in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
Why doesn't the night sky suddenly change when someone crosses the equator?
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
Do you have other evidences for aetheric teleportation and aether itself excluding "observational"?
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
Do you have other evidences for aetheric teleportation and aether itself excluding "observational"?
observational evidence is all that exists. if you can't learn from observation and deduction, how can you know anything?
i also suggest you read the thread to see my definition of aether. even you must concede it exists. does space exist?
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
Do you have other evidences for aetheric teleportation and aether itself excluding "observational"?
observational evidence is all that exists. if you can't learn from observation and deduction, how can you know anything?
i also suggest you read the thread to see my definition of aether. even you must concede it exists. does space exist?
How can you observe aether if (as you said) it can't be seen?
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
Do you have other evidences for aetheric teleportation and aether itself excluding "observational"?
observational evidence is all that exists. if you can't learn from observation and deduction, how can you know anything?
i also suggest you read the thread to see my definition of aether. even you must concede it exists. does space exist?
How can you observe aether if (as you said) it can't be seen?
we observe consequences. that's all we ever observe, even sight is a consequence of how something affects light.
aether is space, so it can't be seen, but clearly its consequences have effects.
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
Do you have other evidences for aetheric teleportation and aether itself excluding "observational"?
observational evidence is all that exists. if you can't learn from observation and deduction, how can you know anything?
i also suggest you read the thread to see my definition of aether. even you must concede it exists. does space exist?
How can you observe aether if (as you said) it can't be seen?
we observe consequences. that's all we ever observe, even sight is a consequence of how something affects light.
aether is space, so it can't be seen, but clearly its consequences have effects.
Aether is space? How do you know that? And - I thought - aether is something building space, not something being space itself.
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
Do you have other evidences for aetheric teleportation and aether itself excluding "observational"?
observational evidence is all that exists. if you can't learn from observation and deduction, how can you know anything?
i also suggest you read the thread to see my definition of aether. even you must concede it exists. does space exist?
How can you observe aether if (as you said) it can't be seen?
we observe consequences. that's all we ever observe, even sight is a consequence of how something affects light.
aether is space, so it can't be seen, but clearly its consequences have effects.
Aether is space? How do you know that? And - I thought - aether is something building space, not something being space itself.
what do you mean how do i know that? space exists, i call it aether so the ties with the more well-known flat earth theory are clearer. it is responsible for much of the same things (all of which make far more sense when you observe the role of aether can be filled by space).
space is the sum of its building blocks, the shorthand of calling it space works fine. space is composed of aether, so where there is more aether, there is more space. treating the two as the same makes the ideas clearer, for all but the most technical of issues.
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
Do you have other evidences for aetheric teleportation and aether itself excluding "observational"?
observational evidence is all that exists. if you can't learn from observation and deduction, how can you know anything?
i also suggest you read the thread to see my definition of aether. even you must concede it exists. does space exist?
How can you observe aether if (as you said) it can't be seen?
we observe consequences. that's all we ever observe, even sight is a consequence of how something affects light.
aether is space, so it can't be seen, but clearly its consequences have effects.
Aether is space? How do you know that? And - I thought - aether is something building space, not something being space itself.
what do you mean how do i know that? space exists, i call it aether so the ties with the more well-known flat earth theory are clearer. it is responsible for much of the same things (all of which make far more sense when you observe the role of aether can be filled by space).
space is the sum of its building blocks, the shorthand of calling it space works fine. space is composed of aether, so where there is more aether, there is more space. treating the two as the same makes the ideas clearer, for all but the most technical of issues.
How exactly do you know the aether is space and not something different? And yeah, I read a few posts of some users like Flat Brainer and he posted there a nice thing that space is just an empty place. I think the problem is your thinking - you think that space must be build of something, when it can not be.
And - why do you use passing through an equator as an evidence for teleportation? For me it's evidence for magical fairies which carry you 1 meter ahead.
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
Do you have other evidences for aetheric teleportation and aether itself excluding "observational"?
observational evidence is all that exists. if you can't learn from observation and deduction, how can you know anything?
i also suggest you read the thread to see my definition of aether. even you must concede it exists. does space exist?
How can you observe aether if (as you said) it can't be seen?
we observe consequences. that's all we ever observe, even sight is a consequence of how something affects light.
aether is space, so it can't be seen, but clearly its consequences have effects.
Aether is space? How do you know that? And - I thought - aether is something building space, not something being space itself.
what do you mean how do i know that? space exists, i call it aether so the ties with the more well-known flat earth theory are clearer. it is responsible for much of the same things (all of which make far more sense when you observe the role of aether can be filled by space).
space is the sum of its building blocks, the shorthand of calling it space works fine. space is composed of aether, so where there is more aether, there is more space. treating the two as the same makes the ideas clearer, for all but the most technical of issues.
How exactly do you know the aether is space and not something different? And yeah, I read a few posts of some users like Flat Brainer and he posted there a nice thing that space is just an empty place. I think the problem is your thinking - you think that space must be build of something, when it can not be.
And - why do you use passing through an equator as an evidence for teleportation? For me it's evidence for magical fairies which carry you 1 meter ahead.
i know that because i define space to be aether. they aren't two separate things, it's not a matter of how i know they're the same.
everything has to be made of something. surely that's clear? if there is a difference between space and non-space, then there must be some substance to space. space exists. all physicists agree space is made up of some spacetime, if you take their word.
the equator is evidence that there is a way we can cross the earth. i know the earth is not round for several reasons discussed before, which i have no desire to go into yet again here, i draw conclusions from what can be seen of the world, and what is known, after that. given that dual earth theory is the simplest model which accounts for all we see, with fewest assumptions, that provides a mark in favor of aetheric transmission at the equator.
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
Do you have other evidences for aetheric teleportation and aether itself excluding "observational"?
observational evidence is all that exists. if you can't learn from observation and deduction, how can you know anything?
i also suggest you read the thread to see my definition of aether. even you must concede it exists. does space exist?
How can you observe aether if (as you said) it can't be seen?
we observe consequences. that's all we ever observe, even sight is a consequence of how something affects light.
aether is space, so it can't be seen, but clearly its consequences have effects.
Aether is space? How do you know that? And - I thought - aether is something building space, not something being space itself.
what do you mean how do i know that? space exists, i call it aether so the ties with the more well-known flat earth theory are clearer. it is responsible for much of the same things (all of which make far more sense when you observe the role of aether can be filled by space).
space is the sum of its building blocks, the shorthand of calling it space works fine. space is composed of aether, so where there is more aether, there is more space. treating the two as the same makes the ideas clearer, for all but the most technical of issues.
How exactly do you know the aether is space and not something different? And yeah, I read a few posts of some users like Flat Brainer and he posted there a nice thing that space is just an empty place. I think the problem is your thinking - you think that space must be build of something, when it can not be.
And - why do you use passing through an equator as an evidence for teleportation? For me it's evidence for magical fairies which carry you 1 meter ahead.
i know that because i define space to be aether. they aren't two separate things, it's not a matter of how i know they're the same.
everything has to be made of something. surely that's clear? if there is a difference between space and non-space, then there must be some substance to space. space exists. all physicists agree space is made up of some spacetime, if you take their word.
the equator is evidence that there is a way we can cross the earth. i know the earth is not round for several reasons discussed before, which i have no desire to go into yet again here, i draw conclusions from what can be seen of the world, and what is known, after that. given that dual earth theory is the simplest model which accounts for all we see, with fewest assumptions, that provides a mark in favor of aetheric transmission at the equator.
Space is built of time, isn't that enough for you? Why?
And a personal question - what's the biggest evidence for flat Earth world for ya?
And - maybe I wasn't there - what about horizon problem?
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (https://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
Do you have other evidences for aetheric teleportation and aether itself excluding "observational"?
observational evidence is all that exists. if you can't learn from observation and deduction, how can you know anything?
i also suggest you read the thread to see my definition of aether. even you must concede it exists. does space exist?
How can you observe aether if (as you said) it can't be seen?
we observe consequences. that's all we ever observe, even sight is a consequence of how something affects light.
aether is space, so it can't be seen, but clearly its consequences have effects.
Aether is space? How do you know that? And - I thought - aether is something building space, not something being space itself.
what do you mean how do i know that? space exists, i call it aether so the ties with the more well-known flat earth theory are clearer. it is responsible for much of the same things (all of which make far more sense when you observe the role of aether can be filled by space).
space is the sum of its building blocks, the shorthand of calling it space works fine. space is composed of aether, so where there is more aether, there is more space. treating the two as the same makes the ideas clearer, for all but the most technical of issues.
How exactly do you know the aether is space and not something different? And yeah, I read a few posts of some users like Flat Brainer and he posted there a nice thing that space is just an empty place. I think the problem is your thinking - you think that space must be build of something, when it can not be.
And - why do you use passing through an equator as an evidence for teleportation? For me it's evidence for magical fairies which carry you 1 meter ahead.
i know that because i define space to be aether. they aren't two separate things, it's not a matter of how i know they're the same.
everything has to be made of something. surely that's clear? if there is a difference between space and non-space, then there must be some substance to space. space exists. all physicists agree space is made up of some spacetime, if you take their word.
the equator is evidence that there is a way we can cross the earth. i know the earth is not round for several reasons discussed before, which i have no desire to go into yet again here, i draw conclusions from what can be seen of the world, and what is known, after that. given that dual earth theory is the simplest model which accounts for all we see, with fewest assumptions, that provides a mark in favor of aetheric transmission at the equator.
Space is built of time, isn't that enough for you? Why?
And a personal question - what's the biggest evidence for flat Earth world for ya?
And - maybe I wasn't there - what about horizon problem?
you seem to be misunderstanding what i'm saying. i am not saying some brand new substance exists and just happens to create space. i am saying what we call space is made up of something, and that something i name aether. it doesn't matter if it's time or fairy dust, that is what i'm calling it.
there are many pieces of evidence for a flat earth. occam's razor renders dual earth theory preferable, for one. then there is the impossibility with a round earth forming, and how many elements contradict observation.
the horizon problem is one of the very first flat earth arguments to be debunked, since rowbotham. the usual response holds.
Your work on Dual Earth Theory is extremely impressive...
... and I encourage you to keep up the research and continue to expand upon it because I think you have something really groundbreaking here.
DET is probably the most well-developed Earth theory on this forum, including RET.
Sure, some of it is based on observational evidence (which isn't a bad thing) which will keep RE'er skeptical, but I think DET explains more than the generic Flat Earth Model and even RET.
I don't care about being laughed at...
If I stand exactly on the equator, is half my brain on one side of the earth, and the other on the other? Surely this can't be good for you?
If I stand exactly on the equator, is half my brain on one side of the earth, and the other on the other? Surely this can't be good for you?
If I stand exactly on the equator, is half my brain on one side of the earth, and the other on the other? Surely this can't be good for you?
why wouldn't it be? the transmission at the equator is simply due to thin space. when you're partway over, there's technically still no distance between the halves of your brain.
as for the rest of you, please stop polluting the thread. this is meant to be a place where people can ask and learn about dual earth theory rather than doing as you are, and rejecting it out of hand. if you have a question which you believe exposes a hole, ask it, don't just act smug and superior when you've lost an argument.
If I stand exactly on the equator, is half my brain on one side of the earth, and the other on the other? Surely this can't be good for you?
why wouldn't it be? the transmission at the equator is simply due to thin space. when you're partway over, there's technically still no distance between the halves of your brain.
as for the rest of you, please stop polluting the thread. this is meant to be a place where people can ask and learn about dual earth theory rather than doing as you are, and rejecting it out of hand. if you have a question which you believe exposes a hole, ask it, don't just act smug and superior when you've lost an argument.
Do you have an evidence that Earth is flat? Because from what I know the only your evidence is that we see the Earth is flat, but come on, that was debunked.
If I stand exactly on the equator, is half my brain on one side of the earth, and the other on the other? Surely this can't be good for you?
why wouldn't it be? the transmission at the equator is simply due to thin space. when you're partway over, there's technically still no distance between the halves of your brain.
as for the rest of you, please stop polluting the thread. this is meant to be a place where people can ask and learn about dual earth theory rather than doing as you are, and rejecting it out of hand. if you have a question which you believe exposes a hole, ask it, don't just act smug and superior when you've lost an argument.
Do you have an evidence that Earth is flat? Because from what I know the only your evidence is that we see the Earth is flat, but come on, that was debunked.
i have offered several pieces of evidence in this thread alone, in posts directed to you no less, and 'because we see the earth is flat' was not one of them.
please read the thread. i am writing to try and educate, it's pointless if you're going to ignore it.
i also suggest you educate yourself on observation, deduction, and occam's razor, in addition to the points i have made.
If I stand exactly on the equator, is half my brain on one side of the earth, and the other on the other? Surely this can't be good for you?
why wouldn't it be? the transmission at the equator is simply due to thin space. when you're partway over, there's technically still no distance between the halves of your brain.
as for the rest of you, please stop polluting the thread. this is meant to be a place where people can ask and learn about dual earth theory rather than doing as you are, and rejecting it out of hand. if you have a question which you believe exposes a hole, ask it, don't just act smug and superior when you've lost an argument.
Do you have an evidence that Earth is flat? Because from what I know the only your evidence is that we see the Earth is flat, but come on, that was debunked.
i have offered several pieces of evidence in this thread alone, in posts directed to you no less, and 'because we see the earth is flat' was not one of them.
please read the thread. i am writing to try and educate, it's pointless if you're going to ignore it.
i also suggest you educate yourself on observation, deduction, and occam's razor, in addition to the points i have made.
I sometimes see the Earth is round and I know it's round by observation, deduction and occam's razor. Do you have eyes? Look out the window! Earth is round!
BTW: You know there's a company like Virgin Galactic?
If I stand exactly on the equator, is half my brain on one side of the earth, and the other on the other? Surely this can't be good for you?
why wouldn't it be? the transmission at the equator is simply due to thin space. when you're partway over, there's technically still no distance between the halves of your brain.
as for the rest of you, please stop polluting the thread. this is meant to be a place where people can ask and learn about dual earth theory rather than doing as you are, and rejecting it out of hand. if you have a question which you believe exposes a hole, ask it, don't just act smug and superior when you've lost an argument.
Do you have an evidence that Earth is flat? Because from what I know the only your evidence is that we see the Earth is flat, but come on, that was debunked.
i have offered several pieces of evidence in this thread alone, in posts directed to you no less, and 'because we see the earth is flat' was not one of them.
please read the thread. i am writing to try and educate, it's pointless if you're going to ignore it.
i also suggest you educate yourself on observation, deduction, and occam's razor, in addition to the points i have made.
I sometimes see the Earth is round and I know it's round by observation, deduction and occam's razor. Do you have eyes? Look out the window! Earth is round!
BTW: You know there's a company like Virgin Galactic?
are you able to do anything other than mount straw men?
don't change the topic. supposed space tourism is a topic for another thread. this one is exclusively about dual earth theory.
Don't change the topic. Supposed space tourism is a topic for another thread. This one is exclusively about dual earth theory.
Could you please define what you mean by "space"?
Ok, I really try to understand your conception of space. But I am not sure if I get it, what you mean by "thinner or "thicker" or "space has infinite speed".
As I understand, with "thickness" of space you do not mean something like spatial dimension.
Let me ask you the following.
If B is the "Thickness" of Space, can B=0?
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Are the undersiders evil?
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
Thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area.
A spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it.
t I think DET explains more than the generic Flat Earth Model and even RET.Please tell me something which DET explains better than RET. I'm all ears.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
t I think DET explains more than the generic Flat Earth Model and even RET.Please tell me something which DET explains better than RET. I'm all ears.
Your terminology is really confusing, for on one side you equal aether with space, on the other side you distinguish them, leading to statements like "in thinner space there is less space in space". But I see that the connection between them two is very profound. Is it like that:
If the thickness of space = the amount of aether in a given area would be = 0, that would mean, that we could pass through an arbitrarily large area of such an "empty space" within a time span t=0, so that the spatial dimension of this area would effectively be 0, too. So there is a direct proportion between the Aetherial Density and the effective Spatial Dimension of an area. Is that right?
