jamesp
Cave Dweller 
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 22, 2022 8:37:39 GMT -5
Lets beat a dead horse even more.....: Assumptions & Hypthesis.....to include Theory......... "Difference between Hypothesis and Assumption
Key Difference: A hypothesis is an uncertain supposition or explanation regarding a phenomenon or event. It is considered to be true by the researcher. An assumption is also a kind of belief which is considered to be true. A hypothesis must always go through the process of verification and investigation. On the other hand, an assumption may or may not be verified or investigated. In research, assumption denotes the existence of the relationship between the variables. A hypothesis establishes the relationship determined by an assumption.
A hypothesis is an uncertain supposition or explanation regarding a phenomenon or event. It is believed to be true by the researcher. It can always be tested by experimentation after the formulation. One acquires all possible evidence to proceed further and the investigation is carried out to test the hypothesis. Initially, it is either accepted or assumed.
According to Tuckman, these three criteria should be kept in mind before stating a hypothesis –
A good hypothesis statement should...........
conjecture the direction of the relationship between two or more variables,
be stated clearly and unambiguously in the form of a declarative sentence, and
be testable; that is, it should allow restatement in an operational form that can then be evaluated based on data
Generally, an assumption refers to a belief. An assumption does not require any evidence to support it. It is commonly based on feelings or a hunch. In the following example, the usage of the term 'assumption' is depicted
'My assumption is that tomorrow Mary will bring snacks for all'.
Assumption and hypothesis often create confusion as both are widely used in the field of research. An assumption is about taking things for granted, without having any firm explanation behind it. On the other hand, hypothesis is a type of assumption for a certain purpose of argument. However, both are not already proved. An assumption is always assumed to be true. On the other hand, a hypothesis is regarding statements that need certain investigation. In research, assumptions are formulated and on the basis of the assumptions certain hypothesis statements are declared. Thus, a hypothesis can also be considered as an assumption that is taken to be true unless proven otherwise."
"Theory vs. Hypothesis: What’s the Difference?
A hypothesis proposes a tentative explanation or prediction. A scientist bases their hypothesis on a specific observed event, making an educated guess as to how or why that event occurs. Their hypothesis may be proven true or false by testing and experimentation. A theory, on the other hand, is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence. Theories rely on tested and verified data, and scientists widely accepted theories to be true, though not unimpeachable."
Seems assumptions and hypothesis abound the subject(s) matter due to the lack of cognitive and duplicatable scientific analysis required to truly apply a theory........at least at the scale the historical events (evidence) have provided......and since it appears, by the references provided by both horses in this race, that mother nature seldom duplicates the exact conditions required to replicate the same result(s) as argued.......making even theory difficult to support by more than a handful of a few acknowledged experts who eat and sleep this stuff for a living.......? Sometimes, great minds will and can debate a particular assumption(s) to a stand still and agree to accept an "agree to disagree" platform........such has not been the case here........The poor dead horse's spirit can not find peace....."there is no peace where conflict is more relevant and prevalent than compromise".....so saith the scribes. Thank you Joe. I'd classify this debate as a classic www.thoughtco.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-argument-1691903. The only problem James has is 500,000 perfectly aligned and shaped classic ejecta impact patterns smiling at him. A great geologic analogy would be - where did the 500,000 apache tears of varying diameters at varying distances all within a 5 mile radius around the only volcanic shaft within 50 miles come from ? 500,000 samples will answer the question with an extremely high level of probability. Who gives a damn about each apache tear's geological formation and yes each one made an impact crater except those landing on hard ground. In the case of the bays the projectiles melted and disappeared and move forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Apr 22, 2022 11:47:42 GMT -5
A great geologic analogy would be - where did the 500,000 apache tears of varying diameters at varying distances all within a 5 mile radius around the only volcanic shaft within 50 miles come from ? 500,000 samples will answer the question with an extremely high level of probability. Who gives a damn about each apache tear's geological formation and yes each one made an impact crater except those landing on hard ground. In the case of the bays the projectiles melted and disappeared and move forward. How does that prove anything? It could be just an large old native trade site, proximity to volcanic activity could just be coincidental.    |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 22, 2022 15:40:59 GMT -5
