I hereby challenge Relativity and promote Aether.

[quickquestion]

Firstly, I would like to give a background. I have been reading a book called "Phenomenal Physics". It gives a history and the background of physics and society. It has been an interesting read but I have found several fallacies and logical incoherence in it so far. Some of these logical incoherence was not of the author, but quotes of famous scientists and philosophers, some of which were logically incoherent.

 

An example quote would be "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery we are trying to solve." -Max Planck. This quote is logically fallacious. It does not logically follow that "because we are part of nature, scientists cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature." In fact, if we were not part of nature, we would not actually be able to solve anything of nature.

 

Another fallacious quote is "To those who do not know mathematics, it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature." This seems like a fallacy because to many, the deepest beauty is Love, or the beauty of a Woman, or the beauty of a lad in love. Whether or not one is able to map the woman's curves to a mathematical function curve is irrelevant. Math does have a beauty, just as puzzles, and programming code has a beauty, the beauty is that puzzles, programming, and doing science is a fun activity.

 

I view the Human Race as a primitive species, of primates, just recently coming to terms with their consciousness. They are largely, mostly a herd specie, and lead by a couple of Savants that pop up throughout the years (for instance, Newton, and Tesla.) Nearly a few centuries ago our science was very primitive. Compared to the span of evolution it is very delusional to say that modern science is the conclusive science. Very brain-y people can believe ridiculous things, for instance Plato believed Fire was a pyramid and Earth was a cube. I do not consider myself a Savant, I am an Aesthete, and perhaps somewhere on the Autistic spectrum. First I would like to give a background on a game called "Think Smart - Family".

 

In the game "Think Smart - Family", you have to do a bunch of timed tests. These timed tests tests your ability to remember chains of numbers, remember words and solve abstract puzzles. These puzzles are seperated into 6 brain categories: Logic, Math, Visual, Language, Perception, and Kinesthetic. Some of these tests I do not do well on, my short-term memory is not that good, and I am not inherently fast at performing subtractive calculations. That being said, the point I am trying to drive here is that there are different types of genius, some may be math genius, others logic genius, others art genius. I am a "game-genius". This is mostly dealing with logic and math on the large scale, connected to reality. My logic works best when it is connected to some kind of real outcome, and reality. It starts to lose it's ability when applied to abstract artifacts such as "Tower of Hanoi". During Tower of Hanoi, my brain just sees shapes, with no connection to real-life scenarios, so it doesn't apply the same quality of logic to them. As a "game-genius" I would say to myself..."Why am I playing this game, it doesn't help me learn calculus or advanced science, so it is probably a waste of my time." Whilst the others are playing and playing, I am doing the philosophy of saying..."For what reason are you playing?" For instance, I met a 185 IQ before, and she was a Christian. And yet, I knew more of the Bible than she. I asked her "For reason, are you a Christian?" And I logically, calmy, shot down all of her logically incoherent arguments. This sent her into an emotional rage, and she immediately blocked me out of her life completely. So I immediately asked myself..."For what reason did I have to win the argument? Is it not better to lose, and then not suffer the wrath of mortals?" Same I would ask Christopher Lagan, the man with a 200 IQ, why he must prove God is real.

 

With all that being said, am I against Mathematics? Most certainly not. Mathematics is not the end all of reality and the universe, but it is a useful tool, especially when trying to map things, create machines, and programming. I am a "game-genius", and not the #1 in mathematics world wide, nor #100th, probably not even #1000th or #10000th, I am not a math savant, nor do I spend much time at the chalkboard (also because chalk has irritating vibrations.) But being a "game-genius" what I would say is this...Why not create a serum that increases our skills at logic, reasoning, memory, and mathematics? Wouldn't that be the first logical step into understanding the universe? A serum that doubles the smart of our brains? Thus, in theory, I am for games like "Think Smart - Family", but I doubt their actual capacity to increase intelligence. A game that is more connected to reality, would probably increase intelligence more.

 

To further clarify what I mean by "game-genius", let me give another example. I used to go to a Church where there were lots of girls who were more advanced at mathematics than I. Some of these had parents who were upper-class engineers. But they never questioned anything. Their faith was unquestioned. They never asked "Why am I going to church in the first." And I continued to shoot down their logical incoherence like they were standing still.