But if so, wouldn't that mean that the observed Aetherial Density (AD) would always be the same? For the more we stretch the space, the smaller it gets for us, due to the inverse proportionality between the AD of an area and the time we need to pass it.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
Its density is still the same.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
Its density is still the same.
exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.
to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
Its density is still the same.
exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.
to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.
No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
Its density is still the same.
exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.
to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.
No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.
of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.
regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
Its density is still the same.
exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.
to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.
No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.
of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.
regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.
Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
Its density is still the same.
exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.
to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.
No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.
of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.
regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.
Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.
an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.
this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
Its density is still the same.
exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.
to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.
No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.
of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.
regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.
Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.
an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.
this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.
I'll ask you - how do you imagine a thinner or thicker space? For me space is just an empty place to put matter in. Look for it - universe expands. By universe, I mean space creating universe. How it expands? It makes something that don't exist exist. In our universe everything exist, out of our universe there is a world of non-existence. And space brings existence right there. And that's what pulls a difference between space and a "thing" out of our universe. Space and a "thing" out of our universe isn't made of matter, but space is the thing that exists and brings existence and the "thing" out of our universe is non=existing, just nothing there.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
Its density is still the same.
exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.
to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.
No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.
of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.
regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.
Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.
an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.
this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.
I'll ask you - how do you imagine a thinner or thicker space? For me space is just an empty place to put matter in. Look for it - universe expands. By universe, I mean space creating universe. How it expands? It makes something that don't exist exist. In our universe everything exist, out of our universe there is a world of non-existence. And space brings existence right there. And that's what pulls a difference between space and a "thing" out of our universe. Space and a "thing" out of our universe isn't made of matter, but space is the thing that exists and brings existence and the "thing" out of our universe is non=existing, just nothing there.
and given that there is a difference between space and non-space, there is clearly some substance to space: something must make it up. it's just a matter of how concentrated that is.
beyond that, i refer you to the spring analogy. you seem to be under the impression that just because something is higher-dimensional and tricky to visualize means it's false.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
Its density is still the same.
exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.
to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.
No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.
of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.
regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.
Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.
an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.
this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.
I'll ask you - how do you imagine a thinner or thicker space? For me space is just an empty place to put matter in. Look for it - universe expands. By universe, I mean space creating universe. How it expands? It makes something that don't exist exist. In our universe everything exist, out of our universe there is a world of non-existence. And space brings existence right there. And that's what pulls a difference between space and a "thing" out of our universe. Space and a "thing" out of our universe isn't made of matter, but space is the thing that exists and brings existence and the "thing" out of our universe is non=existing, just nothing there.
and given that there is a difference between space and non-space, there is clearly some substance to space: something must make it up. it's just a matter of how concentrated that is.
beyond that, i refer you to the spring analogy. you seem to be under the impression that just because something is higher-dimensional and tricky to visualize means it's false.
You're assuming that something must make it up, try again with no assuming.
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
Its density is still the same.
exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.
to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.
No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.
of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.
regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.
Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.
an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.
this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.
I'll ask you - how do you imagine a thinner or thicker space? For me space is just an empty place to put matter in. Look for it - universe expands. By universe, I mean space creating universe. How it expands? It makes something that don't exist exist. In our universe everything exist, out of our universe there is a world of non-existence. And space brings existence right there. And that's what pulls a difference between space and a "thing" out of our universe. Space and a "thing" out of our universe isn't made of matter, but space is the thing that exists and brings existence and the "thing" out of our universe is non=existing, just nothing there.
and given that there is a difference between space and non-space, there is clearly some substance to space: something must make it up. it's just a matter of how concentrated that is.
beyond that, i refer you to the spring analogy. you seem to be under the impression that just because something is higher-dimensional and tricky to visualize means it's false.
You're assuming that something must make it up, try again with no assuming.
is space is not composed of anything, then it is composed of nothing, so it does not exist.
space exists, so it is composed of something.
is that really the best you've got?
tell me how something can be made up of nothing (that is, not made up of anything) and there still be a difference between whether or not it exists, and your post will mean something.
distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter.I don't get the analogy; you can tell how much matter there is in a given volume if you know the density (or calculate the density given the mass and volume). The common (somewhat informal) definition of distance is "space between points".
and given that there is a difference between space and non-spaceWhat is non-space, and how does it differ from space?
space is technically made of spacetimeThis is either VERY wrong or you are redefining terms. Spacetime is an abstract concept; mathematically, it's a manifold with some metric. You are thinking of space as something material, which is not, and therefore it does not need to be composed of anything
thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area
Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.
it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.
You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.
you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.
Its density is still the same.
exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.
to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.
No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.
of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.
regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.
Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.
an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.
this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.
I'll ask you - how do you imagine a thinner or thicker space? For me space is just an empty place to put matter in. Look for it - universe expands. By universe, I mean space creating universe. How it expands? It makes something that don't exist exist. In our universe everything exist, out of our universe there is a world of non-existence. And space brings existence right there. And that's what pulls a difference between space and a "thing" out of our universe. Space and a "thing" out of our universe isn't made of matter, but space is the thing that exists and brings existence and the "thing" out of our universe is non=existing, just nothing there.
and given that there is a difference between space and non-space, there is clearly some substance to space: something must make it up. it's just a matter of how concentrated that is.
beyond that, i refer you to the spring analogy. you seem to be under the impression that just because something is higher-dimensional and tricky to visualize means it's false.
You're assuming that something must make it up, try again with no assuming.
is space is not composed of anything, then it is composed of nothing, so it does not exist.
space exists, so it is composed of something.
is that really the best you've got?
tell me how something can be made up of nothing (that is, not made up of anything) and there still be a difference between whether or not it exists, and your post will mean something.
Only material things have to be built of something to exist, space has not. Space is an empty place - how can an empty place to fill up be built of something? It can't.
I asked you to define space because your terminology is incredibly confusing.Quotedistance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter.I don't get the analogy; you can tell how much matter there is in a given volume if you know the density (or calculate the density given the mass and volume). The common (somewhat informal) definition of distance is "space between points".Quoteand given that there is a difference between space and non-spaceWhat is non-space, and how does it differ from space?Quotespace is technically made of spacetimeThis is either VERY wrong or you are redefining terms. Spacetime is an abstract concept; mathematically, it's a manifold with some metric. You are thinking of space as something material, which is not, and therefore it does not need to be composed of anything
distance is space between points. clearly, that depends on space.Now I'm beginning to understand, and by "space" I think you mean different topologies with different metrics. This is fine, the distance between two points can change.
like the analogy of a spring. you can get a pulled-out spring, and the length of the spring, along the material making it up, is set. compress the spring, it can fit in a smaller space that the stretched-out spring, but the length of it remains the same.But then it fails. You can call it thick or thinner as you want, but that only leads to confusion; also, that analogy only works if moving along the spring is the only option. Again, if space streches or compresses, the distances between points should follow. I'm still not sure why you're claiming otherwise.
in that way, space can be thinner or thick. the density of the spring is constant each time, in the same way the time it takes to cross a certain amount of space remains the same. however, you can stretch out that space (like you stretch out the spring) so you can cover what seems to be, from an outside perspective, more distance, in the same time as it would take you to cross the compressed spring.
i am not thinking of space as a material, it's just very hard to explain it without relying on analogy.This is a common misconception; when scientists say space is expanding, what they mean is that the distance between any two points is increasing with time. And space is not expanding into anything, it's simply expanding: things that are a given distance at this moment will be further apart later on.
space does have to be composed of some substance however, if it exists. scientific theory states space is expanding: what does that mean? if space is nothing, how could it expand? there is clearly a difference between space and non-space. non-space is what space expands into: non-space, essentially, doesn't exist (by any definition we could use).
space does exist: space is not nothing. if you disagree with either of those statements, please tell me why. if you do agree, as you should, then all i've said follows. if space is not nothing, then it is something.Space is not nothing, but it is abstract, at least in the normal sense of the word (as in spacetime, Euclidian space, etc.). Therefore it's not nothing, but it also doesn't have substance
that something is not matter, is higher-dimensional, but it clearly exists.
does space expand? you've said so, so there must be some concept of non-space. if space isn't made up of anything, what's the difference?
it's that simple. space is an empty place because you define emptiness to include space. there is clearly an emptiness with no space however, if space is expanding.
Here's a question about dual earth theory:
If light can be teleported from one side of the disc to the other, how does aether accomplish this without interacting with the photons?
Quotedistance is space between points. clearly, that depends on space.Now I'm beginning to understand, and by "space" I think you mean different topologies with different metrics. This is fine, the distance between two points can change.Quotelike the analogy of a spring. you can get a pulled-out spring, and the length of the spring, along the material making it up, is set. compress the spring, it can fit in a smaller space that the stretched-out spring, but the length of it remains the same.But then it fails. You can call it thick or thinner as you want, but that only leads to confusion; also, that analogy only works if moving along the spring is the only option. Again, if space streches or compresses, the distances between points should follow. I'm still not sure why you're claiming otherwise.
in that way, space can be thinner or thick. the density of the spring is constant each time, in the same way the time it takes to cross a certain amount of space remains the same. however, you can stretch out that space (like you stretch out the spring) so you can cover what seems to be, from an outside perspective, more distance, in the same time as it would take you to cross the compressed spring.Quotei am not thinking of space as a material, it's just very hard to explain it without relying on analogy.This is a common misconception; when scientists say space is expanding, what they mean is that the distance between any two points is increasing with time. And space is not expanding into anything, it's simply expanding: things that are a given distance at this moment will be further apart later on.
space does have to be composed of some substance however, if it exists. scientific theory states space is expanding: what does that mean? if space is nothing, how could it expand? there is clearly a difference between space and non-space. non-space is what space expands into: non-space, essentially, doesn't exist (by any definition we could use).Quotespace does exist: space is not nothing. if you disagree with either of those statements, please tell me why. if you do agree, as you should, then all i've said follows. if space is not nothing, then it is something.Space is not nothing, but it is abstract, at least in the normal sense of the word (as in spacetime, Euclidian space, etc.). Therefore it's not nothing, but it also doesn't have substance
that something is not matter, is higher-dimensional, but it clearly exists.
Question: how do you know all this stuff about the dual earth, two suns, aether etc?
To use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. Now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. It now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.
Question: how do you know all this stuff about the dual earth, two suns, aether etc?
observation, communication and deduction.
The aether talks.Question: how do you know all this stuff about the dual earth, two suns, aether etc?
observation, communication and deduction.
Communication? I thought this was solely you own idea. Who have you been communicating with?
The aether talks.
I asked him once, no answer. Does it speak anything but english?
This thread is for questions for JRowe.
I'll restate my question. Who have you been communicating with over this?
I asked him once, no answer. Does it speak anything but english?
it doesn't speak in a language, as such. i interpret it as english, as that's what i speak, but it imparts meaning universally.
I asked him once, no answer. Does it speak anything but english?
it doesn't speak in a language, as such. i interpret it as english, as that's what i speak, but it imparts meaning universally.
I know that Earth is round because of communication between gravity. You don't have to believe me, but it's true. I communicate with gravity by telepatic forces, which are coming to my brain and then are translated into Polish, because most probably gravity talks only in Polish.
After all, gravity relies on mass, and minds do not possess mass.
After all, gravity relies on mass, and minds do not possess mass.
Well, that's certainly true in JRoweSceptimatic's case... as he's proven numerous times here. ;D ;D ;D
I have a question....
Have you ever actually been to the equator and if so, when?
I am trying to have a serious discussion, and to educate. Stop wasting everyone's time.
I am trying to have a serious discussion, and to educate. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Uh... haven't you yet noticed that people are taking the piss out of you—and your nonsensical notions about the "aether"? Surely you're not so dimwitted that you think anybody's taking all your pseudo-scientific drivel seriously? Or are you?
—BTW, I thought you had me in your IGNORE listing? Just can't resist occasionally learning a bit of real science can you LOL.
Okay....
And have you physically been to both hemispheres and both poles?
Are you implying that the mind is not in the brain, but a phenomenon that has nothing to do with electrical currents?
Except for the experiments we've done on rats to control their consciousness using lasers and genetically modified viruses to make certain cells susceptible to said lasers.
I asked him once, no answer. Does it speak anything but english?
it doesn't speak in a language, as such. i interpret it as english, as that's what i speak, but it imparts meaning universally.
I know that Earth is round because of communication between gravity. You don't have to believe me, but it's true. I communicate with gravity by telepatic forces, which are coming to my brain and then are translated into Polish, because most probably gravity talks only in Polish.
not only does gravity not exist, but there is no reason to think it could be in communication with a mind. after all, gravity relies on mass, and minds do not possess mass. there is also nothing to set polish as anything universal's chosen language. you're being ridiculous.
I asked him once, no answer. Does it speak anything but english?
it doesn't speak in a language, as such. i interpret it as english, as that's what i speak, but it imparts meaning universally.
I know that Earth is round because of communication between gravity. You don't have to believe me, but it's true. I communicate with gravity by telepatic forces, which are coming to my brain and then are translated into Polish, because most probably gravity talks only in Polish.
Well it would stand to reason that if you want to call this a theory (which it isn't, by definition) it would mean you've collected data and studied it quite a bit.
Since this is something that involves the entire planet.....I can only assume it would be rational to have observed as much of the planet as possible to observe reality versus just making stuff up.
But that's just me....being silly.
I mean you've established this "theory" in less than a month and based on the number of posts here I can only assume you've done much of your work sitting at a computer......which seems to be the exact opposite way one would come up with an idea on how the world must be shaped and how the physics work.
I asked him once, no answer. Does it speak anything but english?
it doesn't speak in a language, as such. i interpret it as english, as that's what i speak, but it imparts meaning universally.
I know that Earth is round because of communication between gravity. You don't have to believe me, but it's true. I communicate with gravity by telepatic forces, which are coming to my brain and then are translated into Polish, because most probably gravity talks only in Polish.
not only does gravity not exist, but there is no reason to think it could be in communication with a mind. after all, gravity relies on mass, and minds do not possess mass. there is also nothing to set polish as anything universal's chosen language. you're being ridiculous.
How gravity doesn't exist? I communicated with it. As you see, I had a telepatic communication with gravity, not with aether, so aether doesn't have forces as you say, so aether doesn't exist. Gravity relies on mass, that's true. When there's an object with more mass, it has stronger gravity. My mission is to contact with soul of Sun's gravity, which is stronger than a soul of our Earth gravity. Stronger means better educated and with bigger chance to unhid a secret truth. I will show a diagram how communicating with gravity works. And yes, its language is Polish, I don't know why. I'll probably have an answer when I'll communicate with the Sun, because it's stronger.
Except for the experiments we've done on rats to control their consciousness using lasers and genetically modified viruses to make certain cells susceptible to said lasers.
our bodies rely on our bodies, what's your point? the mind still exists independently, the brain is a conduit which connects it to our physical bodies.
really, look up qualia, this is an expansive field of study. it's well known that purely physical phenomenon cannot be responsible for what our minds experience.
I asked him once, no answer. Does it speak anything but english?
it doesn't speak in a language, as such. i interpret it as english, as that's what i speak, but it imparts meaning universally.
I know that Earth is round because of communication between gravity. You don't have to believe me, but it's true. I communicate with gravity by telepatic forces, which are coming to my brain and then are translated into Polish, because most probably gravity talks only in Polish.
not only does gravity not exist, but there is no reason to think it could be in communication with a mind. after all, gravity relies on mass, and minds do not possess mass. there is also nothing to set polish as anything universal's chosen language. you're being ridiculous.
