Carleas,

It dawned on me that you are making the same mistake as Newton and a great many science philosophers ever since. Newton heard about the idea of a "gravity force", from Hooke I think it was. If the force called gravity was real, a certain reasoning would follow, a syllogism of logic. He then made measurements to verify the reasoning. Because his measurements turned out to substantiate the reasoning that stemmed from the idea of a gravity force, it became scientific LAW that gravity was due to the "force of gravity". Most people today still believe in that force of gravity because "it is proven".

But then later Einstein comes along and proposes the idea of Relativity. Einstein explains that the "force of gravity" supposedly reaching out to affect things at a distance doesn't really make much sense and what makes better sense is the idea that time and distance are merely relative to an observer. From that, the effect of gravity can be logically explained as a "warping of spacetime" rather than a "force of gravity". Again working out the logic, the syllogism, based upon the

assumption of warping rather than forcing, a proposed "theory" (rather than "law") is formed. Measurements are made that verify that the warping is even more accurate than the forcing. Einstein takes the forefront being the genius and "Father of

Modern Physics", putting Newton down.

In both cases, an assumption was made, logic was constructed, and measurements were made to confirm that the priori assumption was true. And in both cases, their assumptions turned out to actually be false. There is no gravity force, nether is spacetime warped.

You are doing that exact same thing with those puzzles. You begin with

"if we assume that ... then make this syllogism ... then we get a result that solves the puzzle. Therefore the assumption must have been true."That video that I showed spoke of the same issue, just because your theory (assumptions and following logic) matches the "puzzle constrictions" doesn't mean that your theory is correct. This is something that science has encountered enough to be very aware of at this time. Thus they demand "falsifiability", requiring that nothing counter could possibly be true. And that is what I am requiring of you in those puzzles, because I can already see possible counter true theories to the ones you propose.

If P -> Q

Q

therefore P

petitio principii

All I am really doing is demanding that you be modern-day scientific in your method.

..and I think that I'll make a separate thread for this.