 

But I would also like to make a point about memory. Sometimes I wonder if the human specie's memory is naturally better, but made worse due to the horrors, and low-quality of this civilization and world, people naturally turn off their memory to forget. So a serum would not be enough to improve it immediately, we'd have to make a better world, as well as "memory-baths" to erase unwanted memories from traumatized humans. Like all tools, this has a problem - nefarious governments could use it to create a slave population.

 

Ok, you are probably bored after reading this much. But.

 

I would also like to point out something IMPORTANT. VERY IMPORTANT. Knowing, is not the same as understanding. For instance, I know that a pendulum always has the same period. But I'm not really sure why...I don't fully understand why, I just know that it does. It is easy for someone to be a human calculator, but being a calculator is not a gaurantee you understand anything.

 

Now, to get to my actual theories.

 

For privacy reasons, I do not wish for the history books to know me by my legal name. Unlike Descartes, I am not a fan of the legal system, nor religion, nor do I consider myself as a consenting member human society. Thus I have no obligation to participate in human societie's ordained naming conventions.

 

I have no hopes of my theories becoming popular in the mainstream. I fear that, like Democratus, my theories will largely be ignored by mainstream society. Democratus, who, theorized that the atom was true, but was mostly scorned and ridiculed by society. My whole life has been a scorn and ridicule, so I doubt that in the future this will cease. So the history books can put my name down as Adagio Dazzle, for all I care, when they finally come to accept my theories, 2000 years later.

 

If, after honest and careful technological review, my theories are proven false, I shall not be offended. I will accept when and if my theories are wrong, if they are thouroughly and logically disproven. But if my theories are simply said to be wrong becaue of emotional outrage, or heresy, or because they don't coincide with the resident authority, then I will be offended because it reminds me of a step backwards 400 years, the attitude of the Church.

 

 

THEORY 1: Aether never disproven.

 

My theory is to say that Aether deserves a reboot in the science community. There are 3 Aether theories in society, 2 of which are ridiculous. Greek-Aether (disproven) Haunted Aether (disproven) and Adagio Aether (Not disproven.) The michelson morley experiment disproves Haunted Aether. Haunted Aether claimed that aether had no physical effect from matter, and "passed-through" the Earth with no physical effect, only affecting light. This is how my theory of Aether is different. My theory of Aether (Adagio Aether Theory) says that aether has physical effect from molecules. Thus it moves with the Earth's atmosphere and rotation. Thus the Michelson Morley experiment proves nothing.

 

My theory has do to with the idea that the underlying property of the Universe is a fluid. For example, Archer's Paradox - if you videotape a bow and arrow in slow motion, the arrow moves like a fluid. A very fast propogation rate allows things like levers to be possible...if you take a very long rod you can utilize this phenomenon to move very heavy objects. However if the rod is too long it starts to behave like a fluid again. Time here and Consciousness is what grants this utility. If our consciousness was much slower, or we videotaped this in very slow motion, such as 1 trillion or so fps, when we pulled the lever we would see a wave propogation effect happen and the lever would not appear as a solid unbending rod.

 

Einstein actually proves me right. He says spaceships at 99% C will compress like a pancake. This is due to the aether propogation rate. Objects dont move in the relative newtonian sense, only relative to the speed of aether. For instance if the Universe is rotating, the two far ends of the universe will be moving much faster than C. But they are not travelling at C because relative to the aether they are in there is no compression.

 

THEORY 2: Relativity Disproven

 

Relativity can be disproven because of the Grandma Problem. The Grandma Problem says if Grandma is at Cape Cod, watching her grandson take off in a Space Shuttle, and the spaceshuttle takes off at 99% C (Which is possible in theoretical physics.) And the grandma gets tired and goes off to her daily life in the suburbs. But the guy in the spaceship sees his grandma moving in slow-motion. When he returns to Earth, his grandma is still at Cape-Cod.

 

This is a paradox, how can Grandma be at Cape-Cod, but also at the suburbs? Sci-fi writers, noticed this paradox, and use it to explain how people can enter duplicate dimensions. Of course, that is sci-fi, going to duplicate dimensions is probably impossible, because if it were possible, that means someone riding a bicycle would be in a different dimension than someone walking or sitting down, and eventually, after a long while, due to Butterfly Effect, their consciousnesses would be in totally different worlds. This is of course, ridiculous.