How gravity doesn't exist? I communicated with it. As you see, I had a telepatic communication with gravity, not with aether, so aether doesn't have forces as you say, so aether doesn't exist. Gravity relies on mass, that's true. When there's an object with more mass, it has stronger gravity. My mission is to contact with soul of Sun's gravity, which is stronger than a soul of our Earth gravity. Stronger means better educated and with bigger chance to unhid a secret truth. I will show a diagram how communicating with gravity works. And yes, its language is Polish, I don't know why. I'll probably have an answer when I'll communicate with the Sun, because it's stronger.
this is a thread to discuss dual earth theory. if you have nothing that isn't facetious delusion to add, do not post.
you round earthers are always complaining i don't explain my theory, yet when i try to make a thread to make it easier to explain, you're first in line to try and ruin it. what's wrong with you?
Well it would stand to reason that if you want to call this a theory (which it isn't, by definition) it would mean you've collected data and studied it quite a bit.
Since this is something that involves the entire planet.....I can only assume it would be rational to have observed as much of the planet as possible to observe reality versus just making stuff up.
But that's just me....being silly.
I mean you've established this "theory" in less than a month and based on the number of posts here I can only assume you've done much of your work sitting at a computer......which seems to be the exact opposite way one would come up with an idea on how the world must be shaped and how the physics work.
i have given the reasons i hold to this theory in this thread and over this forum multiple times, you are saying nothing new.
it is entirely possible to make deductions. it is that simple. physical travel is far less meaningful in this day and age, and there is nothing to be gained from physically examining random countries.
Except for the experiments we've done on rats to control their consciousness using lasers and genetically modified viruses to make certain cells susceptible to said lasers.
our bodies rely on our bodies, what's your point? the mind still exists independently, the brain is a conduit which connects it to our physical bodies.
really, look up qualia, this is an expansive field of study. it's well known that purely physical phenomenon cannot be responsible for what our minds experience.
If the mind exists independently.....why has no one ever survived a fatal gun shot wound to the brain?
Well it would stand to reason that if you want to call this a theory (which it isn't, by definition) it would mean you've collected data and studied it quite a bit.
Since this is something that involves the entire planet.....I can only assume it would be rational to have observed as much of the planet as possible to observe reality versus just making stuff up.
But that's just me....being silly.
I mean you've established this "theory" in less than a month and based on the number of posts here I can only assume you've done much of your work sitting at a computer......which seems to be the exact opposite way one would come up with an idea on how the world must be shaped and how the physics work.
i have given the reasons i hold to this theory in this thread and over this forum multiple times, you are saying nothing new.
it is entirely possible to make deductions. it is that simple. physical travel is far less meaningful in this day and age, and there is nothing to be gained from physically examining random countries.
I didn't say anything about examining countries.
I'm talking about examining the earth.
You talk a lot about the stars in your idea........have to physically observed them from different points on the globe?
Scepti........you accuse people of believing only what they are told all the time..........yet you want everyone here to believe you....because you're telling them?
Stop calling this a theory. You've done no experiments and have zero physical evidence. Let's call this what it is scepti.......a made up idea from a childish mind.
Except for the experiments we've done on rats to control their consciousness using lasers and genetically modified viruses to make certain cells susceptible to said lasers.
our bodies rely on our bodies, what's your point? the mind still exists independently, the brain is a conduit which connects it to our physical bodies.
really, look up qualia, this is an expansive field of study. it's well known that purely physical phenomenon cannot be responsible for what our minds experience.
If the mind exists independently.....why has no one ever survived a fatal gun shot wound to the brain?
because without the brain, the mind has no connection to the body.
Question:
Of your various observations, which ones specifically suggest a dual earth is more likely than a round earth?
Well it would stand to reason that if you want to call this a theory (which it isn't, by definition) it would mean you've collected data and studied it quite a bit.
Since this is something that involves the entire planet.....I can only assume it would be rational to have observed as much of the planet as possible to observe reality versus just making stuff up.
But that's just me....being silly.
I mean you've established this "theory" in less than a month and based on the number of posts here I can only assume you've done much of your work sitting at a computer......which seems to be the exact opposite way one would come up with an idea on how the world must be shaped and how the physics work.
i have given the reasons i hold to this theory in this thread and over this forum multiple times, you are saying nothing new.
it is entirely possible to make deductions. it is that simple. physical travel is far less meaningful in this day and age, and there is nothing to be gained from physically examining random countries.
I didn't say anything about examining countries.
I'm talking about examining the earth.
You talk a lot about the stars in your idea........have to physically observed them from different points on the globe?
Scepti........you accuse people of believing only what they are told all the time..........yet you want everyone here to believe you....because you're telling them?
Stop calling this a theory. You've done no experiments and have zero physical evidence. Let's call this what it is scepti.......a made up idea from a childish mind.
i am not sceptimatic, why do you people keep saying that? i know who i am. if i already had an account, i wouldn't end up making another to start saying that the world's flat. i disagree with sceptimatic on multiple counts, and i've changed my mind. just stop saying that, ok? it's just getting annoying now.
i am relying on deduction. seriously, try to read.
if you have nothing to say that you didn't just make up on the spot, stop posting.
Yes, but qualia implies the brain does not control the mind, correct? But we can make decisions for the rats, make them hungry, make them eat, turn off their empathy.
Question:
Of your various observations, which ones specifically suggest a dual earth is more likely than a round earth?
the dual earth model requires fewer assumptions (outlined earlier in the thread), round earth theory has no explanation for aether or the non-existence of air, and doesn't justify how the sun and moon apparently work. the sun is far more round than it should be, which even scientists admit, and apparently throws material magically made non-radioactive at the earth according to people on this forum, and the moon is apparently glowing rock.
Well it would stand to reason that if you want to call this a theory (which it isn't, by definition) it would mean you've collected data and studied it quite a bit.
Since this is something that involves the entire planet.....I can only assume it would be rational to have observed as much of the planet as possible to observe reality versus just making stuff up.
But that's just me....being silly.
I mean you've established this "theory" in less than a month and based on the number of posts here I can only assume you've done much of your work sitting at a computer......which seems to be the exact opposite way one would come up with an idea on how the world must be shaped and how the physics work.
i have given the reasons i hold to this theory in this thread and over this forum multiple times, you are saying nothing new.
it is entirely possible to make deductions. it is that simple. physical travel is far less meaningful in this day and age, and there is nothing to be gained from physically examining random countries.
I didn't say anything about examining countries.
I'm talking about examining the earth.
You talk a lot about the stars in your idea........have to physically observed them from different points on the globe?
Scepti........you accuse people of believing only what they are told all the time..........yet you want everyone here to believe you....because you're telling them?
Stop calling this a theory. You've done no experiments and have zero physical evidence. Let's call this what it is scepti.......a made up idea from a childish mind.
i am not sceptimatic, why do you people keep saying that? i know who i am. if i already had an account, i wouldn't end up making another to start saying that the world's flat. i disagree with sceptimatic on multiple counts, and i've changed my mind. just stop saying that, ok? it's just getting annoying now.
i am relying on deduction. seriously, try to read.
if you have nothing to say that you didn't just make up on the spot, stop posting.
It's quite obvious you're sceptimatic. You've done a piss poor job trying to pretend you're not.
What deductions have led you to believe what you believe?
Please elaborate.
Well it would stand to reason that if you want to call this a theory (which it isn't, by definition) it would mean you've collected data and studied it quite a bit.
Since this is something that involves the entire planet.....I can only assume it would be rational to have observed as much of the planet as possible to observe reality versus just making stuff up.
But that's just me....being silly.
I mean you've established this "theory" in less than a month and based on the number of posts here I can only assume you've done much of your work sitting at a computer......which seems to be the exact opposite way one would come up with an idea on how the world must be shaped and how the physics work.
i have given the reasons i hold to this theory in this thread and over this forum multiple times, you are saying nothing new.
it is entirely possible to make deductions. it is that simple. physical travel is far less meaningful in this day and age, and there is nothing to be gained from physically examining random countries.
I didn't say anything about examining countries.
I'm talking about examining the earth.
You talk a lot about the stars in your idea........have to physically observed them from different points on the globe?
Scepti........you accuse people of believing only what they are told all the time..........yet you want everyone here to believe you....because you're telling them?
Stop calling this a theory. You've done no experiments and have zero physical evidence. Let's call this what it is scepti.......a made up idea from a childish mind.
i am not sceptimatic, why do you people keep saying that? i know who i am. if i already had an account, i wouldn't end up making another to start saying that the world's flat. i disagree with sceptimatic on multiple counts, and i've changed my mind. just stop saying that, ok? it's just getting annoying now.
i am relying on deduction. seriously, try to read.
if you have nothing to say that you didn't just make up on the spot, stop posting.
It's quite obvious you're sceptimatic. You've done a piss poor job trying to pretend you're not.
What deductions have led you to believe what you believe?
Please elaborate.
that just makes you an idiot. you haven't read the thread. if you had, you'd see the answers. learn to read.
report me to the mods, if i'm sceptimatic. get them to check my ip. just stop it, ok? this is getting beyond a joke, i am tired of having my theories reduced as though i am someone else.
my theory differs greatly. how am i at all like him?
Yes, but qualia implies the brain does not control the mind, correct? But we can make decisions for the rats, make them hungry, make them eat, turn off their empathy.
that's because the body requires the brain to interpret the mind. i have said this, the brain is a conduit.
umurweird, i have. look up qualia, do the slightest bit of research. no one's even addressed that.
Question:
Of your various observations, which ones specifically suggest a dual earth is more likely than a round earth?
the dual earth model requires fewer assumptions (outlined earlier in the thread), round earth theory has no explanation for aether or the non-existence of air, and doesn't justify how the sun and moon apparently work. the sun is far more round than it should be, which even scientists admit, and apparently throws material magically made non-radioactive at the earth according to people on this forum, and the moon is apparently glowing rock.
The dual earth model has many more assumptions.....aether (not provable) two suns (ridiculous) and so on.
Air does indeed exist.
Not to mention we've seen pictures of the earth from space.
Occam's razor.........the earth is spherical.
Yes, but qualia implies the brain does not control the mind, correct? But we can make decisions for the rats, make them hungry, make them eat, turn off their empathy.
that's because the body requires the brain to interpret the mind. i have said this, the brain is a conduit.
umurweird, i have. look up qualia, do the slightest bit of research. no one's even addressed that.
I learned about qualia while studying philosophy at the university around 25 years ago scepti.
Thanks.
that just makes you an idiot. you haven't read the thread. if you had, you'd see the answers. learn to read.
report me to the mods, if i'm sceptimatic. get them to check my ip. just stop it, ok? this is getting beyond a joke, i am tired of having my theories reduced as though i am someone else.
my theory differs greatly. how am i at all like him?
Quotethat just makes you an idiot. you haven't read the thread. if you had, you'd see the answers. learn to read.
report me to the mods, if i'm sceptimatic. get them to check my ip. just stop it, ok? this is getting beyond a joke, i am tired of having my theories reduced as though i am someone else.
my theory differs greatly. how am i at all like him?
Again, you don't have a theory. You have a made up idea.
And.....it's real simple actually. You ran your ice dome idea into the ground along with den pressure and everything else so had to move on to something new.
And now you're running this into the ground and getting proved wrong on everything.
Your ideas are being reduced because they don't add up. At all.
Yes, but qualia implies the brain does not control the mind, correct? But we can make decisions for the rats, make them hungry, make them eat, turn off their empathy.
that's because the body requires the brain to interpret the mind. i have said this, the brain is a conduit.
umurweird, i have. look up qualia, do the slightest bit of research. no one's even addressed that.
I learned about qualia while studying philosophy at the university around 25 years ago scepti.
Thanks.
then you'd know your question has been answered.
go fuck yourself.
There are no spirits, there are no ghosts, there are no demons. If I can control the mind from the brain, then the mind is the brain, as it does not exist without it.
i am happy to change my mind. i have done so. if you have nothing of any substance to add, stop posting. i am sick of you.
aether is space, in my model. space exists. that is one example of why what your'e saying is tired old bs. just stop posting until you have the slightest inkling of what it is you're talking about.
Yes, but qualia implies the brain does not control the mind, correct? But we can make decisions for the rats, make them hungry, make them eat, turn off their empathy.
that's because the body requires the brain to interpret the mind. i have said this, the brain is a conduit.
umurweird, i have. look up qualia, do the slightest bit of research. no one's even addressed that.
I learned about qualia while studying philosophy at the university around 25 years ago scepti.
Thanks.
then you'd know your question has been answered.
go fuck yourself.
Qualia is philosophy, not science. And it deals with the conscious and the way things SEEM to be.
It's not what you're making it.
And.....that just isn't polite. You should be ashamed.
There are no spirits, there are no ghosts, there are no demons. If I can control the mind from the brain, then the mind is the brain, as it does not exist without it.
try to actually address the points i've made rather than making shit up.
philosophy (in this case) is deduction based on observation. that's science, it's just focused on different topics. no one has even begun to address how qualia could exist with a material mind, despite being repeatedly asked. notice that.
what isn't polite is you repeatedly ignoring me and trying to ignore my theories based on your pretense that i am someone else, and constantly doing it just because you know it annoys me. i am entirely justified in telling you to go fuck yourself, and i'll do it again.
go fuck yourself, asshole.
you aren't saying anything. you're asking for evidence that space exists now, and you've ignored every piece of evidence i have offered in the course of this thread. you're a waste of time.
Quotephilosophy (in this case) is deduction based on observation. that's science, it's just focused on different topics. no one has even begun to address how qualia could exist with a material mind, despite being repeatedly asked. notice that.
what isn't polite is you repeatedly ignoring me and trying to ignore my theories based on your pretense that i am someone else, and constantly doing it just because you know it annoys me. i am entirely justified in telling you to go fuck yourself, and i'll do it again.
go fuck yourself, asshole.
you aren't saying anything. you're asking for evidence that space exists now, and you've ignored every piece of evidence i have offered in the course of this thread. you're a waste of time.
Philosophy is a thought system based on investigation and study. It's not science.
Qualia has been studied and discussed for a very long time.
Even Schrodinger wrote about it.
All it really is........is a way to explain the way things seem to be.
I'm not ignoring you. I'm arguing against you. And doing quite well apparently because you are rather annoyed at this point.
You claim air doesn't exist, but aether does.
You claim air is an assumption and aether isn't.
I'd simply like some proof. Not asking for much here.
you aren't arguing against a word i've said. you're saying "qualia doesn't count!" without expressing any reason why the reasoning behind it is invalid. you then completely ignore everything i have said about aether.
aether is space. i rely only on the properties we know space to possess, for every use of aether. if you ask for proof of aether, you are asking for proof of space. you are making me repeat myself yet again. please for once read the posts you're responding to, i am sick of your illiteracy. you're just pathetic if you think making me repeat myself means you've somehow won the argument. i'll repeat myself again, to see if it sinks in. the aether is space. they are one and the same.
are you saying space does not exist?
if you are, you're an idiot. if you are not, then my aether exists. it is that simple. do you feel like engaging your brain for once and reading?!
Quoteyou aren't arguing against a word i've said. you're saying "qualia doesn't count!" without expressing any reason why the reasoning behind it is invalid. you then completely ignore everything i have said about aether.
aether is space. i rely only on the properties we know space to possess, for every use of aether. if you ask for proof of aether, you are asking for proof of space. you are making me repeat myself yet again. please for once read the posts you're responding to, i am sick of your illiteracy. you're just pathetic if you think making me repeat myself means you've somehow won the argument. i'll repeat myself again, to see if it sinks in. the aether is space. they are one and the same.
are you saying space does not exist?
if you are, you're an idiot. if you are not, then my aether exists. it is that simple. do you feel like engaging your brain for once and reading?!
Not saying qualia doesn't count. I'm saying it's not what you think it is.
You're saying qualia is proof the mind is seperate from the brain. Problem is.....that's not what qualia is.
Not ignoring anything you say about aether. I'm disagreeing with you. There's a difference.
You claim aether is space and air doesn't exist. I disagree and I am questioning your methods on how you reached your opinion.
Instead of backing up your claims.......you're holding your breath and stomping your feet like a child.
I'm asking for proof or any kind of evidence that air doesn't exist but aether does. Can you or can you not provide it?
Space definitely exists. But that doesn't mean aether does.
