by kano wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:I haven't read all of this thread, but it seems kano does not understand how the burden of proof works.
Burden of proof is a law term where the accuser has burden of proof while the defendant has assumed innocence until proven guilt, you silly shit. But for some reason you're not the 1st retard to make that error on this thread.
You've tried this before in a previous incarnation.
THWOTH wrote:meems wrote:>The burden of support
There's no such thing in science. I think you are confusing science with a law court in a just society where the burden of proof lays with the prosecution. You make the same mistake again later in your post.
Hypothesis sometimes wait decades for tests, until then the hypothesis remains valid as an untested hypothesis.
This is my previous remark.
If this were a court of law you would be in the position of having adopted the role of the prosecution, not the defence You are making a claim - an objective claim; a claim to knowledge. At the moment you have offered your opening remarks to the jury, and now the burden or support falls on you to make your case, to prove your point.
So, if you want others to take your claim seriously and, in an ideal world, arrive at the conclusion that your claim is valid, credible and true, the burden remains entirely with you for the duration of the case.
You must provide some supporting grounds for that claim as it is neither reasonable or rational to assert or maintain that the claim stands until or unless someone else does the work of pointing out its flaws, or, more likely i this case I fear, demonstrate to your satisfaction that the claim is false.
This is what you asserted, in context.meems wrote:THWOTH wrote:I'll just add: "Where's the extra mass coming from?"
Its coming from non-linear QED fields within the Earth, i.e. spaces with electric fields above the sauter limit of 1.3E18 N/C. That's the only way mass-energy can be created according to QED, so its a theoretical deduction. These fields also can occur inside any other celestial body, including very small ones. Also in van allen belts. The largest spaces with NLQED fields are the active galactic cores, thats why they spew out all that matter.THWOTH wrote:If the Earth was expanding by mass addition then we'd expect to see a concomitant perturbation of the planet's orbit.
Only if the new mass had different velocity to the Earth and so would alter the orbital momentum of the Earth. But if the new mass had ( on average ) the same velocity as Earth, there would be no alteration in Earth's orbit.
Since mass is created inside the Earth it stands to reason it would use the Earth's inertial frame of reference.
We have a solid body of evidences, not least from theorist such as Newton, Kepler and Einstein, but also from experimentalists, that accurately describe and predict the orbit of bodies around a barycenter, their relationship to mass, distance, and angular velocity, and their concomitant gravitational pertubations, and which have withstood the challenges of repeated and systematic testing. The predictive power of these descriptions render them 'Theories' in the proper sense.
In order to support your case you must, at the very least, convince the jury that:Similar to a court of law, the jury (those whom you are hoping to convince) are not obliged, either morally or rationally, to grant you, the prosecution, or your claims the benefit-of-doubt. In short, you must demonstrate how your hypothesis offers a more complete account of what is observed, and in so doing you will show how it falsifies established theories.
- The theories (in the proper sense) of Newton, Kepler, and Einstein et al, are, at best, incomplete, or, ideally, false - that is, that they do not or cannot account for what is observed
- There exists 'non-linear QED fields within the Earth with electric fields above the sauter limit of 1.3E18 N/C'
- There exists a mechanism of Earth-bound energy-to-mass conversion utilising 'non-linear QED field' that does not defy the laws of physics.
- There is or has been an increase in the Earth's mass over time, in accord with the previous points (duly demonstrated), that cannot be accounted for by any other means.
So, over to you : on the understanding that simply "having an idea, or borrowing an idea, and typing it into a box on an Internet forum doesn't entitle your or anybody else's claims to an easy ride, or special treatment or regard" or necessarily involve a shift in the burden of support such that your assertions stand as fact and therefore place an obligation on others to disprove your case to your satisfaction.
If you choose to reply to this comment please provide a link to it, or better still simply use the quote function, so that others have the opportunity to review my remarks in full and in context.