 

However, Einstein was half-right. Relativity, in the sense of Aether Relativity, is real, because objects speeds are measured relative to the Aether.

 

 

Furthermore, I would also like to point out something I noticed in the book "Phenomenal Physics." Occams razor says "Entities should not be multiplied excessively." FIrst of all, this is a poor choice of words, because it is more of an additive operation...when violating Occam's Razor, consequentive entities are not often multiplied, but rather, added. Also, it is meaningless without the context. But I more or less agree with Occams razor. As a scientist my philosophy is to base it soley on evidence and experiment, I actually have a quiet disregard for using equations building other equations as crutches. Building an equation based on another equation is violating Occam's Razor. Also, Einstein made the equations first, then was later verified by data (similar to how Fundamentalist Christians find data which supports 6000 year theory, confirmation bias.) I want to see a quark, and if I cannot see a quark, I want to at least see evidence of it's behavoir. I want to see space-time itself...seeing gravity as evidence of it's behavoir feels a bit circular, using equations to map and/or verify other equations also seems circular. I want data, data, data, and evidence, and I value logic actually more than equations. Call me a "doubting Thomas" if you are feeling humorous, because I would rather see it before I believe it.

 

Science disproved a ridiculous Aether theory, and then if someone comes up with Aether theory that isn't ridiculous, they go back to the already disproven, ridiculous theory, and commit a fallacy and lump them on the same boat.

Also I would like to mention something I read in "Phenomenal Physics" about the scientific method. They said that science never approaches a "fact", only data and more data, dealing in probabilities. For instance, we know through science, that gravity will most likely probably occur tommorow. Thus scientific method does not give us facts, only probabilities.

Edited April 17, 2017 by quickquestion

[Sriman Dutta]

To clear your doubts about pendulum, I present this formula for a simple pendulum :

[math]T=2\pi \sqrt\frac{l}{g}[/math]

where T is time period, l is the length of pendulum and g is acceleration due to gravity. This formula works excellent for small amplitudes.

 

 

Secondly, your theory of aether is doomed. Forget it.

[Fuzzwood]

tl;dr

 

Kindly summarize where your theory/model can explain observations better than the current ones.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Fuzzwood

[DrKrettin]

It is not worth the effort counting up exactly, but I think the crackpot index is well over 100. I assume that this book is the only physics book you have read - I suggest you read plenty more.

[Strange]

I would also like to point out something IMPORTANT. VERY IMPORTANT. Knowing, is not the same as understanding. For instance, I know that a pendulum always has the same period. But I'm not really sure why...I don't fully understand why, I just know that it does.

 

 

So despite admitting to being ignorant of schoolboy physics, you think you can overthrow relativity. Breathtaking.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

 

 

This is how my theory of Aether is different. My theory of Aether (Adagio Aether Theory) says that aether has physical effect from molecules. Thus it moves with the Earth's atmosphere and rotation. Thus the Michelson Morley experiment proves nothing.

 

There are other experiments that disprove an aether that is dragged with the Earth, partly dragged with the Earth, pulled around by invisible pink unicorns, and so on.

 

 

This is a paradox, how can Grandma be at Cape-Cod, but also at the suburbs?

 

Because you made up a fake scenario with no relationship to relativity theory.

 

I guess you can "disprove" any theory with a sufficiently imaginative lie.

 

Let me have a go. Quantum theory is wrong because it says photons are the size of ostrich eggs but laser pointers have a very tiny beam of light.

 

Easy!

 

 

 

Furthermore, I would also like to point out something I noticed in the book "Phenomenal Physics." Occams razor says "Entities should not be multiplied excessively." FIrst of all, this is a poor choice of words, because it is more of an additive operation...when violating Occam's Razor, consequentive entities are not often multiplied, but rather, added.

 

It is not worth the effort counting up exactly, but I think the crackpot index is well over 100. I assume that this book is the only physics book you have read - I suggest you read plenty more.

 

 

I suspect it might be the only book he has read.