Quoteyou aren't arguing against a word i've said. you're saying "qualia doesn't count!" without expressing any reason why the reasoning behind it is invalid. you then completely ignore everything i have said about aether.
aether is space. i rely only on the properties we know space to possess, for every use of aether. if you ask for proof of aether, you are asking for proof of space. you are making me repeat myself yet again. please for once read the posts you're responding to, i am sick of your illiteracy. you're just pathetic if you think making me repeat myself means you've somehow won the argument. i'll repeat myself again, to see if it sinks in. the aether is space. they are one and the same.
are you saying space does not exist?
if you are, you're an idiot. if you are not, then my aether exists. it is that simple. do you feel like engaging your brain for once and reading?!
Not saying qualia doesn't count. I'm saying it's not what you think it is.
You're saying qualia is proof the mind is seperate from the brain. Problem is.....that's not what qualia is.
Not ignoring anything you say about aether. I'm disagreeing with you. There's a difference.
You claim aether is space and air doesn't exist. I disagree and I am questioning your methods on how you reached your opinion.
Instead of backing up your claims.......you're holding your breath and stomping your feet like a child.
I'm asking for proof or any kind of evidence that air doesn't exist but aether does. Can you or can you not provide it?
Space definitely exists. But that doesn't mean aether does.
that is exactly what qualia is. you've yet to provide anything that isn't assertion. qualia is what we experience, that cannot be explained by a purely material mind. we clearly experience it, so our minds cannot be physical. asserting otherwise is idiotic.
"Space definitely exists. But that doesn't mean aether does."
yes. it. does.
once again, SPACE IS HOW I DEFINE AETHER. THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME IN MY MODEL. LEARN TO READ.
you are being patently foolish. i have said this multiple times. aether is not some separate substance, it is space. space is aether. they are one and the fucking same. how many times do i have to repeat myself before you pay attention?!
stop forcing some separate other definition onto me. i am not saying aether is some magical separate substance, i am saying it is space. they are the same thing. i have said this several times. stop being an idiot, READ.
that is exactly what qualia is. you've yet to provide anything that isn't assertion. qualia is what we experience, that cannot be explained by a purely material mind. we clearly experience it, so our minds cannot be physical. asserting otherwise is idiotic.
"Space definitely exists. But that doesn't mean aether does."
yes. it. does.
once again, SPACE IS HOW I DEFINE AETHER. THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME IN MY MODEL. LEARN TO READ.
you are being patently foolish. i have said this multiple times. aether is not some separate substance, it is space. space is aether. they are one and the fucking same. how many times do i have to repeat myself before you pay attention?!
stop forcing some separate other definition onto me. i am not saying aether is some magical separate substance, i am saying it is space. they are the same thing. i have said this several times. stop being an idiot, READ.
Quotethat is exactly what qualia is. you've yet to provide anything that isn't assertion. qualia is what we experience, that cannot be explained by a purely material mind. we clearly experience it, so our minds cannot be physical. asserting otherwise is idiotic.
Qualia is sensory.
It's smelling roses when no roses are near you. Or having the smell of roses trigger a memory.
That doesn't mean your mind is separate from your brain. Which is what you're trying to use it as.Quote"Space definitely exists. But that doesn't mean aether does."
yes. it. does.
No, it doesn't.Quoteonce again, SPACE IS HOW I DEFINE AETHER. THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME IN MY MODEL. LEARN TO READ.
I can read just fine. What I'm telling you is......you're wrong.
Saying space is aether doesn't make space aether. I can say space is actually made of invisible floating chocolate particles....and create a model for it but that wouldn't make it a fact.Quoteyou are being patently foolish. i have said this multiple times. aether is not some separate substance, it is space. space is aether. they are one and the fucking same. how many times do i have to repeat myself before you pay attention?!
stop forcing some separate other definition onto me. i am not saying aether is some magical separate substance, i am saying it is space. they are the same thing. i have said this several times. stop being an idiot, READ.
You are being deliberately stupid.
You can repeat yourself a million times....space is aether....fine, but how does that make it true?
I'm asking for some evidence. Some proof. Maybe an explanation of your observations you talk about.
Your only reply is to say........space is aether. Like I'm supposed to just accept it.
I don't. No one does.
I've read everything....I'm seeking better explanations. You've stated your idea....now explain it.
We've broken JRowe, guys.
qualia is subjective experiences, which cannot be had by material mind.
I AM DEFINING AETHER. MY DEFINITION OF AETHER IS THAT IT. IS. SPACE. yet again, i am NOT saying that tehre is a separate substance called aether, i am saying when i refer to aether, I AM REFERRING TO SPACE
THEY ARE THE SAME THING IN MY MODEL
this is not a matter of evidence or proof, this is a matter of defining.
accept it or not, i don't care, you're too stupid to understand anything apparently. i explicitly said aether is not a separate substance.
you know what space is, right? even in your worldview. space is space. in my model, i refer to it as aether. it is that simple.
what part of this are you struggling to understand?! I AM NOT SAYING AETHER IS SOME MAGIC SPECIAL CHOCOLATE PARTICLE SUBSTANCE THAT COMPSOES SPACE. I AM DEFINING IT TO BE SYNONYMOUS WITH SPACE.
i will swear as much as i want when i am being purposefully antagonized by idiots. there is no way anyone can be this stupid. AETHER IS NOT ANYTHING BEYOND SPACE. IT HAS NO TRAITS THAT SPACE DOES NOT HAVE. IT HAS EXCLUSIVELY THE TRAITS THAT SPACE HAS. IT. IS. SPACE. THE END.
We've broken JRowe, guys.
repeatedly acting like an idiot is irritating. who knew?
Quotequalia is subjective experiences, which cannot be had by material mind.
Not true.
Not even close to be honest.QuoteI AM DEFINING AETHER. MY DEFINITION OF AETHER IS THAT IT. IS. SPACE. yet again, i am NOT saying that tehre is a separate substance called aether, i am saying when i refer to aether, I AM REFERRING TO SPACE
THEY ARE THE SAME THING IN MY MODEL
I understand that's what you're saying it is. I'm not arguing that you say aether is space.
I'm saying you're wrong and asking for a better explanation than simply....aether is space.
Can you back up your words with substance or not?Quotethis is not a matter of evidence or proof, this is a matter of defining.
The definition means nothing with evidence or proof.
I can say that water is actually tiny bits of alien piss that fell from the sky and define it as such.......but unless I can back it up it's hollow.
You can't call your idea a theory and then not be able to back it up at all.Quoteaccept it or not, i don't care, you're too stupid to understand anything apparently. i explicitly said aether is not a separate substance.
I have never once accused you of saying it's a separate substance. So I don't under your argument?Quoteyou know what space is, right? even in your worldview. space is space. in my model, i refer to it as aether. it is that simple.
what part of this are you struggling to understand?! I AM NOT SAYING AETHER IS SOME MAGIC SPECIAL CHOCOLATE PARTICLE SUBSTANCE THAT COMPSOES SPACE. I AM DEFINING IT TO BE SYNONYMOUS WITH SPACE.
And you're also saying air doesn't exist. And aether replaces air.
So........please elaborate on how you came to that opinion.
That's what I am asking.Quotei will swear as much as i want when i am being purposefully antagonized by idiots. there is no way anyone can be this stupid. AETHER IS NOT ANYTHING BEYOND SPACE. IT HAS NO TRAITS THAT SPACE DOES NOT HAVE. IT HAS EXCLUSIVELY THE TRAITS THAT SPACE HAS. IT. IS. SPACE. THE END.
Okay. When you're over the childish temper tantrum can you further elaborate.
Aether is space. Fine.
What observations have led you to this.......that is all I'm asking.
You created a thread that is allowing people to ask you questions about your idea.....yet you don't seem willing to answer.
You're weird scepti.
We've broken JRowe, guys.
repeatedly acting like an idiot is irritating. who knew?
Anyone that questions your logic is an idiot to you.
You can't back up your ideas and you get angry when you're asked to.
I can define unicorns, do they exist?
Why can aether move things and send notions to someone's mind if it is not particles(matter, or any variant of it), if it is just space?
go fuck yourself. honestly.
you know h2o? i say that's not water.
if aether is not a separate substance to space, then it is space. it is exactly space. if it makes you happy, replace every time i mentioned 'aether' with the word 'space'. THEY ARE THE SAME THING. I HAVE SAID THIS SEVERAL TIMES.
this is not a temper tantrum, this is frustration with a supremely thick moron.
AND I AM NOT FUCKING SCEPTI GET A LIFE AND SHUT THE FUCK UP I AM SICK OF YOU
does it make you feel clever to just antagonize and offer nothing?
please provide evidence that h2o is water. otherwise i will ignore you, because you are offering NOTHING to this conversation.
WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO BACK UP YOU ILLITERATE MORON? I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE DEFINITION UNDER MY MODEL AND YOU ARE REJECTING IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE WORD.
I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO GIVE ANYTHING THAT ISN'T ASSERTION FOR YOUR VIEWS ON QUALIA
Sorry if you answered any of these questions, but I didn't read this entire thread yet.
So for the accepted view of reality we have certain basic forces. There are some theories that may put gravity as an extension of the electromagnetic force but for this we will assume gravity as its own separate force.
The accepted theories have for some time been converging to a point of an unified theory. To illustrate this I will just use the formation of certain elements on the periodic table so in essence tying the basics of the building blocks chemistry to gravity.
So the amount of pressure and heat involved to transform one element into a heavier one requires fusion. The current big bang theory did not actually create anything other than hydrogen, helium and possibly lithium. To form heavier elements we needed gravity to compact the atoms enough to fuse nuclei (fusion). This fusion powers stars. But stars alone do not have enough density to create heavier elements beyond iron. This requires supernova blasts. The theory has been mathematically checked many times over by thousands of different scientists.
My first question is, if there is no gravity how do we form new elements, also why do the numbers of elements detected so far back up the theory of gravity since the higher in density an element is, the less prevalent it occurs in nature?
Second question is that gravity explains the motions of the planets until you get into the very large structures like galaxies and clusters of galaxies where there is a need for more, so far unseen, matter. If I can look through a telescope and follow the orbit of, say Jupiter, does it match with gravitational calculations, is there any explanation of planet movement that can predict movements like gravity?
Third question, Since no other suitable explanations for satellites for communication are available. I know there is a stratellite conversation going on, but the sheer number satellites in orbit that are being used and can be verified using a cellphone application to locate them, a telescope to possibly view the location, and a satellite receiver antenna to verify the direction of the signal precludes the stratellites existence. How do satellites work if there is no gravity or space program to put them there?
These are the first few questions I have for now.
when i refer to aether, mentally replace it with the word 'space'. happy? it works just fine. that's what i'm saying.
The difference is....rather than just calling h20 water.....someone once upon time actually investigated water and learned that it's atoms were 2 parts hydrogen wrapped around 1 water atom.
This is different than simply going on the internet and saying....aether is space. And doing nothing else.
I'm seriously beginning to think you might be angry at me for some reason.Quotewhen i refer to aether, mentally replace it with the word 'space'. happy? it works just fine. that's what i'm saying.
But you also assume air doesn't exist. And I'm asking why?
And you still haven't even attempted to answer.
If aether is what makes the planets move....
What causes smaller objects to generally become satellites to larger objects. Like the earth moving around the sun and the moon around the earth and so on?
satellite questions are answered by general flat earth theory in a way that fits in fine with dual earth theory, there's no need for me to add anything to the usual answer.
satellite questions are answered by general flat earth theory in a way that fits in fine with dual earth theory, there's no need for me to add anything to the usual answer.
Actually, the satellite questions are really not answered by the flat Earth concept. They are simply dismissed as not being real. The problem here is that I can, with past experience in the satellite communications field, relatively prove they do exist. I have spoken about this before and explained how the system works. Long story short, something must be there sending a signal down from that location. So its not something that I will accept the answer of its not there or some terrestrial based system.
Also as a follow up in a sort. You say aether moves from higher concentrations to lower concentrations and this explains gravity. But the opposite is actually what gravity has been explained to do. Matter attracts, and therefore it moves from lower to higher concentrations. If aether tends to group together, that would seem to imply that this is what happens also in your model. the lower concentrations move to higher concentrations.
The difference is....rather than just calling h20 water.....someone once upon time actually investigated water and learned that it's atoms were 2 parts hydrogen wrapped around 1 water atom.
This is different than simply going on the internet and saying....aether is space. And doing nothing else.
I'm seriously beginning to think you might be angry at me for some reason.Quotewhen i refer to aether, mentally replace it with the word 'space'. happy? it works just fine. that's what i'm saying.
But you also assume air doesn't exist. And I'm asking why?
And you still haven't even attempted to answer.
yes, i am angry at you because you're being a fool. h2o is water because we have defined the substance with two hydrogens and one oxygen to be water. i have defined what we observe as space to be aether. this is a definition, it is not claiming any traits. again, replace any time i mention 'aether' with the word 'space' if it makes you happy. they are the same thing.
i am not wasting any more time on you. clearly you don't read, you cling to the same bs arguments just to antagonize, and it's pathetic.
If aether is what makes the planets move....
What causes smaller objects to generally become satellites to larger objects. Like the earth moving around the sun and the moon around the earth and so on?
do you know ANYTHING about ANY flat earth theory? everything you've just said is wrong.
my model thread also explains it, IF YOU COULD BE BOTHERED TO READ A WORD I'VE FUCKING SAID. there's even a diagram for your moronic mind.
The difference is....rather than just calling h20 water.....someone once upon time actually investigated water and learned that it's atoms were 2 parts hydrogen wrapped around 1 water atom.
This is different than simply going on the internet and saying....aether is space. And doing nothing else.
I'm seriously beginning to think you might be angry at me for some reason.Quotewhen i refer to aether, mentally replace it with the word 'space'. happy? it works just fine. that's what i'm saying.
But you also assume air doesn't exist. And I'm asking why?
And you still haven't even attempted to answer.
yes, i am angry at you because you're being a fool. h2o is water because we have defined the substance with two hydrogens and one oxygen to be water. i have defined what we observe as space to be aether. this is a definition, it is not claiming any traits. again, replace any time i mention 'aether' with the word 'space' if it makes you happy. they are the same thing.
i am not wasting any more time on you. clearly you don't read, you cling to the same bs arguments just to antagonize, and it's pathetic.
It wasn't just a definition that determined water to be h2o.
Someone actually studied water and experimented and found the atoms that make it up.
This is completely different than what you are doing.....which is just calling something by a different name and expecting everyone to believe it's true.
I'd ask if you see the difference but you likely don't.
just stop posting. you're not acknowledging a word i say. you even completely contradicted me and pretended to quote me.
what am i expecting to be true? i am calling space by a different name. why is the word 'space' so holy to you? why does changing the name change it at all?!
For aether [sic] to mimic gravity, you need it to flow from lower density to higher, not higher to lower.satellite questions are answered by general flat earth theory in a way that fits in fine with dual earth theory, there's no need for me to add anything to the usual answer.
Actually, the satellite questions are really not answered by the flat Earth concept. They are simply dismissed as not being real. The problem here is that I can, with past experience in the satellite communications field, relatively prove they do exist. I have spoken about this before and explained how the system works. Long story short, something must be there sending a signal down from that location. So its not something that I will accept the answer of its not there or some terrestrial based system.
Also as a follow up in a sort. You say aether moves from higher concentrations to lower concentrations and this explains gravity. But the opposite is actually what gravity has been explained to do. Matter attracts, and therefore it moves from lower to higher concentrations. If aether tends to group together, that would seem to imply that this is what happens also in your model. the lower concentrations move to higher concentrations.
satellites are clearly a topic for another thread. i'm not an authority.
you're thinking in the wrong terms. gravity causes higher concentrations. aether kind does the same, by flowing from high to low (though aether is strictly space), but that's not the point. think of it like a balloon: inflate a balloon and leave it untied, the high pressure inside it rushed out to the lower pressure outside. aether works in the same way, flowing until there's soe equilibrium. however, if lots of aether flows into one spot (which can happen if it's especially thin), something material will be formed, and that disrupts the whole balance.
aether is in constant motion.