A great geologic analogy would be - where did the 500,000 apache tears of varying diameters at varying distances all within a 5 mile radius around the only volcanic shaft within 50 miles come from ? 500,000 samples will answer the question with an extremely high level of probability. Who gives a damn about each apache tear's geological formation and yes each one made an impact crater except those landing on hard ground. In the case of the bays the projectiles melted and disappeared and move forward. How does that prove anything? It could be just an large old native trade site, proximity to volcanic activity could just be coincidental. Dang, why didn't I think about that. Preffering inductive or deductive reasoning instead of reductive reasoning to arrive at hypothesis. |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 22, 2022 19:57:16 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1650634659000" title="Apr 22, 2022 6:37:39 GMT -7" class="o-timestamp time">Apr 22, 2022 6:37:39 GMT -7</abbr> jamesp said:Thank you Joe. The only problem James has is 500,000 perfectly aligned and shaped classic ejecta impact patterns smiling at him. A great geologic analogy would be - where did the 500,000 apache tears of varying diameters at varying distances all within a 5 mile radius around the only volcanic shaft within 50 miles come from ? 500,000 samples will answer the question with an extremely high level of probability. Who gives a damn about each apache tear's geological formation and yes each one made an impact crater except those landing on hard ground. In the case of the bays the projectiles melted and disappeared and move forward. That is not my problem since these have NEVER been proven to be impact craters. That is your problem because you keep claiming they are impact craters as a statement of fact with no proof to your claim. Where is the shock deformation features consistent with impact? They do not exist. Where is the directional elliptical field of an impact event? Does not exist. Again, I have brought up various things things that go against the ice ejecta hypothesis, and even the so-called "evidence" you have been presenting has been going against your own hypothesis. For example, the video you posted where it clearly stated that the ice impacts would have hit with the force of 3 megatons, which would have left very deep craters and not shallow depressions.
You still have not explained the shallow, flat bottoms of these depressions not consistent with your ice ejecta hypothesis. You still have not explained why there is no evidence of shock deformation features, increased nickel content at an initial or secondary impact sites, massive flooding or shockwave or a primary 180 degree ejecta that all would have been consistent with such an impact event. You have not explained the 2 different directions the bays orient in, nor the dated formations of the bays over a 46,000 year period. Your other video also points out that the peat did not even form until thousands of years after the bays formation and according to that guy's hypothesis the area was under water for thousands of years, which blows your the wind cannot form these shapes in rooted areas concept out of the water as again your own "evidence" claims that trees were not even present at the time. And again, such an impact event would have led to a massive flood that would wiped away any trees that would have been present to begin with.
Bottom line is that you keep telling me I am wrong without a single shred of credible evidence. And you claim there is all sorts of evidence to the impact ejecta hypothesis, but cannot produce even a single credible piece of evidence to back that hypothesis. Instead, you just keep parroting the 500,000+ bays as evidence while ignoring the various hypotheses as to how these could have formed and while ignoring the massive amounts of evidence against the impact ejecta hypothesis including the evidence YOU provided. You also ignore that even if this was ice ejecta that formed these bays, this does not mean it was from a comet or asteroid impact. Again, there are ancient volcanoes in the area. One could have erupted under the ice cap ejecting ice, which wold explain things such as the lack of nickel at the initial or secondary site that would be elevated at both sites if this were an comet or asteroid impact event. It would also explain things like the lack of shock deformation features and the shallower depressions as the force of a volcanic eruption would be less than an impact. And such an eruption could explain the lack of a 180 degree ejecta field that would have been consistent with a shallow comet/asteroid impact event, but not with a side wall failure of a volcanic eruption. Although, neither the comet/asteroid impact in to an ice cap or a volcanic eruption under an ice cap would not explain other things about the bays such as two different orientations nor the formation of the various bays over a 46,000 year period, which can be explained by other hypotheses. For example, the wind erosion hypotheses that as we have seen from the evidence I provided by your request shows that wind erosion can form these same shapes.