[Velocity_Boy]

Mickekson-Morley proved to us all we need to ever know about your ether.

 

And your rambling and hear incoherent post, along with your obvious lack of science background tell us all we need to know about the veracity and credibility of your claims and hypotheses.

 

Thanks for understanding.

[Raider5678]

For instance, I met a 185 IQ before, and she was a Christian. And yet, I knew more of the Bible than she. I asked her "For reason, are you a Christian?" And I logically, calmy, shot down all of her logically incoherent arguments. This sent her into an emotional rage, and she immediately blocked me out of her life completely. So I immediately asked myself..."For what reason did I have to win the argument? Is it not better to lose, and then not suffer the wrath of mortals?" Same I would ask Christopher Lagan, the man with a 200 IQ, why he must prove God is real.

Aye, us with high IQ's hate to be wrong.

But having illogical arguments are far more rare. I'd imagine if we asked her how the argument went it would be more saying that you just denied everything. As it often is the case. Christians simply deny Atheists arguments, and Atheists simply deny Christian arguments.

Now I know, someone is gonna come screaming that Christians are the only ones denying anything, and that all Atheists have perfectly logical and calm arguments.

Just wait.

Anyways, high IQ amounts to basically shit. In my opinion, you have good deductive reasoning. That's about it.

[Velocity_Boy]

LOL on the new and rightful location of this thread. I bet myself a drink that it wouldn't last more than thirty minutes before getting shot down here to the nether regions. WTG Swannie!

[Strange]

Maybe the title could be changed to "I hereby advertise my ignorance of science"

[Phi for All]

Ok, you are probably bored after reading this much. But.

 

But nothing. You challenge relativity and then proceed to bring up everything but.

 

You need to learn to edit yourself. You're your own worst enemy. Your threads self-destruct because you're all over the place, and nobody likes that in a discussion.

[madmac]

[re quickquestion #1].

I see that Isaac McPhee has now written 3 science books. He is not a scientist --does he have any novel ideas ???

His books get good reviews, but i suspect that he has learnt little about aether (or anything else).

 

U would be better off doing what i do -- i google lots of online physics articles & books including history -- the best ones deal with a small specific topic (eg aether)(Michelson-Morley)(Miller).

 

There are many types of relativity -- Einsteinian relativity is one, here the speed of light is constant & time aint.

Lorentzian relativity says that time is constant & the speed of light aint (ticking aint time, it is just ticking).

 

There have been many types of aether over the years -- i reckon at least 10 -- which potentially expands to over 100 if u look at all of the possible combinations.

McPhee seems to have taken a fancy to one of the stagnant aethers (which shows that he hasn't learnt much). Although even today there are scientists who believe in a stagnant aether (i don't, i believe in a free-range aether, but i aint a scientist).

[Bignose]

Relativity can be disproven ...

Too bad there are all these pages where it works: https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377

 

I look forward to your posting your idea that makes even more accurate predictions than relativity in every example from the paper in the above link.

 

Also, no aether has been found to within 1 part in 10^17. See Herrmann, S.; Senger, A.; Möhle, K.; Nagel, M.; Kovalchuk, E. V.; Peters, A. (2009). "Rotating optical cavity experiment testing Lorentz invariance at the 10−17 level". Physical Review D. 80 (100): 105011

 

Your idea here also needs to show us how it affects the experiments in the first paper so much yet remains hidden from the experiment in the second paper. Good luck. 1 part in 10^17 isn't much room to play with.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Bignose

[madmac]

[re Bignose #12]

Í had a look at the Herrman et al paper. Its very technical & difficult to follow. I see at least 2 issues (there are others).

 

In one part they analyse the possible influence of the CMB of 370 km/sec (aetherists i think like a figure of 470 km/sec, no big deal).

The problem being that Herrman & Co also adopt the CMB direction (which is almost 90dg different to the angle aetherists like). Aetherists use a local angle found by many measurements & which relates to our solar system, whereas the CMB angle is the angle in a distant part of the cosmos or universe even. The B in CMB is short for background, background being very far far far away, having no relationship to Herrman & Co's laboratory.

 

The main issue is that Herrman & Co don't appear to allow for length contraction or extension in their 2 orthogonal resonators due to any varying aether-wind (the wind speed doesn't vary much, but the angle does, ie per rotation of the apparatus).