Quotejust stop posting. you're not acknowledging a word i say. you even completely contradicted me and pretended to quote me.
what am i expecting to be true? i am calling space by a different name. why is the word 'space' so holy to you? why does changing the name change it at all?!
You're arguing against things I haven't said.
I didn't pretend to quote you....I actually quoted you.
Space isn't holy to me....I'm not arguing you calling space aether. I'm perfectly fine with that. No argument here. You can call it pixie dust if you want to. The name doesn't matter. A rose by any other name, after all.
I'm arguing the rest of your idea. And you're deflecting.
What observations have led you to believe air doesn't exist?
That's like the 7th or 8th time I've asked that question. You have yet to answer. All you've done is get angry and say space is aether.
For aether [sic] to mimic gravity, you need it to flow from lower density to higher, not higher to lower.satellite questions are answered by general flat earth theory in a way that fits in fine with dual earth theory, there's no need for me to add anything to the usual answer.
Actually, the satellite questions are really not answered by the flat Earth concept. They are simply dismissed as not being real. The problem here is that I can, with past experience in the satellite communications field, relatively prove they do exist. I have spoken about this before and explained how the system works. Long story short, something must be there sending a signal down from that location. So its not something that I will accept the answer of its not there or some terrestrial based system.
Also as a follow up in a sort. You say aether moves from higher concentrations to lower concentrations and this explains gravity. But the opposite is actually what gravity has been explained to do. Matter attracts, and therefore it moves from lower to higher concentrations. If aether tends to group together, that would seem to imply that this is what happens also in your model. the lower concentrations move to higher concentrations.
satellites are clearly a topic for another thread. i'm not an authority.
you're thinking in the wrong terms. gravity causes higher concentrations. aether kind does the same, by flowing from high to low (though aether is strictly space), but that's not the point. think of it like a balloon: inflate a balloon and leave it untied, the high pressure inside it rushed out to the lower pressure outside. aether works in the same way, flowing until there's soe equilibrium. however, if lots of aether flows into one spot (which can happen if it's especially thin), something material will be formed, and that disrupts the whole balance.
aether is in constant motion.
you are simply lying now. you refused to let me define space as aether multiple times. are you going to try and change the past now you realize you were being an idiot? at least admit you made a mistake.
i didn't answer because you were using it as a means of changing the topic from something important. i don't like evasion. now i can assume this is the central topic, it is quite simple: apparently we are surrounded, universally, by billions of particles smashing into us every second. you just need to open your eyes to realize that's untrue. imagine how a lone grain of sand feels, now think of how many particles apparently hit us. it's clearly bs.
i can promise you the objections you're thinking of have been given, i refer you to the model thread.
Well, flowing from higher to lower pressure areas is what most refer to as fluid dynamics (i.e. air pressure equalizes when allowed to). Gravity actually explains this in the opposite way. Each atom of matter is attracted to each other, and the more matter you have in a given space adds each others attractive force to the whole. Since space is supposedly warped by matter, the more densely the matter is, the gravitational force is the same but is concentrated onto a smaller area, therefore the space closest to the clump of matter warps space in a more profound way. But I am getting a little out of what i was trying to explain. Basically with gravity, the more matter you have the stronger the gravitational force is in that space. This means that with gravity, large clumps of matter "pull"(in a way) on other matter. This describes why the nuclei of atoms can be compacted tightly enough to fuse into a new element. Since protons carry the same charge, you have to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion of the like charges. Electromagnetic force is measured to be far stronger than gravitational force, so it needs a lot of gravitational force to fuse these new nuclei together. With aether you say it just happens to clump together yet aether flows from higher to lower concentrations. Air pressure and gravitational force are not the same thing. Gravitational force compacts the air to a certain point. But this is as far as the gravitational force felt on Earth can compress air. This means that air will equalize to the pressure that gravity has compressed it to but no more without some other external force acting upon it.
For aether to explain gravity, we must first explain why matter tends to attract to itself.
Quoteyou are simply lying now. you refused to let me define space as aether multiple times. are you going to try and change the past now you realize you were being an idiot? at least admit you made a mistake.
How did I "refuse to let you"?
Did I take your keyboard away from you and stop you from typing?
I didn't make a mistake. You did....by thinking up this ridiculous idea but not being able to logically explain it.Quotei didn't answer because you were using it as a means of changing the topic from something important. i don't like evasion. now i can assume this is the central topic, it is quite simple: apparently we are surrounded, universally, by billions of particles smashing into us every second. you just need to open your eyes to realize that's untrue. imagine how a lone grain of sand feels, now think of how many particles apparently hit us. it's clearly bs.
i can promise you the objections you're thinking of have been given, i refer you to the model thread.
I'd refer you to reality.....but you'd probably just ignore it.
This isn't important.
There are billions of particles smashing into you. They are smaller than a grain of sand.
you're being childish now. you spent pages whinging about "you can't just call space aether!" if you don't believe me, look back. if you're going to edit your posts, i quoted them. everyone can see.
look, just assertion. let me refer you to reality. individually particles may be smaller than sand, not all of them at once.
For aether [sic] to mimic gravity, you need it to flow from lower density to higher, not higher to lower.satellite questions are answered by general flat earth theory in a way that fits in fine with dual earth theory, there's no need for me to add anything to the usual answer.
Actually, the satellite questions are really not answered by the flat Earth concept. They are simply dismissed as not being real. The problem here is that I can, with past experience in the satellite communications field, relatively prove they do exist. I have spoken about this before and explained how the system works. Long story short, something must be there sending a signal down from that location. So its not something that I will accept the answer of its not there or some terrestrial based system.
Also as a follow up in a sort. You say aether moves from higher concentrations to lower concentrations and this explains gravity. But the opposite is actually what gravity has been explained to do. Matter attracts, and therefore it moves from lower to higher concentrations. If aether tends to group together, that would seem to imply that this is what happens also in your model. the lower concentrations move to higher concentrations.
satellites are clearly a topic for another thread. i'm not an authority.
you're thinking in the wrong terms. gravity causes higher concentrations. aether kind does the same, by flowing from high to low (though aether is strictly space), but that's not the point. think of it like a balloon: inflate a balloon and leave it untied, the high pressure inside it rushed out to the lower pressure outside. aether works in the same way, flowing until there's soe equilibrium. however, if lots of aether flows into one spot (which can happen if it's especially thin), something material will be formed, and that disrupts the whole balance.
aether is in constant motion.
how? at the center of the earth is what i call terrestrial aether: an especially low concentration. this is what causes aetheric transmission: so little space it can be crossed in an instant. clearly it has incredibly low pressure, so aether will rush towards it.
in addition, mass is a different state of aether. it doesn't enter into it. indeed, in places where matter has formed, it formed because pressure was low, so things will definitely be attracted towards it for a time.
Here's a question about dual earth theory:
If light can be teleported from one side of the disc to the other, how does aether accomplish this without interacting with the photons?
it depends what you're saying. i don't think anyone's ever said aether can't interact with anything, it clearly can. if you want the mechanism, i refer you to a recent post in the model thread: think of aether as synonymous with space. photons pass through space, don't they? therefore, they will be transmitted through the terrestrial aether (thin space: stretched out so that a smaller subjective distance covers a longer, objective one).
Quoteyou're being childish now. you spent pages whinging about "you can't just call space aether!" if you don't believe me, look back. if you're going to edit your posts, i quoted them. everyone can see.
You can't call space aether without backing it up with something is what I am saying.
And you have yet to back it up.
You reject gravity and air and insert aether but don't both to explain it.Quotelook, just assertion. let me refer you to reality. individually particles may be smaller than sand, not all of them at once.
Do you feel air on your skin when you're outside? Oh I'm sorry....do you feel "aether" on your skin when you're outside?
Do you feel cold when you're in a cold environment? Or hot in a hot environment? Feel rain hit you?
You do feel the effects of the particles that surround you.
For aether [sic] to mimic gravity, you need it to flow from lower density to higher, not higher to lower.satellite questions are answered by general flat earth theory in a way that fits in fine with dual earth theory, there's no need for me to add anything to the usual answer.
Actually, the satellite questions are really not answered by the flat Earth concept. They are simply dismissed as not being real. The problem here is that I can, with past experience in the satellite communications field, relatively prove they do exist. I have spoken about this before and explained how the system works. Long story short, something must be there sending a signal down from that location. So its not something that I will accept the answer of its not there or some terrestrial based system.
Also as a follow up in a sort. You say aether moves from higher concentrations to lower concentrations and this explains gravity. But the opposite is actually what gravity has been explained to do. Matter attracts, and therefore it moves from lower to higher concentrations. If aether tends to group together, that would seem to imply that this is what happens also in your model. the lower concentrations move to higher concentrations.
satellites are clearly a topic for another thread. i'm not an authority.
you're thinking in the wrong terms. gravity causes higher concentrations. aether kind does the same, by flowing from high to low (though aether is strictly space), but that's not the point. think of it like a balloon: inflate a balloon and leave it untied, the high pressure inside it rushed out to the lower pressure outside. aether works in the same way, flowing until there's soe equilibrium. however, if lots of aether flows into one spot (which can happen if it's especially thin), something material will be formed, and that disrupts the whole balance.
aether is in constant motion.
how? at the center of the earth is what i call terrestrial aether: an especially low concentration. this is what causes aetheric transmission: so little space it can be crossed in an instant. clearly it has incredibly low pressure, so aether will rush towards it.
in addition, mass is a different state of aether. it doesn't enter into it. indeed, in places where matter has formed, it formed because pressure was low, so things will definitely be attracted towards it for a time.
Oh I get it. You meant low density of space, whatever that is. So it sounds like spontaneous creation of matter (or transition from one state of Aether to another) is possible. Is it permitted? If so, why don't we witness it? What principle guides the spontaneous creation of matter?
Here's a question about dual earth theory:
If light can be teleported from one side of the disc to the other, how does aether accomplish this without interacting with the photons?
it depends what you're saying. i don't think anyone's ever said aether can't interact with anything, it clearly can. if you want the mechanism, i refer you to a recent post in the model thread: think of aether as synonymous with space. photons pass through space, don't they? therefore, they will be transmitted through the terrestrial aether (thin space: stretched out so that a smaller subjective distance covers a longer, objective one).
The fact that the transmitted photons are indistinguishable from ones which are not transmitted indicates the aether has not interacted with them. Any interaction with a photon will change either its energy or its direction. This would be observable, so how does aether accomplish this process without changing the energy or direction of light?
Ok so, I'm not going to get an answer that I personally consider satisfactory on this yet. It's not a problem. I will return to my wait for your ideas to develop more. Right now "aether answers everything" is very unacceptable for explanations for me personally. I need you to decide whether aether is space or matter, whether it is in this dimension or another, whether it is a force, energy, or substance. You also need to decide what properties it holds. Simply plugging it in wherever you cannot explain an effect will not work. Remember you are trying to replace theories and physical laws that have been tested for hundreds and thousands of years. There are no major holes in the current theory, just some unknowns. The aether does everything and we don't really know why is akin to having the mythological Greek gods. The flavor of aether to describe one thing is unrelated to another flavor of aether describing something else, much like Apollo riding his chariot across the sky describing the sun and Athena riding her chariot describing the moon. Both are flavors of Greek gods.
i would very much suggest you read this thread, starting at the first post.
Question:
How do you know the world is two-sided? I mean, with IAT and two suns, the world could be two separate flat plains. I don't see how you could tell.
Question:
How do you know the world is two-sided? I mean, with IAT and two suns, the world could be two separate flat plains. I don't see how you could tell.
we observe because of the stars. there can only be two centers of rotation, so there are certainly two faces. i say that they are on opposite sides of the world because it is a theory that requires less assumptions. there's no way to describe how the transmission at the equator would work consistently if there were two separate disks, while it makes perfect, almost elegant, sense if there is simply thin aether at the center, between each side of the world. dual earth theory is about minimizing assumptions: the sole thing any round earther could say i assume is aether,but as it stands aether is well-defined as space, and the properties i have taken from that are entirely reasonable. the best that you could possibly say is that i have no proof space possesses those properties, but i see no reason to think it unlikely.
Question:
How do you know the world is two-sided? I mean, with IAT and two suns, the world could be two separate flat plains. I don't see how you could tell.
we observe because of the stars. there can only be two centers of rotation, so there are certainly two faces. i say that they are on opposite sides of the world because it is a theory that requires less assumptions. there's no way to describe how the transmission at the equator would work consistently if there were two separate disks, while it makes perfect, almost elegant, sense if there is simply thin aether at the center, between each side of the world. dual earth theory is about minimizing assumptions: the sole thing any round earther could say i assume is aether,but as it stands aether is well-defined as space, and the properties i have taken from that are entirely reasonable. the best that you could possibly say is that i have no proof space possesses those properties, but i see no reason to think it unlikely.
We've proved recently that space can't be thicker or thinner, so go back into corner and "think" about your ""theory"" , hahaha!
Question:
How do you know the world is two-sided? I mean, with IAT and two suns, the world could be two separate flat plains. I don't see how you could tell.
we observe because of the stars. there can only be two centers of rotation, so there are certainly two faces. i say that they are on opposite sides of the world because it is a theory that requires less assumptions. there's no way to describe how the transmission at the equator would work consistently if there were two separate disks, while it makes perfect, almost elegant, sense if there is simply thin aether at the center, between each side of the world. dual earth theory is about minimizing assumptions: the sole thing any round earther could say i assume is aether,but as it stands aether is well-defined as space, and the properties i have taken from that are entirely reasonable. the best that you could possibly say is that i have no proof space possesses those properties, but i see no reason to think it unlikely.
We've proved recently that space can't be thicker or thinner, so go back into corner and "think" about your ""theory"" , hahaha!
where?
stop wasting time, if you have a point to make, make it.
note: a point is not assertion. a point is something backed up with reason and logic, not just "because i say so!" try it sometime.
stop lying.
Question:
How do you know the world is two-sided? I mean, with IAT and two suns, the world could be two separate flat plains. I don't see how you could tell.
we observe because of the stars. there can only be two centers of rotation, so there are certainly two faces. i say that they are on opposite sides of the world because it is a theory that requires less assumptions. there's no way to describe how the transmission at the equator would work consistently if there were two separate disks, while it makes perfect, almost elegant, sense if there is simply thin aether at the center, between each side of the world. dual earth theory is about minimizing assumptions: the sole thing any round earther could say i assume is aether,but as it stands aether is well-defined as space, and the properties i have taken from that are entirely reasonable. the best that you could possibly say is that i have no proof space possesses those properties, but i see no reason to think it unlikely.
We've proved recently that space can't be thicker or thinner, so go back into corner and "think" about your ""theory"" , hahaha!
where?
stop wasting time, if you have a point to make, make it.
note: a point is not assertion. a point is something backed up with reason and logic, not just "because i say so!" try it sometime.
stop lying.
"Auroras prove air exist" - This topic.
yada yada yada
Jroweskeptic-The rotation of the sky as you approach the equator appears to move as if you are crossing a tract of land as predicted by a RE. Does the low density of Æther (I think it is low, correct me if I am wrong) extend all the way to the stars or is there some sort of refraction occurring as the light encounters the change in Æther density? Why don't humans perceive a change in Æther density? It seems like there should be some sort of visual distortion accompanying the change. If you can provide a mathematical unit for Æther then it should be possible to predict.
I'm done with this crazed baboon and his stupid theories. Every time a valid objection is posted he just adds another property to aether - or, now the properties have started producing predicted effects, taking properties away (aether is both thick enough that planes can't fly through it, like syrup, yet at the same time it's "just space").
Jroweskeptic-The rotation of the sky as you approach the equator appears to move as if you are crossing a tract of land as predicted by a RE. Does the low density of Æther (I think it is low, correct me if I am wrong) extend all the way to the stars or is there some sort of refraction occurring as the light encounters the change in Æther density? Why don't humans perceive a change in Æther density? It seems like there should be some sort of visual distortion accompanying the change. If you can provide a mathematical unit for Æther then it should be possible to predict.
the aether forms a kind of dome over the earth, it's hard to put into words why. light, wind, anything that moves through space will be moved across the equator.
there is no way to tell the thickness of the space you're in, from within the space. you need an external perspective to see the difference, then you'd be able to see something unusual in the speed things take to happen.
don't make it any more special than it is. aetheric transmission is simply a matter of moving through space, which we do all the time. all that changes is the thickness of the space, but that change only makes sense when you have something to compare it to. from within, it might as well be the same.