As for your Apache tear analogy, Apache tears are only formed in perlite. So, to prove that the Apache tear came from that volcano and was not deposited there by humans from trade or some other means such as ejection from a far away volcano or a flood deposition, there would need to be additional evidence such as the presence of perlite deposits in the land around the volcano. Or at least the same chemical signatures between the rock found from volcano core samples and the Apache tears. Simply the presence of Apache tears does not prove origin.
As for your claim of "and yes each one made an impact crater except those landing on hard ground. In the case of the bays the projectiles melted and disappeared and move forward.", you keep ignoring your own evidence from the video YOU presented that pointed out the same fact that I did. That the amount of energy behind the ice impacts would be enormous. According to the video YOU presented as evidence, the ice would have hit with the force of 3 megatons, which would still have deeply cratered hard rock and left shock deformation features that simply do not exist.
Again, there is overwhelming evidence against the impact ice ejecta hypothesis, including some evidence against it YOU provided, and no solid evidence to this hypothesis. Just the extremely weak evidence of shallow depressions that could have formed from various things as has been shown. Although, vary in ages of 46,000 years in formation and that orient in two different directions, which is just some of the pretty solid evidence against the ice impact ejecta hypothesis.
|
|
pizzano
Cave Dweller
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by pizzano on Apr 22, 2022 21:05:21 GMT -5
Why do these arguments lack Proofs & Theorems.......which are not just a mathematical method of analysis......?
Because there is a lack of Axiom, Lemma & Corollary logic......which, thus far, cannot or has not been supported by any conjecture, generalization or proposition presented by the parties involved, completely displaying proven theory or hypothesis, to include a "rational" sense of compromise
Yes, there have been moments of supporting Identity, a few Rules & Law of Principle disclosed.......However, the application of such has long been lost in translation due to the lack of science available, even given the technological advancements mankind has currently procured.....clearly a God issue, no matter how you stack the deck..........If those minds involved in this debate, haven't already determined that the wall of penetration exceeds their limits of comprehension, I fear both are only stimulating what testosterone they have managed to conjure up......for a climax that will not satisfy either parties.......Thanks, Ed, for the cock-a-doodle-do reference..........I'll now go sit on a fence and wait for the next sunrise, as to cause attention to myself....and pet that dead horse to eternal peace......lol
|
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 22, 2022 22:19:42 GMT -5
Well many may poh poh my yeast eating theory butte even a higher authority than Mohs was denied 3 times  ah yes… just trying to change some hypothissized H 2O to wine ... |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 22, 2022 22:29:55 GMT -5
Why do these arguments lack Proofs & Theorems.......which are not just a mathematical method of analysis......? Because there is a lack of Axiom, Lemma & Corollary logic......which, thus far, cannot or has not been supported by any conjecture, generalization or proposition presented by the parties involved, completely displaying proven theory or hypothesis, to include a "rational" sense of compromise Yes, there have been moments of supporting Identity, a few Rules & Law of Principle disclosed.......However, the application of such has long been lost in translation due to the lack of science available, even given the technological advancements mankind has currently procured.....clearly a God issue, no matter how you stack the deck..........If those minds involved in this debate, haven't already determined that the wall of penetration exceeds their limits of comprehension, I fear both are only stimulating what testosterone they have managed to conjure up......for a climax that will not satisfy either parties.......Thanks, Ed, for the cock-a-doodle-do reference..........I'll now go sit on a fence and wait for the next sunrise, as to cause attention to myself....and pet that dead horse to eternal peace......lol The irony here is that you are also relying on assumptions rather than evidence. This is not about testosterone, it is about wanting evidence to a claim. According to your reasoning we would have to conclude that all Court cases are driven by testosterone since Court is about asking for and providing evidence to back claims.