Edited April 18, 2017 by madmac

[swansont]

[re Bignose #12]

Í had a look at the Herrman et al paper. Its very technical & difficult to follow. I see at least 2 issues (there are others).

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Which you are free to discuss in another thread. This one belongs to quickquestion.

[Strange]

[re quickquestion #1].

I see that Isaac McPhee has now written 3 science books. He is not a scientist --does he have any novel ideas ???

His books get good reviews, but i suspect that he has learnt little about aether (or anything else).

 

 

He has studied physics, so obviously he doesn't write about "aether". Unless he were writing about the history of science (and all those mistaken ideas) or the psychology of crackpottery.

 

 

 

i believe in a free-range aether, but i aint a scientist

 

In other words, you believe in nonsense because you don't know better. And because you don't understand how science works, you think personal beliefs have as much weight as evidence. In common with the OP, apparently.

 

But at least he has the naivety of youth as an excuse. There is still a chance for him to learn some critical thinking skills and acquire an understanding of basic science.

[studiot]

 

 

 

 

In other words, you believe in nonsense because you don't know better. And because you don't understand how science works, you think personal beliefs have as much weight as evidence. In common with the OP, apparently.

 

But at least he has the naivety of youth as an excuse. There is still a chance for him to learn some critical thinking skills and acquire an understanding of basic science.

 

That refers to by far the most rational, although by no means perfect, post I have seen from madmac so I have given +1.

Such a welcome development deserves encouragement.

[quickquestion]

 

 

So despite admitting to being ignorant of schoolboy physics, you think you can overthrow relativity. Breathtaking.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

You seem to suffer from Human Group Fallacy...which is the same fallacy that caused ancient greeks to ridicule Democratus for promoting Atom Theory. It is the same fallacy that caused Catholics to ridicule anyone who didn't believe religion. You are a bully. My guess is mostly you post just to bully me and get some kind of emotional gratification so you can feel better about yourself.

 

The majority of posts here demonstrate this fallacy, and do not even follow the scientific method.

 

Scientific method is to disprove my 3 points: 1.that aether is real and that 2. some parts of relativity are true and support aether, and that 3. relativity, overall, is an incorrect theory because has a paradox.

 

The majority of these posts just posts mockery and insults of how wrong I am.

If I am so wrong why then cannot you take the time to prove me wrong?

You claim there are "experiments" which disprove aether being dragged around the earth, yet won't even tell me what they are.

 

Actually out of these 15 posts, only 3 of them posted anything of any scientific relevance.

Post 1 (scientifically relevant, but irrelevant to the topic at hand)

and the post of:

Herrmann, S.; Senger, A.; Möhle, K.; Nagel, M.; Kovalchuk, E. V.; Peters, A.

and

the post of: Miller Experiment (Poster Barely mentioning it and not even giving an explanation.)

Since none of you will provide any effort to make a civilized debate, the burden is on me to

research this material (which was made by Phd's, which I do not have) and get back to you.

Edited April 18, 2017 by quickquestion

[John Cuthber]

...This is how my theory of Aether is different. My theory of Aether (Adagio Aether Theory) says that aether has physical effect from molecules. Thus it moves with the Earth's atmosphere and rotation.

...

Sorry to tell you , but that theory has been put forward before (no great surprise)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

And it was proven to be wrong.

It is not "bullying" you to point out that you are wrong.

[DrKrettin]

You seem to suffer from Human Group Fallacy...which is the same fallacy that caused ancient greeks to ridicule Democratus for promoting Atom Theory.

 

 

 

Your ignorance knows no limits - Ancient Greeks (generally) did not ridicule him, and at least they could spell his name correctly.

[swansont]

You seem to suffer from Human Group Fallacy...which is the same fallacy that caused ancient greeks to ridicule Democratus for promoting Atom Theory. It is the same fallacy that caused Catholics to ridicule anyone who didn't believe religion. You are a bully. My guess is mostly you post just to bully me and get some kind of emotional gratification so you can feel better about yourself.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Let's stop this right here.