Jroweskeptic-The rotation of the sky as you approach the equator appears to move as if you are crossing a tract of land as predicted by a RE. Does the low density of Æther (I think it is low, correct me if I am wrong) extend all the way to the stars or is there some sort of refraction occurring as the light encounters the change in Æther density? Why don't humans perceive a change in Æther density? It seems like there should be some sort of visual distortion accompanying the change. If you can provide a mathematical unit for Æther then it should be possible to predict.
the aether forms a kind of dome over the earth, it's hard to put into words why.
light, wind, anything that moves through space will be moved across the equator.
there is no way to tell the thickness of the space you're in, from within the space. you need an external perspective to see the difference, then you'd be able to see something unusual in the speed things take to happen.
don't make it any more special than it is.I'm not. I am following the logical conclusions presented by your ideas.
aetheric transmission is simply a matter of moving through space, which we do all the time. all that changes is the thickness of the space, but that change only makes sense when you have something to compare it to. from within, it might as well be the same.
Jroweskeptic-The rotation of the sky as you approach the equator appears to move as if you are crossing a tract of land as predicted by a RE. Does the low density of Æther (I think it is low, correct me if I am wrong) extend all the way to the stars or is there some sort of refraction occurring as the light encounters the change in Æther density? Why don't humans perceive a change in Æther density? It seems like there should be some sort of visual distortion accompanying the change. If you can provide a mathematical unit for Æther then it should be possible to predict.
the aether forms a kind of dome over the earth, it's hard to put into words why.
Can you provide evidence for this? It is pretty important for anyone to reasonably accept your theory.Quotelight, wind, anything that moves through space will be moved across the equator.
So you say.Quotethere is no way to tell the thickness of the space you're in, from within the space. you need an external perspective to see the difference, then you'd be able to see something unusual in the speed things take to happen.
So something unusual should have been observed near the equator then. You would have an external perspective on that region of low density Æther.Quotedon't make it any more special than it is.I'm not. I am following the logical conclusions presented by your ideas.Quoteaetheric transmission is simply a matter of moving through space, which we do all the time. all that changes is the thickness of the space, but that change only makes sense when you have something to compare it to. from within, it might as well be the same.
But we do. If the density of the Æther within 2 miles of the Equator is 1 (keep it dimensionless for now) and it's density is 2, at 5 miles from the equator, then you should see some sort of change in velocity as something enters the lower density area.
the dome-effect is a result of the aetheric whirlpools
the dome-effect is a result of the aetheric whirlpools, where the flow of aether rejoins from the interruption caused by the earth.
what do you mean 'so i say'?
aether is space, in my model, why would it suddenly lose those traits?
there's no external perspective on space, as we see thanks to the light which is carried by space.
the dome-effect is a result of the aetheric whirlpools, where the flow of aether rejoins from the interruption caused by the earth.
Not sure how this relates to the observation of density change in the Æther. Can you explain and the provide your evidence?Quotewhat do you mean 'so i say'?
In the absence of evidence or a working mathematical model, there is no way to scrutinize your assertions. You are asking us to take your word for it.Quoteaether is space, in my model, why would it suddenly lose those traits?
I never said anything would lose properties. Do you need me to clarify anything I said?Quotethere's no external perspective on space, as we see thanks to the light which is carried by space.
Why can't we see that at different places light is being carried across dense or less dense patches of Aether?
logical killer, you are officially blocked again, i'm not wasting any more time on you. if you had read anything about my theory (for example, the basic fact that aether is space, that aetheric transmission is movement through space which we do all the time) you would see how pathetic everything you say is. you offer nothing except a waste of time, stop talking to me.the dome-effect is a result of the aetheric whirlpools, where the flow of aether rejoins from the interruption caused by the earth.
Not sure how this relates to the observation of density change in the Æther. Can you explain and the provide your evidence?Quotewhat do you mean 'so i say'?
In the absence of evidence or a working mathematical model, there is no way to scrutinize your assertions. You are asking us to take your word for it.Quoteaether is space, in my model, why would it suddenly lose those traits?
I never said anything would lose properties. Do you need me to clarify anything I said?Quotethere's no external perspective on space, as we see thanks to the light which is carried by space.
Why can't we see that at different places light is being carried across dense or less dense patches of Aether?
the evidence is logical. when things rejoin, they're not going to immediately smash together, movement takes time, so they'll continue in their initial direction, slowly turn, then reconnect. it's behavior we observe everywhere, and the end result would be what is like a dome shape. the aetheric whirlpools are formed about this motion.
there's a working model, it doesn't have detailed equations because it takes resources which i do not have to find those numbers (as i have repeatedly said. until you can give me the budget and the time to take measurements, stop asking for things which are beyond anyone's ability. that's like me asking you to build a rocket, and see if space travel is possible, yourself).
you are proposing that space will behave differently at the equator. i don't see why that would be the case, unless you're over complicating and adding in more properties. at the equator, the distance between two points is essentially made zero. if you knew the real length of that distance (as i do), then you would be able to see the effects. if you don't know what that distance is meant to be, how can you judge how it looks?
you're asking after theoretical elements which do not exist in my model. at the equator, the distance between two points is made zero, allowing for instantaneous transmission. they go a huge distance at once, but you don't know what that distance is just from standing there. from our perspective, it might as well just be regular space. why wouldn't it look like that?
the evidence is logical.
when things rejoin, they're not going to immediately smash together, movement takes time, so they'll continue in their initial direction, slowly turn, then reconnect. it's behavior we observe everywhere, and the end result would be what is like a dome shape. the aetheric whirlpools are formed about this motion.
there's a working model, it doesn't have detailed equations
because it takes resources which i do not have to find those numbers (as i have repeatedly said.
until you can give me the budget and the time to take measurements, stop asking for things which are beyond anyone's ability.
that's like me asking you to build a rocket, and see if space travel is possible, yourself).
you are proposing that space will behave differently at the equator. i don't see why that would be the case, unless you're over complicating and adding in more properties.
at the equator, the distance between two points is essentially made zero. if you knew the real length of that distance (as i do), then you would be able to see the effects.
if you don't know what that distance is meant to be, how can you judge how it looks?
you're asking after theoretical elements which do not exist in my model.
at the equator, the distance between two points is made zero, allowing for instantaneous transmission. they go a huge distance at once, but you don't know what that distance is just from standing there. from our perspective, it might as well just be regular space. why wouldn't it look like that?
empirical evidence means nothing until you apply logic to it. knowing something happens is useless until you work out facts about it. logical evidence is entirely reasonable.
i explained how the dome-like effect came about, as you asked. what more do you want?
the model explains the truth about the world,
and it makes predictions even though we already know what those results would be.
without more resources i can't do better.
i don't care what einstein could do, i'm not einstein.
i have given a working model which makes sense,
you're asking for more detail than any one person with no resources could ever give.
even you could not give that level of depth for your round earth theory without relying on other resources.
if you give me an experiment that i could do to gain those numbers, please let me know.
you are proposing something that makes no sense. there are difference between higher and low densities of space. the distance within the space will, when compared with other space, cover a different distance. the problem is, we observe because of light. light moves at the same speed, it just covers a different distance. why would the speed of light alter?
you're asking for things i have never proposed. how is that a flaw with my theory and not your questions?
the round earth model explains most things because it has had longer to explain the dual earth model. there are many unexplained things, such as the details of gravity: dual earth model needs only space (which is known), and obvious deductions.
Question:
As the moon can be seen at the same time in both hemispheres, there must be two moons in your model yes?
Well quite a lot if detail can be seen on the moon with even a cheap telescope, so the two moons would have to identical, with exactly the same side always facing the earth. This seems a bit unlikely, to say the least.
Question:
As the moon can be seen at the same time in both hemispheres, there must be two moons in your model yes?
most likely correct. i came to that conclusion through eclipses, but that would make sense too.
however, i am working on refining the theory further. i may have been too hasty in disregarding the original single-sun model. aetheric transmission could, with a cursory thought, render the second obsolete. it may also provide a better explanation for sunsets, which have been a minor complaint of round earthers from what i have seen.
the main reason i rejected the one-sun model was to allow the sun to shine from over points on the earth. however, a change in angle might also accomplish that.
at present however, yes, my model contains two moons.
Well quite a lot if detail can be seen on the moon with even a cheap telescope, so the two moons would have to identical, with exactly the same side always facing the earth. This seems a bit unlikely, to say the least.
it's not that unlikely. the effects of the aether would be mirrored on each side of the earth, their result would be the same.
Well quite a lot if detail can be seen on the moon with even a cheap telescope, so the two moons would have to identical, with exactly the same side always facing the earth. This seems a bit unlikely, to say the least.
it's not that unlikely. the effects of the aether would be mirrored on each side of the earth, their result would be the same.
It's astronomically unlikely. There has to be some element of chaos.
It's astronomically unlikely. There has to be some element of chaos.
It gets ironed out with distance.
As I said though, the model is still being refined.
i have explained how light propagates several times, and i have given evidence deduced logically from what would be the case if my theory was true, and observation. if you have any specific questions as to how light works, please ask them.
oh, i didn't realize attitude could take the place of scientific instruments. really? i can't use data that assumes a round earth obviously, and there's very little else available.
there is no time warp, you're forgetting that observation depends on light. the ratio of the speed of light to the distance covered is going to remain the same. think of the behavior at the equator: this is the simplest case. when someone crosses, you watch them cover the distance to the far side of the earth, however, the light that comes back from them covers the same distance at the same speed. how could any strangeness be noted?
and this is the only accessible place my model predicts any majority activity in terms of density of space.
my theory is based on making the fewest assumptions possible. i'm not going to needlessly include special case scenarios. i am open to improving my theory based on suggestions (as i have done several times), but only when these refinements are genuine improvements and simplifications.
i did not say my theory was complete.
no theory is, it is just a better one. certainly, it refines classical flat earth theory. no new holes arise, once the simple fact that distance relies on space is understood, and multiple aspects are explained neatly with one entity. by your example of newton and gravity and orbits, this is a strength: 'gravity', aetheric transmission (and as far as personal theories go, air) are all explained with the far more clearly defined aether of space. in addition, queries posed before (such as circumpolar stars) are answered cleanly.
i can assume your main objection is that it does not improve upon round earth theory.
it will not, from your perspective, because to do that would necessitate centuries worth of time and resources which your model has had to develop.
it does, however, clearly improve in terms of simplicity.
rather than the non-understood gravity, we have known space
and logically deduced, explicable properties.
they are explained, not rigorously with numbers due to a lack of resources, but in general times the answers are clearly there.
DON'T BE STUPID!!! DON'T RESPOND TO JROWE, HE'S A TROLL AND IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO HIM, HE WILL SHUT UP!!!
DON'T BE STUPID!!! DON'T RESPOND TO JROWE, HE'S A TROLL AND IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO HIM, HE WILL SHUT UP!!!
It is actually the most interesting FE theory in a while. If you don't want to participate, please move on.
Most interesting "theory" (haha, it's not a theory, if you don't know what's a theory then check its definition) based on a freaking ad hoc aether, which gains new properties each time it gets destroyed.
And also, aether doesn't exist and you still want to fight with JRowe. Everything you say, he completes with "aether done it".
Just don't respond to him.
Most interesting "theory" (haha, it's not a theory, if you don't know what's a theory then check its definition) based on a freaking ad hoc aether, which gains new properties each time it gets destroyed.
This is not news.QuoteAnd also, aether doesn't exist and you still want to fight with JRowe. Everything you say, he completes with "aether done it".
I am not fighting with him. Why are you so mad?QuoteJust don't respond to him.
Conversely, you can move on and let the people who want to be here do there thing without harassment. I don't particularly care either way, but you appear to have strong emotions regarding the content of this thread so I think you should take care of your needs.
i see logicalkiller is still whining. amazing how he can go for pages, then when i get tired of his self-righteousness, repetition and inability to debate and block him, he suddenly decides no one should talk to me. it's the toddler mindset. he wants to be the center of attention, whinges, then when he isn't he tries to break everything.
i don't care what shape you think the world is, that behavior's pathetic.
onto topic:
i accept conservation laws, why?
it's nothing to do with attitude. when there is nothing i can do without far more resources than i have, what do you expect? i have considered multiple experiments, proposed them on this forum, and none are in my abilities.
as it stands, the theory may not be relying on detailed equations, but there is clearly space for them, and the theory works. listing multiple details to the theory does not mean it's based on assumptions: many of those details are conclusions. for example, it is clear that the typical model of all the world being on top of one flat surface can be rejected due to circumpolar stars, and the coriolis force. the conclusion is that there are two aspects to the world: either two hemispheres, or two discs. the aetheric attraction is a logical conclusion, in the latest refinement of the model: the current inside the world is the thinnest we experience. as all things flow from high concentrations to low, then aether will flow down to this lack of concentration (explaining gravity), meanwhile the existence of thin space there, exposed at the equator (and to answer your question: only at the equator), means we cross it immediately, explaining transmission.
in the end, the theory is actually rather elegant. the only thing you could call an assumption is my definition of aether, and the properties assigned to it, but they are all basic deductions from the notion of space. you could complain that they might not be in the arrangements i have, but those arrangements explain the world completely: it's no more of an assumption than the round earth model and how matter happens to be attracted to itself, and some just happened to form a sun, some made a black hole about which the sun rotates, and then planets and moons...
all the details follow simply from the common-sense properties of aether. i suppose you could argue that the idea that matter comes from aether is an assumption, but it's not necessary to the theory. if you want to suppose matter came about from another source, it would still be caught up in aetheric currents and given much the same result, as it flows with the aether. i merely tried to simplify the theory.
gravity is not understood, by the admission of every scientist: there is no explanation offered for how it so much as works. space, however, is known to exist by everyone, and it is known to be how we define distance.
the evidence my theory has is the same as the evidence for round earth theory, as every observation made there is explained neatly by my model. you cannot give round earth theory precedence just because you'd rather hold to it.
equations, which could theoretically be found with time and resources, are present, if not known. at the very least, dual earth theory is equally as likely as round earth.
<no one cares>
onto topic:
i accept conservation laws, why?
it's nothing to do with attitude. when there is nothing i can do without far more resources than i have, what do you expect?
i have considered multiple experiments, proposed them on this forum, and none are in my abilities.
as it stands, the theory may not be relying on detailed equations, but there is clearly space for them, and the theory works.
listing multiple details to the theory does not mean it's based on assumptions: many of those details are conclusions.
for example, it is clear that the typical model of all the world being on top of one flat surface can be rejected due to circumpolar stars, and the coriolis force. the conclusion is that there are two aspects to the world: either two hemispheres, or two discs.
the aetheric attraction is a logical conclusion, in the latest refinement of the model: the current inside the world is the thinnest we experience.
as all things flow from high concentrations to low,
then aether will flow down to this lack of concentration (explaining gravity), meanwhile the existence of thin space there, exposed at the equator (and to answer your question: only at the equator), means we cross it immediately, explaining transmission.
in the end, the theory is actually rather elegant.
the only thing you could call an assumption is my definition of aether, and the properties assigned to it,
but they are all basic deductions from the notion of space. you could complain that they might not be in the arrangements i have, but those arrangements explain the world completely: it's no more of an assumption than the round earth model and how matter happens to be attracted to itself, and some just happened to form a sun, some made a black hole about which the sun rotates, and then planets and moons...
all the details follow simply from the common-sense properties of aether. i suppose you could argue that the idea that matter comes from aether is an assumption, but it's not necessary to the theory. if you want to suppose matter came about from another source, it would still be caught up in aetheric currents and given much the same result, as it flows with the aether. i merely tried to simplify the theory.
gravity is not understood, by the admission of every scientist: there is no explanation offered for how it so much as works.
space, however, is known to exist by everyone, and it is known to be how we define distance.
the evidence my theory has is the same as the evidence for round earth theory, as every observation made there is explained neatly by my model.
you cannot give round earth theory precedence just because you'd rather hold to it.
equations, which could theoretically be found with time and resources, are present, if not known. at the very least, dual earth theory is equally as likely as round earth.