And as I have pointed out, I am open to the ice impact hypothesis as much as I am open to all the other hyotheses at this point since there has not been any significant evidence presented to any of the hypotheses so far to make me lean to any one of the hypotheses. This is how science works and one of the reasons we have rational thought. Assumptions, including yours, presented as fact is not science nor rational thought.
If someone told you that a campfire is cold and will not hurt you if you stuck your hand in it would you simply accept that claim because you are standing back too far from the fire to feel the heat? Or will you go stick your hand in the fire to find out if that hypothesis? Or are you going to use some rational thought and rely on proven science and question that original faulty hypothesis? Would questioning that faulty hypothesis be fueling your testosterone like jumping in with attacks will do?
What some people do not seem to get is that a hypothesis IS NOT evidence. A hypothesis is simply an educated guess. Therefore, it is not proof of anything. I simply want to see some evidence to hypothetical claims presented as fact before I decide on what hypothesis is most likely and may even be elevated to the level of a theory. This is why I have not made any statements of fact as to how the bays were formed, because there is not sufficient evidence to really support any of the presented hypotheses. It is like at one point the idea of washing hands to prevent disease spread was considered hypothetical and people who proposed this idea were considered nuts. Then solid, credible scientific evidence not fueled by testosterone by people asking for evidence, finally supported this hypothesis elevating its status.
I am sorry that some people get so offended because I believe in science and not guesses presented as fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 22, 2022 22:42:34 GMT -5
Well many may poh poh my yeast eating theory butte even a higher authority than Mohs was denied 3 times ah yes… just trying to change some hypothissized H 2O to wine ... Not necessarily. I posted this on page of this thread www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49944.0 In the link they discuss the bays could have been formed by among other things hydrogen emissions, that among means can be formed by fermentation. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29959252/ |
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 22, 2022 23:37:19 GMT -5
Thanks vegasjames James Really enjoyed perusing those articles Interesting Because I’m in an intoxicant state of mind I can’t resist mentioning certain geological findings about the oracle at Delphi That was the ancient Greek Sanctuary, where for centuries people would travel from literally all over, to present their questions; hoping receive fa prophecy from the Pythia. The Pythia was a prophetess. She would be seated in a back of cave. Ancient sources indicate she got into alter state of mind to prophesize. In the last few decades geologist have proposed that a peculiar faulting in the rock caused geological gases to be emitted. Ethylene in particular Sure this all conjecture and highly controversial in the scientific community I suggest we ask the Pythia....  |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 23, 2022 11:01:22 GMT -5
Would the massive Lake Waccamaw bay that is 5.77 by 3.37 miles, some 14,000 acres or 22 square miles in area, with a uniform rim height around 39 feet have any bearing on the hypotheses ?
Lake George is the 2nd largest lake in Florida. A natural lake say 6 by 14 miles in size and is located in typical coastal plain sands. Probably just a depression in the ancient ocean. Chert artifacts and camp sites are found 1/2 mile out in the lake in 2 to 4 feet of water. And the deeper roots ends of trees still protrude out of the lake bottom at these sites meaning it was recently forested. All simply left there by shoreline erosion. Most of the spearhead designs are well proven to be 1000 to 3000 year old. Since 1900 Lisk Point, a thin peninsula extending out in the lake has receded 2000 feet.
