Tell me how a universe without gravity could exist with us in it then. Because that’s the bar set for whether something can be claimed as fact.
QM? Relativity?
Yep, covered both.
Why?
Because prior knowledge is relevant to any discussion. And I didn’t call you a liar until you lied about doing a double blind astrology report. I said you fell for the Barnum effect before that, which you have yet to acknowledge.
Why skirt that issue? Why refuse to engage with the possibility you fell for the Barnum effect?
I’m done
Oh please be true. Because you’ve said that half a dozen times now, and I’ve made it quite clear I would be happy for that to be the case.
Look in a mirror. You refuse to answer simple questions that are entirely relevant to the conversation, and are completely unyielding to alternate points of view.
And I type this from my lab waiting for a biosensor to baseline so I can do real scientific experiments today.
I thought you were done with me, or are you finally going to answer some questions? Cause I did ask you how you imagine a universe without gravity, but us in it could logically exist.
I’ve done more mathematics than you have in your life, but that doesn’t make me right if I say some dumb shit like “2 + 2 = 7”. Credentials mean nothing. Evidence and reasoning are all that matter.
Here’s some answers:
There’s a very fringe theory that gravity is an illusion caused by all matter constantly expanding. Not probable, but technically conceivable. Not that that has anything to do with the falsifiability of gravity, because “fact” is not defined as you’ve defined it. There’s no need to kowtow to your false definition. Gravity, both the theory and the observed phenomenon, are falsifiable precisely because they are empirical. Your disagreement with that assessment is your own problem, your definitions are wrong.
Yes, I am familiar with the Barnum effect, I was once and edgy 14 year old atheist. I am quite familiar with logical fallacies and rational blindspots, including the Fallacy Fallacy: assuming that because a fallacy could be at play, it is (reflect on that). That is why I have always been skeptical of astrology, and why when pressed to try it I went about it methodically. Not that I was convinced of their accuracy by a single test, but it provided an interesting data point to consider. Your assumptions are wrong.
Yes, I did perform a double blind test. You did not “tell me what it was”, both in that at no point did you actually describe the process of a double blind test, and in that I have in fact known what a double blind test is and how to run one for some time now, two decades in fact. You continue to generate your conclusion first, and infer the conditions to support your bias. Yet another embarrassing fundamentally unscientific behavior you have repeatedly indulged in. Again, your assumptions are wrong.
No, I am not employed, professionally, as an empirical scientist. I originally intended a career in physics (the most justifiably certain of the empirical sciences), but pivoted to mathematics precisely because it is the only field of justifiable absolute certainty. That’s partly why your blundering attempts at logic are so deeply grating. Your logical process is profoundly wrong.
And once again, none of this is relevant to the topic. Go back up to the top of the comment chain and work your way down. You said all horoscopes were, by definition, vague enough to apply to anyone. Proof by counter-example means that so long as there exists one exception to an absolute statement, the absolute statement is by definition false (this is a property of the analytical sciences, and a case where certainty is possible). The statement “All primes are odd” is disproven by the existence of 2, an even prime. Just one counter-example is sufficient to disprove an absolute statement, even if it is the only counter-example.
There exist two different horoscope statements: “You favor logic over emotion” and “You favor emotion over logic”. These two cannot both be construed to apply to the same individual, they are mutually exclusive. So long as there exist mutually exclusive horoscope statements, the statement “All horoscopes are by definition vague enough to apply to anyone” is false. This is basic logic. You are clearly unacquainted with the concept.
Empirical science is a tool to reduce the reasonable error bars around human uncertainty. It cannot be used to achieve absolute certainty. Your axioms are dangerously wrong, and your reasoning is fundamentally unscientific.
gravity is an illusion caused by all matter constantly expanding
That’s still gravity, that’s only a different methodology of how gravity works, but it’s still a force causing matter to be attracted to other matter. Try again.
You did not “tell me what it was”,
And yet you mentioned nothing of the sort until I brought it up. Yet it was certainly extremely relevant to the discussion well before then. In fact it was immediately relevant. So you not bringing it up until I mentioned it, means you are almost certainly lying.
Your logical process is profoundly wrong
Nope, there are absolute facts within our perceived reality, and you have done nothing to disprove that.
“You favor logic over emotion” and “You favor emotion over logic”.
Yet in the moment of getting reports with such conflicting statement people still cannot correctly ascertain their personal report. And giving the exact same astrology report to an entire class of students causes everyone to agree that the report represents them well, is evidence that indeed both statements can apply to anyone. They are not mutually exclusive, because no one is 100% the same thing all the time.
Your axioms are dangerously wrong
Yes, the acceptance that gravity exists is so dangerous!!! The world may never recover from me acknowledging the existence of a fundamental force in our universe!!! Whatever will we do!!!
and your reasoning is fundamentally unscientific.
Go ahead and write up a grant proposal saying you will disprove the very existence of gravity, and prepare to be laughed out of the room by every actual scientist there.
As I said, mixologist in a lab coat.