<no one cares>Quoteonto topic:
i accept conservation laws, why?
I worry that your ideas about light propogation violate conservation laws around information loss in the same way a black hole was thought to.Quoteit's nothing to do with attitude. when there is nothing i can do without far more resources than i have, what do you expect?
If you say you can not do more, then you won't. If you say, that you will learn advanced mathematics, and work out the theory yourself, then you will, It is up to you.Quotei have considered multiple experiments, proposed them on this forum, and none are in my abilities.
If you have a rigorous, coherent, mathematical theory, experimentalists will be open to developing ways to test it.Quoteas it stands, the theory may not be relying on detailed equations, but there is clearly space for them, and the theory works.
The theory works as a thought in your mind. You have no idea if it is compatible with the world, because you have no mathematical theory, and you have collected no data to compare it to. Any other claim is reaching in the extreme.Quotelisting multiple details to the theory does not mean it's based on assumptions: many of those details are conclusions.
Conclusions that you are assuming because you have no empirical evidence for them.Quotefor example, it is clear that the typical model of all the world being on top of one flat surface can be rejected due to circumpolar stars, and the coriolis force. the conclusion is that there are two aspects to the world: either two hemispheres, or two discs.
So here it is an either/or statement, but in your previous words it is unequivocally and flat disc populated on both sides. I can accept the either/or statement, but to say that the Earth is a flat disc is an assumption with no supporting data.Quotethe aetheric attraction is a logical conclusion, in the latest refinement of the model: the current inside the world is the thinnest we experience.
Perhaps it is a logical conclusion, although I think you are guilty of wishful thinking, but that does not make it true, and as you have no evidence, it has to be classified as an assumption.Quoteas all things flow from high concentrations to low,
Magnetism and gravity notwithstanding?Quotethen aether will flow down to this lack of concentration (explaining gravity), meanwhile the existence of thin space there, exposed at the equator (and to answer your question: only at the equator), means we cross it immediately, explaining transmission.
Beating a dead horse, but without empirical evidence, you can only assume this is true, or maybe more accurately, hope.Quotein the end, the theory is actually rather elegant.
You are feeling good about it I see.Quotethe only thing you could call an assumption is my definition of aether, and the properties assigned to it,
Right, your theory.Quotebut they are all basic deductions from the notion of space. you could complain that they might not be in the arrangements i have, but those arrangements explain the world completely: it's no more of an assumption than the round earth model and how matter happens to be attracted to itself, and some just happened to form a sun, some made a black hole about which the sun rotates, and then planets and moons...
all the details follow simply from the common-sense properties of aether. i suppose you could argue that the idea that matter comes from aether is an assumption, but it's not necessary to the theory. if you want to suppose matter came about from another source, it would still be caught up in aetheric currents and given much the same result, as it flows with the aether. i merely tried to simplify the theory.
Everything that follows from assuming the definition and properties of Aether can rightly be called an assumption as well.Quotegravity is not understood, by the admission of every scientist: there is no explanation offered for how it so much as works.
Of course there is; Einstein's Field Equations accurately describe exactly how gravity works in most domains, except at the quantum level and elements of galactic and larger sized bodies.Quotespace, however, is known to exist by everyone, and it is known to be how we define distance.
So?Quotethe evidence my theory has is the same as the evidence for round earth theory, as every observation made there is explained neatly by my model.
But they aren't. For example, if I asked you to relate the density of Aether to the deflection of light, you could not do it other than to abstractly do so in an Ad Hoc way. Einstein's field equations can tell you how much momentum and energy of different frequencies of light will warp a specific manifold of space. You speak in large sweeping generalities, and can not show how your theory derives detailed, quantifiable measurement predictions. You do not even have a unit to describe the density of Aether.Quoteyou cannot give round earth theory precedence just because you'd rather hold to it.
Correct, but I can tell you that a Round Earth is not a theory, it is an observation.Quoteequations, which could theoretically be found with time and resources, are present, if not known. at the very least, dual earth theory is equally as likely as round earth.
If they are not known, how are they "present"? Are you waiting for the Aether to tell the equations to you, like Moses and the Torah? I am sorry, but you sound very naive, hopeful and reaching when you say things like this.
"Your "worries" are meaningless. I did an almost complete, well-defined theory which is quite logical and consistent.
I'm into advanced mathematics, but my theory doesn't require so. I think I made myself clear without deep mathematics.
There you go, there is a search option on forum, I refer you to my posts with experiments I wasn't able to try.
My theory is compatible with the world, because I just described how world looks and works.
You're wrong, vast part of my conclusions are based on my contact with aether, which I know it exists because of personal observation.
I proved the Earth is flat many times, I'm not going to repeat myself, don't make you look illiterate.
As I said - aether exists, I observed it personally.
Gravity doesn't exist, it's a lie made by scientists to make them feel good and to lie other people.
I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, as I said, aether exists and I observed it personally, maybe some people can't, but I did.
Up here I proved that my theory is rather ellegant than yours obvious lie.
It's not an assumption, it's called deduction. We know that you can see a moon from two hemispheres, then there must be two exact moons. Same with sun.
Einstein's hypothesis are only hypothesis.
So if space is a distance, then by physics we know that this distance can be shortened or opposite. That means - thicker or thinner.
I can show you equations later, but I think you mightn't understand them well as I do.
Take a look out of window - what do you see? Any curve or total flatness? Rather second option.
Yes, I sound naive and childish, because I'm 9 and I suck my dad's cock.
the evidence my theory has is the same as the evidence for round earth theory, as every observation made there is explained neatly by my model. you cannot give round earth theory precedence just because you'd rather hold to it.
equations, which could theoretically be found with time and resources, are present, if not known. at the very least, dual earth theory is equally as likely as round earth.
First, keep working on it JRowe.the evidence my theory has is the same as the evidence for round earth theory, as every observation made there is explained neatly by my model. you cannot give round earth theory precedence just because you'd rather hold to it.
equations, which could theoretically be found with time and resources, are present, if not known. at the very least, dual earth theory is equally as likely as round earth.
This is not really accurate. The big thing people get hung up on is that gravity hasn't been explained beyond it being a fundamental force of nature. Gravity has been tested pretty thoroughly and using models of gravitational forces, the results are as predicted. Caveat: Not at quantum levels or at the very large(without more mass than we currently observe). Gravity experiments have worked as expected every time they are done. The problem is that to say gravity does not exist, you have to ignore much of science and call upon a massive conspiracy. Most science can be boiled down to the fundamental forces. Chemistry, nuclear physics, and many more can show origins from gravity and all equations and predictions involving that fact work. Currently your model requires too much reliance on aether having contradictory properties when needed. Therefore it is not as likely as the Round Earth model.
rama,
how does my theory violate laws of conservation when it comes to light propagation? i don't see how information is lost, simply because things can cross distances in a greater or smaller amount of time.
evidence may be observational. the fact is, this model works. it may not work to decimal degree accuracy without equations, but those equations may be found.
the problem is, you're acting as though math is purely theoretical. it's not.
you have yet to provide one possible experiment, or one way i get could any kind of information.
without that any math is just guesswork, and not something i want to involve.
i do not assume aether exists, do not forget that: aether is space in my model, and space exists. every property is a logical deduction from that. you can call that an assumption if you wish, but that would be dishonest.
and, unlike gravity, aether is well defined and doesn't need to constantly have new things added to it and new excuses made once you change the scale, or take observations that conflict with what it states.
First, keep working on it JRowe.the evidence my theory has is the same as the evidence for round earth theory, as every observation made there is explained neatly by my model. you cannot give round earth theory precedence just because you'd rather hold to it.
equations, which could theoretically be found with time and resources, are present, if not known. at the very least, dual earth theory is equally as likely as round earth.
This is not really accurate. The big thing people get hung up on is that gravity hasn't been explained beyond it being a fundamental force of nature. Gravity has been tested pretty thoroughly and using models of gravitational forces, the results are as predicted. Caveat: Not at quantum levels or at the very large(without more mass than we currently observe). Gravity experiments have worked as expected every time they are done. The problem is that to say gravity does not exist, you have to ignore much of science and call upon a massive conspiracy. Most science can be boiled down to the fundamental forces. Chemistry, nuclear physics, and many more can show origins from gravity and all equations and predictions involving that fact work. Currently your model requires too much reliance on aether having contradictory properties when needed. Therefore it is not as likely as the Round Earth model.
the problem is assuming gravity must be responsible for those observations.
can you give an example of when aether holds contradictory properties? the only examples i have seen are when multiple models are conflated, which is never going to work. you can probably work out what's meant with a little thought.
I do not assume aether exists, do not forget that: aether is space in my model, and space exists. every property is a logical deduction from that. You can call that an assumption if you wish, but that would be dishonest. And, unlike gravity, aether is well defined and doesn't need to constantly have new things added to it and new excuses made once you change the scale, or take observations that conflict with what it states.
rama, what do you mean where does light go? it keeps moving through space, the same way as it would in your model. what else?
i have an explainable model which explains our observations. what is so hard to understand about that?
you're the one who clearly doesn't understand how math works. equations mean nothing until you have something to apply them to, and i do not have the resources to find out anything about what i wish to apply them to. try to understand this, and stop repeating yourself, your argument is an awful one.
i am deducing properties of space from what it is.
i can give you equations for how long it would take to cross space of thinner or thicker densities, but that's obvious in any case. it's linear, double the thickness means double the time, etc.
it would depend on the phenomenon. general handwaved concepts don't mean anything.
i have made observations and deductions of the world. and yet again you ignore the fact that it is impossible to make equations without having data to work from.
seriously. you can make some equations by defining certain variables, but i'm not defining variables, my equations would have to be there to describe real events, and i can only do that with data i do not have.
i have said that repeatedly, you have ignored it. if you persist in making the claim that it is possible, say how. i am not asking you to do my work for me, i am asking for you to give an example of how i may create a mathematical model of the behavior of aether without the resources to take any direct readings on the detailed behavior of aether (beyond that which i observe, and which has limited relevance). if you are only going to evade that question, then my point is clear: you are asking for an impossibility, and just wasting our time.
if the thickness of aether at some point on earth is defined to be a constant of 1 (at the equator would be a good example), then take a distance d along that. r will represent the thickness of space, then the time taken to cross d at density 1 will be t1.
therefore, obviously, tr = rt1
when the thickness r is close to zero, such as at the equator, the time taken to cross will be instantaneous. t is time, measured in any such unit, r is a dimensionless constant dependent on the thickness of aether.
as i said, i can provide minor equations like this, they're obvious, and they're basically how we define the thickness of space, but equations that rely on predicting behavior require resources and measurements.
even einstein's general relativity was built on the backs of centuries of work on related equations built from observation. i have no such thing.
i suggest you research gravity. the basic principle by which it works is unknown; it assumes a form of gravity to drag us down warped spacetime, which fails to make any sense.
no scientist pretends to understand gravity, they simply plug numbers into a formula: to me, that sounds like they're barking up the wrong tree entirely.
if they can find no relationship, then it seems obvious the source of the supposed force is something entirely different, and they're observing side-effects.
aether does actually begin to provide an explanation for even the cavendish experiment, though i haven't dedicated much time to that yet.
No scientists will profess to understand the source of gravity.Wrong. As usual. Gravity is a phenomenon that shares similar (apparent) properties with magnetism. The effects of gravity can be observed and replicated without any particular effort. Drop an apple. Drop it 100 times. You've proved the existence of gravity in your own kitchen. And the "source" of gravity—and its strength and direction of action—is determined by the proximity of the two objects and their mass. Drop an apple on the moon and it won't fall to the earth; it'll fall to the moon's surface.
It's clear you are not interested in developing dual earth theory. I am sorry I have wasted my time.
It's clear you are not interested in developing dual earth theory. I am sorry I have wasted my time.
is there any reason you posted that twice?
i am interested in developing the theory, as i have done: i am not interested in wasting time on things that mean little and achieve nothing, nor am i physically able to do that which requires more resources than i have. i'm not sure which of those two statements is meant to be controversial.
It's clear you are not interested in developing dual earth theory. I am sorry I have wasted my time.
is there any reason you posted that twice?
i am interested in developing the theory, as i have done: i am not interested in wasting time on things that mean little and achieve nothing, nor am i physically able to do that which requires more resources than i have. i'm not sure which of those two statements is meant to be controversial.
Accident.
There is nothing controversial in an Internet crank claiming to have reinvented physics only to never do any physics. Why do you think you are controversial.
It's clear you are not interested in developing dual earth theory. I am sorry I have wasted my time.
You can't come back with anything because you have nothing. You will never have anything that supports anything you claim.
Of course it would make a difference. I would be interested to see it. Somehow I doubt you have the education to do so though since you cannot even express the density of Aether as an SI unit. Considering you have declared your endeavor impossible before you have even done anything I doubt you have the motivation to do much more than you do here.It's clear you are not interested in developing dual earth theory. I am sorry I have wasted my time.
is there any reason you posted that twice?
i am interested in developing the theory, as i have done: i am not interested in wasting time on things that mean little and achieve nothing, nor am i physically able to do that which requires more resources than i have. i'm not sure which of those two statements is meant to be controversial.
Accident.
There is nothing controversial in an Internet crank claiming to have reinvented physics only to never do any physics. Why do you think you are controversial.
i am not interested in wasting time on things that mean little and achieve nothing, nor am i physically able to do that which requires more resources than i have.
a crank would be providing nonsensical equations and numbers. i do not do that, because i know hasty attempts will be flawed. no one expects you to derive every celestial equation yourself solely for the sake of a forum post that will get rejected on principle, why is it fair for you to ask me to do the same?
seriously, ask yourself. if i came back tomorrow with pages of clear, accurate math describing aether and the dual earth model, would you care? would it even make a dent in your preconceptions? would you even read it?
i am not a crank: what i am, is intelligent enough to know when someone has no desires beyond making me waste my time.
I warned you.
This prick JRowe simply uses ad hoc and you can't win.
So please do not respond to JRowe, because he is just a loneless troll.
You haven't made anything clear. You keep saying you are refining your theory. I don't say anything against your theory because I don't need to. You made everything up based on nothing. Do you understand this? Aether transport theory? So baseless.You can't come back with anything because you have nothing. You will never have anything that supports anything you claim.
now my point is made clear. you offer no evidence, only baseless assertion that makes your closed-mindedness obvious.
i have offered a model that fully explains what we observe in the world, lacking only things that take resources and time to find. you say nothing against it, you reject it for no reason beyond the fact you'd rather cling to a round earth.
it seems very clear you're the one who offers nothing.
Of course it would make a difference. I would be interested to see it. Somehow I doubt you have the education to do so though since you cannot even express the density of Aether as an SI unit. Considering you have declared your endeavor impossible before you have even done anything I doubt you have the motivation to do much more than you do here.It's clear you are not interested in developing dual earth theory. I am sorry I have wasted my time.
is there any reason you posted that twice?
i am interested in developing the theory, as i have done: i am not interested in wasting time on things that mean little and achieve nothing, nor am i physically able to do that which requires more resources than i have. i'm not sure which of those two statements is meant to be controversial.
Accident.
There is nothing controversial in an Internet crank claiming to have reinvented physics only to never do any physics. Why do you think you are controversial.
i am not interested in wasting time on things that mean little and achieve nothing, nor am i physically able to do that which requires more resources than i have.
a crank would be providing nonsensical equations and numbers. i do not do that, because i know hasty attempts will be flawed. no one expects you to derive every celestial equation yourself solely for the sake of a forum post that will get rejected on principle, why is it fair for you to ask me to do the same?
seriously, ask yourself. if i came back tomorrow with pages of clear, accurate math describing aether and the dual earth model, would you care? would it even make a dent in your preconceptions? would you even read it?
i am not a crank: what i am, is intelligent enough to know when someone has no desires beyond making me waste my time.