Point being that wind erosion acts quickly on shallow water filled natural depressions in sandy soil. 99% of the bays were drained decades ago to serve as farm fields leaving them unaffected by wave action erosion. Drained in historic times. Regardless, they were exposed to this erosion for many years prior to being drained. They are basically flat bottomed. Wave action in shallow water is brutal on sand banks. If there were 50,000 years difference in their ages wind erosion would have grossly altered their repetitively shaped rims. They would have varying width shallow rings inside the rims plain as day. No way would they be so similar. Nothing to do with ego, it is just plain common sense. Hydrology has a large impact on this 50,000 year age variation claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 24, 2022 0:17:32 GMT -5
Would the massive Lake Waccamaw bay that is 5.77 by 3.37 miles, some 14,000 acres or 22 square miles in area, with a uniform rim height around 39 feet have any bearing on the hypotheses ? Lake George is the 2nd largest lake in Florida. A natural lake say 6 by 14 miles in size and is located in typical coastal plain sands. Probably just a depression in the ancient ocean. Chert artifacts and camp sites are found 1/2 mile out in the lake in 2 to 4 feet of water. And the deeper roots ends of trees still protrude out of the lake bottom at these sites meaning it was recently forested. All simply left there by shoreline erosion. Most of the spearhead designs are well proven to be 1000 to 3000 year old. Since 1900 Lisk Point, a thin peninsula extending out in the lake has receded 2000 feet. Point being that wind erosion acts quickly on shallow water filled natural depressions in sandy soil. 99% of the bays were drained decades ago to serve as farm fields leaving them unaffected by wave action erosion. Drained in historic times. Regardless, they were exposed to this erosion for many years prior to being drained. They are basically flat bottomed. Wave action in shallow water is brutal on sand banks. If there were 50,000 years difference in their ages wind erosion would have grossly altered their repetitively shaped rims. They would have varying width shallow rings inside the rims plain as day. No way would they be so similar. Nothing to do with ego, it is just plain common sense. Hydrology has a large impact on this 50,000 year age variation claim. Uniform rim sounds like a completely different formation.
As for the dunes, they do change all the time. Especially things such as floods and hurricanes can wipe them out and they can reform. Just like when you go to the beach you can see ripples in the sand. These get wiped out with things like high tide and storms, then get reformed. A lot of these can occur in a 60,000 year period.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 24, 2022 8:44:14 GMT -5
Would the massive Lake Waccamaw bay that is 5.77 by 3.37 miles, some 14,000 acres or 22 square miles in area, with a uniform rim height around 39 feet have any bearing on the hypotheses ? Lake George is the 2nd largest lake in Florida. A natural lake say 6 by 14 miles in size and is located in typical coastal plain sands. Probably just a depression in the ancient ocean. Chert artifacts and camp sites are found 1/2 mile out in the lake in 2 to 4 feet of water. And the deeper roots ends of trees still protrude out of the lake bottom at these sites meaning it was recently forested. All simply left there by shoreline erosion. Most of the spearhead designs are well proven to be 1000 to 3000 year old. Since 1900 Lisk Point, a thin peninsula extending out in the lake has receded 2000 feet. Point being that wind erosion acts quickly on shallow water filled natural depressions in sandy soil. 99% of the bays were drained decades ago to serve as farm fields leaving them unaffected by wave action erosion. Drained in historic times. Regardless, they were exposed to this erosion for many years prior to being drained. They are basically flat bottomed. Wave action in shallow water is brutal on sand banks. If there were 50,000 years difference in their ages wind erosion would have grossly altered their repetitively shaped rims. They would have varying width shallow rings inside the rims plain as day. No way would they be so similar. Nothing to do with ego, it is just plain common sense. Hydrology has a large impact on this 50,000 year age variation claim. Uniform rim sounds like a completely different formation.
As for the dunes, they do change all the time. Especially things such as floods and hurricanes can wipe them out and they can reform. Just like when you go to the beach you can see ripples in the sand. These get wiped out with things like high tide and storms, then get reformed. A lot of these can occur in a 60,000 year period.