 

It's common practice to use Galileo in this kind of argument, which is why this is called the Galileo Gambit. That because Galileo was persecuted and was right, that somehow being persecuted necessarily means you are right. It's a logical fallacy. "All proponents of revolutionary (i.e new and true) science are persecuted" may or may not be true, but (as the logician reminds us) universal affirmatives can only be partially converted, so it is untrue that all who are persecuted are proposing revolutionary science.

 

Put another way (part 1) Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right. Robert Park

 

Put another way (part 2) But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Carl Sagan

 

To sum up: stop pointing toward resistance to your idea as any kind of evidence that you are correct. This is science. Stick to that: what experiment can confirm, and what it can't. That's what the rules and guidelines demand. Disagreeing with you is not bullying and does not indicate any kind of nefarious agenda.

 

If you stray from scientific discourse (which includes responding to this modnote in the thread), I will shut this down, and not give a rat's ass that you think it's unfair.

 

(Others who might decide to go off on a tangent will have their posts removed)

 

[Strange]

You seem to suffer from Human Group Fallacy...which is the same fallacy that caused ancient greeks to ridicule Democratus for promoting Atom Theory. It is the same fallacy that caused Catholics to ridicule anyone who didn't believe religion. You are a bully. My guess is mostly you post just to bully me and get some kind of emotional gratification so you can feel better about yourself.

 

 

I was simply pointing out that no great new breakthroughs in science (nor probably any other subject) have been made by those who are largely ignorant of the subject.

 

You know seem to be using the Galileo Gambit ("They laughed at ...").

 

 

 

Scientific method is to disprove my 3 points: 1.that aether is real and that

 

Well, first you would need to provide some evidence, rather than pure fantasy. There are many experiments that are either inconsistent with the existence of an aether (of any kind) or simply do not require it.

 

 

 

2. some parts of relativity are true and support aether

 

No part of relativity supports the existence of an aether. If you think so, then it is up to you to provide that evidence.

 

 

 

, and that 3. relativity, overall, is an incorrect theory because has a paradox.

 

As you have not shown that relativity has a paradox, this argument fails.

 

(Note that making up something that has nothing to do with relativity does not falsify relativity.)

 

So your arguments are either wrong or unsupported.

P.S. Google says "Nor results found" when I search for "Human Group Fallacy". Perhaps this is something else you have made up?

[Daecon]

I haven't been following the thread, but I believe "Human Group Fallacy" is a mistranslation of argumentum ad populum.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Daecon

[Strange]

I haven't been following the thread, but I believe "Human Group Fallacy" is a mistranslation of argumentum ad populum.

 

 

You may be right. In which case it is yet another case of the OP not knowing what fallacies are.

[quickquestion]

 

 

You may be right. In which case it is yet another case of the OP not knowing what fallacies are.

I know what fallacies are.

My memory is not good so excuse me for not remember the title of a fallacy.

Get this...a definition is what's important.

You can remember the movie if you forget the title of the movie.

Don't confuse knowing words and titles with knowing the actual content and substance of the word.

 

Now back on topic.

Michelson Morley does not disprove my aether, and Miller uses an intereferometer in his studies (MM also uses interferometer.) So if he uses the same type of instrument and the first instrument doesn't prove anything besides lumi-wind being false how would he prove anything besides lumi-wind being false.

Hint: I don't believe in lumi-wind, my aether is different and more similar to aether drag.

Fizeau experiment implies aether drag is real, but theorists use the mental gynastics to somehow ignore Occams razor and conclude that his implications are false.

Mental gynmastics work because they violate Occams Razor. The simplest explanation of Fizeau experiment is to say that Light has different velocities. But in order to say light is a constant, what you do is you use Mental Gymnastics in order to think of a way to counter the simplest explanation.

Say for instance, I leave a corn flake in the house and my dog is in the house. When I leave the house, I come back and the cornflake is gone. The simplest explanation, is to say my dog ate the cornflake. But someone could do Mental Gymnastics and say, no a UFO came and teleported the cornflake away. Then the rest of their science would be based on the UFO theory, and at no point could the dog-theory ever enter it again, the UFO theory is already popular and put into books.

[DrKrettin]

But someone could do Mental Gymnastics and say, no a UFO came and teleported the cornflake away.

 

Which is exactly what you are doing in this thread.