QM? Relativity? Doubt
Why? Personal credentials are not evidence. Plus, as repeatedly demonstrated, you would’ve called me a liar anyway.
I’m done with your rot-addled, pseudo a-priori nonsense.
Tell me how a universe without gravity could exist with us in it then. Because that’s the bar set for whether something can be claimed as fact.
Yep, covered both.
Because prior knowledge is relevant to any discussion. And I didn’t call you a liar until you lied about doing a double blind astrology report. I said you fell for the Barnum effect before that, which you have yet to acknowledge.
Why skirt that issue? Why refuse to engage with the possibility you fell for the Barnum effect?
Oh please be true. Because you’ve said that half a dozen times now, and I’ve made it quite clear I would be happy for that to be the case.
Arrogant, presumptuous, fraud. Have fun playing dress-up.
Look in a mirror. You refuse to answer simple questions that are entirely relevant to the conversation, and are completely unyielding to alternate points of view.
And I type this from my lab waiting for a biosensor to baseline so I can do real scientific experiments today.
Dress-up.
More science than you’ve done in your life.
I thought you were done with me, or are you finally going to answer some questions? Cause I did ask you how you imagine a universe without gravity, but us in it could logically exist.
I’ve done more mathematics than you have in your life, but that doesn’t make me right if I say some dumb shit like “2 + 2 = 7”. Credentials mean nothing. Evidence and reasoning are all that matter.
Here’s some answers:
There’s a very fringe theory that gravity is an illusion caused by all matter constantly expanding. Not probable, but technically conceivable. Not that that has anything to do with the falsifiability of gravity, because “fact” is not defined as you’ve defined it. There’s no need to kowtow to your false definition. Gravity, both the theory and the observed phenomenon, are falsifiable precisely because they are empirical. Your disagreement with that assessment is your own problem, your definitions are wrong.
Yes, I am familiar with the Barnum effect, I was once and edgy 14 year old atheist. I am quite familiar with logical fallacies and rational blindspots, including the Fallacy Fallacy: assuming that because a fallacy could be at play, it is (reflect on that). That is why I have always been skeptical of astrology, and why when pressed to try it I went about it methodically. Not that I was convinced of their accuracy by a single test, but it provided an interesting data point to consider. Your assumptions are wrong.
Yes, I did perform a double blind test. You did not “tell me what it was”, both in that at no point did you actually describe the process of a double blind test, and in that I have in fact known what a double blind test is and how to run one for some time now, two decades in fact. You continue to generate your conclusion first, and infer the conditions to support your bias. Yet another embarrassing fundamentally unscientific behavior you have repeatedly indulged in. Again, your assumptions are wrong.
No, I am not employed, professionally, as an empirical scientist. I originally intended a career in physics (the most justifiably certain of the empirical sciences), but pivoted to mathematics precisely because it is the only field of justifiable absolute certainty. That’s partly why your blundering attempts at logic are so deeply grating. Your logical process is profoundly wrong.
And once again, none of this is relevant to the topic. Go back up to the top of the comment chain and work your way down. You said all horoscopes were, by definition, vague enough to apply to anyone. Proof by counter-example means that so long as there exists one exception to an absolute statement, the absolute statement is by definition false (this is a property of the analytical sciences, and a case where certainty is possible). The statement “All primes are odd” is disproven by the existence of 2, an even prime. Just one counter-example is sufficient to disprove an absolute statement, even if it is the only counter-example.
There exist two different horoscope statements: “You favor logic over emotion” and “You favor emotion over logic”. These two cannot both be construed to apply to the same individual, they are mutually exclusive. So long as there exist mutually exclusive horoscope statements, the statement “All horoscopes are by definition vague enough to apply to anyone” is false. This is basic logic. You are clearly unacquainted with the concept.
Empirical science is a tool to reduce the reasonable error bars around human uncertainty. It cannot be used to achieve absolute certainty. Your axioms are dangerously wrong, and your reasoning is fundamentally unscientific.
That’s still gravity, that’s only a different methodology of how gravity works, but it’s still a force causing matter to be attracted to other matter. Try again.
And yet you mentioned nothing of the sort until I brought it up. Yet it was certainly extremely relevant to the discussion well before then. In fact it was immediately relevant. So you not bringing it up until I mentioned it, means you are almost certainly lying.
Nope, there are absolute facts within our perceived reality, and you have done nothing to disprove that.
Yet in the moment of getting reports with such conflicting statement people still cannot correctly ascertain their personal report. And giving the exact same astrology report to an entire class of students causes everyone to agree that the report represents them well, is evidence that indeed both statements can apply to anyone. They are not mutually exclusive, because no one is 100% the same thing all the time.
Yes, the acceptance that gravity exists is so dangerous!!! The world may never recover from me acknowledging the existence of a fundamental force in our universe!!! Whatever will we do!!!
Go ahead and write up a grant proposal saying you will disprove the very existence of gravity, and prepare to be laughed out of the room by every actual scientist there.
Christ, I sincerely hope you never touch anything of importance. What an embarrassment.