Wind fills holes. It doesn't make them. Same as water born erosion. 1000 years of erosion would be large scale and is a very long time at the coastal plain. The largest springs in Florida are the some of the largest in the world(+500,000 gallons per day) and even the depression they create(and maintain) is barely a 1/4 mile across. Recently spring flows have decreased as has the size of the depression the high water flows maintained. It takes tremendous forces to maintain any type of a hole or depression in the coastal plain. A 60,000 year old depression in the coastal soils would be far from elliptically shaped after even a 1000 years of erosion due to variations in the ground water and soil along the rim. These are impacts that are the same age and they are recent. It's the only way. This is a particularly good erosion example how quickly geological shaping can occur when hydrology is considered. Rapidly occurring massive hydrological events are recently being considered for much of the geological shaping on earth. Unfortunately the bays have little fossil evidence for accurate dating. No problem, a lack of erosion will date them as being recent. Traditional geology is quickly being proven wrong; for accurate dating follow the fossil trail as hydrological events transported them. Cyclically reversing massive tsunami events and land/ice dams are the new culprits for moving living organisms that became fossilized and causing layering on a mass scale internationally. Same method for proving evolution and same method for tracking tectonic history. It's all about the fossils. Rapid speed of fossilization is also opposing the traditional thinking that fossilization occurred over long periods of time. If you are a young geologist just graduating from school be very careful where you seek employment. The old school of thought does not get along with the new school of thought. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 24, 2022 8:52:55 GMT -5
No doubt that cosmic impacts likely caused the tsunami's. or tectonics...
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 24, 2022 18:34:13 GMT -5
Uniform rim sounds like a completely different formation.
As for the dunes, they do change all the time. Especially things such as floods and hurricanes can wipe them out and they can reform. Just like when you go to the beach you can see ripples in the sand. These get wiped out with things like high tide and storms, then get reformed. A lot of these can occur in a 60,000 year period.
Wind fills holes. It doesn't make them. Same as water born erosion. Actually both wind and water can create holes. I already posted a link for you with great examples of depressions that look a lot like the bays from New Mexico formed by wind. And if you want to see a lot of other great examples just come out here and go to the Valley of Fire. You will see thousands of holes formed in the sandstone by wind erosion. Like this example:
Here are more examples of wind erosion holes:
More examples:
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 24, 2022 18:37:29 GMT -5
No doubt that cosmic impacts likely caused the tsunami's. or tectonics... A tsunami would have formed if an impact occurred out in the ocean or very close to it.
If strong enough to cause tectonics, then it would have also been more than strong enough to form the shock deformation features I keep asking about, but that apparently do not exist giving more evidence against the ice ejecta hypothesis.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 25, 2022 5:44:17 GMT -5
Wind fills holes. It doesn't make them. Same as water born erosion. Actually both wind and water can create holes. I already posted a link for you with great examples of depressions that look a lot like the bays from New Mexico formed by wind. And if you want to see a lot of other great examples just come out here and go to the Valley of Fire. You will see thousands of holes formed in the sandstone by wind erosion. Like this example: Here are more examples of wind erosion holes: More examples:
Are we discussing holes in solid rock or holes in soft flat wetlands ?  |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 25, 2022 5:53:50 GMT -5
No doubt that cosmic impacts likely caused the tsunami's. or tectonics... A tsunami would have formed if an impact occurred out in the ocean or very close to it. If strong enough to cause tectonics, then it would have also been more than strong enough to form the shock deformation features I keep asking about, but that apparently do not exist giving more evidence against the ice ejecta hypothesis.
Shock deformation features occur with direct high speed impacts from meteors. Not likely with lower velocity ice ejecta. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 25, 2022 8:26:08 GMT -5
The bays were home to many early Natives. Interesting date conflicts. 13,000 year old artifacts in a place all life was wiped out 6000 years ago ? Again, the short comings of accurate dating is in conflict once again. There has always been arguments regarding the absolute ages of stone artifacts. As with the bays... Clovis points were certainly the oldest commonly found point. By layer anyway, always found in the lowest strata. Looks like this survey ended at the Mason Dixon line.  |
|
|
|
Post by Son Of Beach on Apr 25, 2022 8:31:06 GMT -5
I haven't been this undecided about which side to choose since Team Edward vs. Team Jacob.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 25, 2022 9:59:25 GMT -5
I haven't been this undecided about which side to choose since Team Edward vs. Team Jacob. It will be so obvious when someone breaks the case. I should have taken you advise back on the first page and also waited for someone(else) to break the case  . |
|
.
