quoted above. Yes, if space travel exists then DET is false, but your evidence for this is non-existent. Initially you began just saying "Well, they know," which is entirely circular as it presupposes that they did indeed go to space, and now you've moved to just asserting. The one post in these three pages of discussion where you tried to provide evidence of space travel beyond appeals to things you cannot possibly know, you mentioned flight paths of all things. I, meanwhile, give an explanation for why space travel cannot happen that follows on from the contents of the model; and I must assume you agree with the implication as you have barely even tried to refute it. Thus, contrary to the OP's focus on assumptions, your argument is instead that the evidence for space travel is overwhelming and could not possibly be faked. In which case, you must prove it. You appeal to satellite imagery: demonstrate it cannot be faked given the well-established nature of image manipulation. You appeal to the experiences of astronauts: demonstrate they're genuine. You appeal to GPS: satellites are discussed in the overview. Every other point you gave has no connection to space travel and is a transparent attempt at changing the topic. This is from the OP and this one post: dualearththeory.proboards.com/post/286/threadAll the evidence you have provided for your claim. Meanwhile, I justify what I say. I explain how it follows from the DE model, and have a section dedicated to the evidence for the DE model which thus serves as evidence for the other consequences of the model. Stop repeating yourself. Justify your claims, or move on to a different thread and argument.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 20, 2017 15:39:31 GMT
However your whole concept is reliant upon assuming space travel is a conspiracy. That's a huge assumption to make and one which you try to brush over in your model. I changed the thread title based on your post, originally it gave no indication as to the thread's topic. I recount what happens in the model based on evidence. You state explicitly in the OP that believing space travel is a conspiracy is a 'huge assumption,' as quoted above. Yes, if space travel exists then DET is false, but your evidence for this is non-existent. Initially you began just saying "Well, they know," which is entirely circular as it presupposes that they did indeed go to space, and now you've moved to just asserting. The one post in these three pages of discussion where you tried to provide evidence of space travel beyond appeals to things you cannot possibly know, you mentioned flight paths of all things. I, meanwhile, give an explanation for why space travel cannot happen that follows on from the contents of the model; and I must assume you agree with the implication as you have barely even tried to refute it. Thus, contrary to the OP's focus on assumptions, your argument is instead that the evidence for space travel is overwhelming and could not possibly be faked. In which case, you must prove it. You appeal to satellite imagery: demonstrate it cannot be faked given the well-established nature of image manipulation. You appeal to the experiences of astronauts: demonstrate they're genuine. You appeal to GPS: satellites are discussed in the overview. Every other point you gave has no connection to space travel and is a transparent attempt at changing the topic. This is from the OP and this one post: dualearththeory.proboards.com/post/286/threadAll the evidence you have provided for your claim. Meanwhile, I justify what I say. I explain how it follows from the DE model, and have a section dedicated to the evidence for the DE model which thus serves as evidence for the other consequences of the model. Stop repeating yourself. Justify your claims, or move on to a different thread and argument. Assuming space travel is a conspiracy is a huge assumption. You do brush over it in your model. You've explained why you think something but you haven't proven it. You've assumed there's whirlpools and assumed they will destroy any matter passing through. Again with no proof. But that's fine, it's your model so you can assume what you want. However because you've made these assumptions you've backed yourself into a corner where space travel renders your model as false. There's many other reasons why RET beats DET but you didn't like me bringing them up so I moved on as it's your forum. Again you have only two choices. Prove that space travel is a conspiracy or accept your model cannot be true. They're literally the only choices you have.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 21, 2017 14:32:19 GMT
Again, it is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. You are asking me to prove a conclusion: I have done so. I am not backed into a corner, I have not moved in the slightest. You are still in the position you were way back at the start of the thread, where you need to justify your claim. If my explanation is not good enough, say why. You're just handwaving a problem. Why is it you constantly call my conclusions assumptions? I explain where it is they come from. It is not an assumption to say that an object is going to be torn apart when it is quite literally yanked in two. I know what my choices are, and I'm sticking by the same one I've been at since the beginning. You're just refusing to justify your claim that my proof is insufficient. You're more than welcome to bring up other arguments, just not in this thread. I prefer this forum to be readable, hence altering the title so it gave an indication as to the topic.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 21, 2017 15:16:03 GMT
Again, it is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. You are asking me to prove a conclusion: I have done so. I am not backed into a corner, I have not moved in the slightest. You are still in the position you were way back at the start of the thread, where you need to justify your claim. If my explanation is not good enough, say why. You're just handwaving a problem. Why is it you constantly call my conclusions assumptions? I explain where it is they come from. It is not an assumption to say that an object is going to be torn apart when it is quite literally yanked in two. I know what my choices are, and I'm sticking by the same one I've been at since the beginning. You're just refusing to justify your claim that my proof is insufficient. You're more than welcome to bring up other arguments, just not in this thread. I prefer this forum to be readable, hence altering the title so it gave an indication as to the topic. I have stated numerous times the issues I have with your model, however it is your model you are entitled to assume what you want. Since you've made these assumptions your model is mutually exclusive with space travel. So again you can either prove space travel is a conspiracy or you can accept your model is false.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 21, 2017 20:26:31 GMT
Yes, you've stated issues, you haven't justified them. Yet again, as I'm really getting pretty tired of repeating, they are not assumptions, they are conclusions. If you're going to persist in calling them assumptions, justify it. I am tired of needing to ask you to justify your claims. I have done so with mine, I have proven space travel is impossible and so must be a conspiracy, kindly do me the courtesy of justifying your claims in turn, with more evidence that "I'm ignoring your explanation of how it follows," and "It's an assumption because I say so."
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 21, 2017 21:07:32 GMT
Yes, you've stated issues, you haven't justified them. Yet again, as I'm really getting pretty tired of repeating, they are not assumptions, they are conclusions. If you're going to persist in calling them assumptions, justify it. I am tired of needing to ask you to justify your claims. I have done so with mine, I have proven space travel is impossible and so must be a conspiracy, kindly do me the courtesy of justifying your claims in turn, with more evidence that "I'm ignoring your explanation of how it follows," and "It's an assumption because I say so." I did justify them, you chose to ignore what I said. A conclusion of an assumption is still an assumption, play word semantics all you want. You have proven sapce travel is impossible? No you haven't. You have assumed the existence of aether. You have assumed this aether creates whirlpools. You have assumed these whirlpools will destroy anything passing through them. That is not proof, that is a series of assumptions. No matter how many straw men you throw at me, your choices remain the same. Prove that space travel is a conspiracy or accept your model is false.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 21, 2017 23:42:45 GMT
A conclusion of an assumption is not a separate assumption, it is the same one. Thus, you cannot claim to be adding another. It is that simple. All of science follows from axioms: that is, assumptions. Necessary assumptions, but still. Would you throw out all of chemistry by the same notion that it only follows from assuming the axioms?
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 22, 2017 5:05:19 GMT
A conclusion of an assumption is not a separate assumption, it is the same one. Thus, you cannot claim to be adding another. It is that simple. All of science follows from axioms: that is, assumptions. Necessary assumptions, but still. Would you throw out all of chemistry by the same notion that it only follows from assuming the axioms? Your original assumption was that aether is the fabric of space and goes from high concentration to low concentration. You were explicit in that being the only assumption you wanted to make. However a lot of the properties of aether do not follow on from this line definition, they are assumptions you've made about it. Two of those assumptions mean your model is mutually exclusive with space travel. As I've said before though, it's your model so you can do what you want, however it's very easy to prove it wrong with space travel.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jun 23, 2017 13:07:55 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.
|
|