You haven't made anything clear. You keep saying you are refining your theory. I don't say anything against your theory because I don't need to. You made everything up based on nothing. Do you understand this? Aether transport theory? So baseless.You can't come back with anything because you have nothing. You will never have anything that supports anything you claim.
now my point is made clear. you offer no evidence, only baseless assertion that makes your closed-mindedness obvious.
i have offered a model that fully explains what we observe in the world, lacking only things that take resources and time to find. you say nothing against it, you reject it for no reason beyond the fact you'd rather cling to a round earth.
it seems very clear you're the one who offers nothing.
You want evidence of a round earth?
Foucault Pendulum.
Sunrise/sunsets
Seasons
24 hour sun at the south pole.
Astronomy
Chemistry/Physics
The sun picture experiment that was performed by people on this site.
Geology.
So I'm going to ask again, what do you have?
I warned you.
And I told you none of that would surprise me.QuoteThis prick JRowe simply uses ad hoc and you can't win.
It's about winning?QuoteSo please do not respond to JRowe, because he is just a loneless troll.
Please stop reading.
How can I educate myself about it? You made it all up. I can' read anything about it. There is no evidence for it. You need to understand this.You haven't made anything clear. You keep saying you are refining your theory. I don't say anything against your theory because I don't need to. You made everything up based on nothing. Do you understand this? Aether transport theory? So baseless.You can't come back with anything because you have nothing. You will never have anything that supports anything you claim.
now my point is made clear. you offer no evidence, only baseless assertion that makes your closed-mindedness obvious.
i have offered a model that fully explains what we observe in the world, lacking only things that take resources and time to find. you say nothing against it, you reject it for no reason beyond the fact you'd rather cling to a round earth.
it seems very clear you're the one who offers nothing.
You want evidence of a round earth?
Foucault Pendulum.
Sunrise/sunsets
Seasons
24 hour sun at the south pole.
Astronomy
Chemistry/Physics
The sun picture experiment that was performed by people on this site.
Geology.
So I'm going to ask again, what do you have?
aether transport theory is not baseless when you educate yourself on the aether-as-space model.
every one of those things is explained by dual earth theory, and dual earth theory replaces 'gravity' with a far simpler model based on modelling space with respect to known laws. it is a simpler theory. that should render it superior, by basic principles of science: it is not based on multiple assumptions.No, they aren't and don't claim they are. Dual earth theory would be simpler because a simple minded fool made it up.
How can I educate myself about it? You made it all up. I can' read anything about it. There is no evidence for it. You need to understand this.You haven't made anything clear. You keep saying you are refining your theory. I don't say anything against your theory because I don't need to. You made everything up based on nothing. Do you understand this? Aether transport theory? So baseless.You can't come back with anything because you have nothing. You will never have anything that supports anything you claim.
now my point is made clear. you offer no evidence, only baseless assertion that makes your closed-mindedness obvious.
i have offered a model that fully explains what we observe in the world, lacking only things that take resources and time to find. you say nothing against it, you reject it for no reason beyond the fact you'd rather cling to a round earth.
it seems very clear you're the one who offers nothing.
You want evidence of a round earth?
Foucault Pendulum.
Sunrise/sunsets
Seasons
24 hour sun at the south pole.
Astronomy
Chemistry/Physics
The sun picture experiment that was performed by people on this site.
Geology.
So I'm going to ask again, what do you have?
aether transport theory is not baseless when you educate yourself on the aether-as-space model.Quoteevery one of those things is explained by dual earth theory, and dual earth theory replaces 'gravity' with a far simpler model based on modelling space with respect to known laws. it is a simpler theory. that should render it superior, by basic principles of science: it is not based on multiple assumptions.No, they aren't and don't claim they are. Dual earth theory would be simpler because a simple minded fool made it up.
Have any evidence yet? I notice you couldn't dismiss any of my claims.
You haven't provided any.How can I educate myself about it? You made it all up. I can' read anything about it. There is no evidence for it. You need to understand this.You haven't made anything clear. You keep saying you are refining your theory. I don't say anything against your theory because I don't need to. You made everything up based on nothing. Do you understand this? Aether transport theory? So baseless.You can't come back with anything because you have nothing. You will never have anything that supports anything you claim.
now my point is made clear. you offer no evidence, only baseless assertion that makes your closed-mindedness obvious.
i have offered a model that fully explains what we observe in the world, lacking only things that take resources and time to find. you say nothing against it, you reject it for no reason beyond the fact you'd rather cling to a round earth.
it seems very clear you're the one who offers nothing.
You want evidence of a round earth?
Foucault Pendulum.
Sunrise/sunsets
Seasons
24 hour sun at the south pole.
Astronomy
Chemistry/Physics
The sun picture experiment that was performed by people on this site.
Geology.
So I'm going to ask again, what do you have?
aether transport theory is not baseless when you educate yourself on the aether-as-space model.Quoteevery one of those things is explained by dual earth theory, and dual earth theory replaces 'gravity' with a far simpler model based on modelling space with respect to known laws. it is a simpler theory. that should render it superior, by basic principles of science: it is not based on multiple assumptions.No, they aren't and don't claim they are. Dual earth theory would be simpler because a simple minded fool made it up.
Have any evidence yet? I notice you couldn't dismiss any of my claims.
you can read plenty about it, i have explained it several times on this forum. at this point it's clear you will never accept any evidence i give,
but you must at least admit that the mechanism makes sense,No it doesn't. You have to ignore most fields of science.
and is not baseless, as you propose. if we move through thin space, we can cross what seems to be a larger distance immeiately.It's not baseless? Ok, back up the claim that things moving in space can cross large distances immediately.
i dismissed every one of your claims, you simply ignore the fact they are explained in flat and dual earth models.You didn't even touch my claims. You aren't fooling anyone.
You haven't provided any.How can I educate myself about it? You made it all up. I can' read anything about it. There is no evidence for it. You need to understand this.You haven't made anything clear. You keep saying you are refining your theory. I don't say anything against your theory because I don't need to. You made everything up based on nothing. Do you understand this? Aether transport theory? So baseless.You can't come back with anything because you have nothing. You will never have anything that supports anything you claim.
now my point is made clear. you offer no evidence, only baseless assertion that makes your closed-mindedness obvious.
i have offered a model that fully explains what we observe in the world, lacking only things that take resources and time to find. you say nothing against it, you reject it for no reason beyond the fact you'd rather cling to a round earth.
it seems very clear you're the one who offers nothing.
You want evidence of a round earth?
Foucault Pendulum.
Sunrise/sunsets
Seasons
24 hour sun at the south pole.
Astronomy
Chemistry/Physics
The sun picture experiment that was performed by people on this site.
Geology.
So I'm going to ask again, what do you have?
aether transport theory is not baseless when you educate yourself on the aether-as-space model.Quoteevery one of those things is explained by dual earth theory, and dual earth theory replaces 'gravity' with a far simpler model based on modelling space with respect to known laws. it is a simpler theory. that should render it superior, by basic principles of science: it is not based on multiple assumptions.No, they aren't and don't claim they are. Dual earth theory would be simpler because a simple minded fool made it up.
Have any evidence yet? I notice you couldn't dismiss any of my claims.
you can read plenty about it, i have explained it several times on this forum. at this point it's clear you will never accept any evidence i give,Quotebut you must at least admit that the mechanism makes sense,No it doesn't. You have to ignore most fields of science.Quoteand is not baseless, as you propose. if we move through thin space, we can cross what seems to be a larger distance immeiately.It's not baseless? Ok, back up the claim that things moving in space can cross large distances immediately.Quotei dismissed every one of your claims, you simply ignore the fact they are explained in flat and dual earth models.You didn't even touch my claims. You aren't fooling anyone.
Observation don't count when it's what RET predicts as well. Deductive is not evidence.
i have provided evidence (observational, deductive and otherwise) multiple times, you have simply rejected it on principle.
please back up your assertions. what fields of science disprove the fact that it takes less time to cross less space than more? that's what you're saying, back it up. it seems like nonsense to me.You said it can take less time to cross more space. You know the whole aether transport thing.
and is not baseless, as you propose. if we move through thin space, we can cross what seems to be a larger distance immeiately.
It's not baseless? Ok, back up the claim that things moving in space can cross large distances immediately.I'm still waiting.
you apparently think that exhaustion is an argument, which seems to be a typical tactic among round earthers.I am getting exhausted from asking for evidence so much.
every one of those arguments has been addressed. the 24 hour sun at the south pole is completely answered with even a rudimentary understanding of dual earth theory (for example), the rest of your points are way too vague to form any kind of argument.You wanted to answer questions about dual earth theory and now you won't. What are you afraid of?
Observation don't count when it's what RET predicts as well. Deductive is not evidence.
i have provided evidence (observational, deductive and otherwise) multiple times, you have simply rejected it on principle.Quoteplease back up your assertions. what fields of science disprove the fact that it takes less time to cross less space than more? that's what you're saying, back it up. it seems like nonsense to me.You said it can take less time to cross more space. You know the whole aether transport thing.Quote from: youand is not baseless, as you propose. if we move through thin space, we can cross what seems to be a larger distance immeiately.Quote from: meIt's not baseless? Ok, back up the claim that things moving in space can cross large distances immediately.I'm still waiting.Quoteyou apparently think that exhaustion is an argument, which seems to be a typical tactic among round earthers.I am getting exhausted from asking for evidence so much.Quoteevery one of those arguments has been addressed. the 24 hour sun at the south pole is completely answered with even a rudimentary understanding of dual earth theory (for example), the rest of your points are way too vague to form any kind of argument.You wanted to answer questions about dual earth theory and now you won't. What are you afraid of?
and is not baseless, as you propose. if we move through thin space, we can cross what seems to be a larger distance immeiately.
It's not baseless? Ok, back up the claim that things moving in space can cross large distances immediately.I'm still waiting.
Blah blah blah...I would make a real response but you keep hiding from them.please try to read. you're the one whose hiding from responses.Quote from: youand is not baseless, as you propose. if we move through thin space, we can cross what seems to be a larger distance immeiately.Quote from: meIt's not baseless? Ok, back up the claim that things moving in space can cross large distances immediately.I'm still waiting.
Where else does that happen? It is easier to move with the wind instead of against it, but why does low density aether cause instantaneous travel? And evidence would be nice.
please try to read. you're the one whose hiding from responses.
i suggest you familiarize yourself with basic dual earth theory. at the equator, space is thin. (this is actually what causes both gravity, and the creation of the earth: like all things, space goes from high concentrations to low). as such, with a near zero density, it can be crossed instantly.
this is thin space: the fact it is stretched to cover what seems to be a larger distance, from the perspective of different densities of space, isn't relevant. i've used the analogy of a spring before: the distace along the metal stays constant, but if you compress it, you can lay multiple springs end by end before it looks as long as a stretched out spring. [/i]Distances are known. Your analogy makes zero sense. You have claimed aether can apart a force on matter. Now you say it doesn't need to.
the fact is that thinner space allows for a 'shortcut'. this is why i pointed out earlier that your argument is based on the idea that moving through less space apparently takes as much time as moving through more space: it's absurd.You are using what equates to a pressure change to equal a distance change. Where else is this seen?
if you're not going to address a single point i've made, why are you posting?You really need to open your eyes.
Where else does that happen? It is easier to move with the wind instead of against it, but why does low density aether cause instantaneous travel? And evidence would be nice.
please try to read. you're the one whose hiding from responses.
i suggest you familiarize yourself with basic dual earth theory. at the equator, space is thin. (this is actually what causes both gravity, and the creation of the earth: like all things, space goes from high concentrations to low). as such, with a near zero density, it can be crossed instantly.Quotethis is thin space: the fact it is stretched to cover what seems to be a larger distance, from the perspective of different densities of space, isn't relevant. i've used the analogy of a spring before: the distace along the metal stays constant, but if you compress it, you can lay multiple springs end by end before it looks as long as a stretched out spring. [/i]Distances are known. Your analogy makes zero sense. You have claimed aether can apart a force on matter. Now you say it doesn't need to.Quotethe fact is that thinner space allows for a 'shortcut'. this is why i pointed out earlier that your argument is based on the idea that moving through less space apparently takes as much time as moving through more space: it's absurd.You are using what equates to a pressure change to equal a distance change. Where else is this seen?Quoteif you're not going to address a single point i've made, why are you posting?You really need to open your eyes.
If I was walking on a rubber floor and it took 30seconds to cross, would it take a shorter, the same time, or longer to walk across the rubber floor if it were stretched to twice it's length?Where else does that happen? It is easier to move with the wind instead of against it, but why does low density aether cause instantaneous travel? And evidence would be nice.
please try to read. you're the one whose hiding from responses.
i suggest you familiarize yourself with basic dual earth theory. at the equator, space is thin. (this is actually what causes both gravity, and the creation of the earth: like all things, space goes from high concentrations to low). as such, with a near zero density, it can be crossed instantly.Quotethis is thin space: the fact it is stretched to cover what seems to be a larger distance, from the perspective of different densities of space, isn't relevant. i've used the analogy of a spring before: the distace along the metal stays constant, but if you compress it, you can lay multiple springs end by end before it looks as long as a stretched out spring. [/i]Distances are known. Your analogy makes zero sense. You have claimed aether can apart a force on matter. Now you say it doesn't need to.Quotethe fact is that thinner space allows for a 'shortcut'. this is why i pointed out earlier that your argument is based on the idea that moving through less space apparently takes as much time as moving through more space: it's absurd.You are using what equates to a pressure change to equal a distance change. Where else is this seen?Quoteif you're not going to address a single point i've made, why are you posting?You really need to open your eyes.
you don't seem to understand the concept of logical deduction. we move through space: true. we move through more space, it takes longer. if we then stretch out the first distance, so it appears to cross the same distance as the second, we can cross that in less time. this is basic logic. why on earth do you expect altering space is not going to have any effect on movement through it? i honestly can't understand how you can make such baseless claims.
i remind you yet again that we are talking about space. the old model is not relevant here. (i don't like talking about the force aspect, because it technically is true, and technically is not. it comes down to how you define force).
If I was walking on a rubber floor and it took 30seconds to cross, would it take a shorter, the same time, or longer to walk across the rubber floor if it were stretched to twice it's length?Where else does that happen? It is easier to move with the wind instead of against it, but why does low density aether cause instantaneous travel? And evidence would be nice.
please try to read. you're the one whose hiding from responses.
i suggest you familiarize yourself with basic dual earth theory. at the equator, space is thin. (this is actually what causes both gravity, and the creation of the earth: like all things, space goes from high concentrations to low). as such, with a near zero density, it can be crossed instantly.Quotethis is thin space: the fact it is stretched to cover what seems to be a larger distance, from the perspective of different densities of space, isn't relevant. i've used the analogy of a spring before: the distace along the metal stays constant, but if you compress it, you can lay multiple springs end by end before it looks as long as a stretched out spring. [/i]Distances are known. Your analogy makes zero sense. You have claimed aether can apart a force on matter. Now you say it doesn't need to.Quotethe fact is that thinner space allows for a 'shortcut'. this is why i pointed out earlier that your argument is based on the idea that moving through less space apparently takes as much time as moving through more space: it's absurd.You are using what equates to a pressure change to equal a distance change. Where else is this seen?Quoteif you're not going to address a single point i've made, why are you posting?You really need to open your eyes.
you don't seem to understand the concept of logical deduction. we move through space: true. we move through more space, it takes longer. if we then stretch out the first distance, so it appears to cross the same distance as the second, we can cross that in less time. this is basic logic. why on earth do you expect altering space is not going to have any effect on movement through it? i honestly can't understand how you can make such baseless claims.
i remind you yet again that we are talking about space. the old model is not relevant here. (i don't like talking about the force aspect, because it technically is true, and technically is not. it comes down to how you define force).
What logic says it should take less time to cross a longer distance? An no, we are talking about aether. You just say aether is everything. It's space and air. It's what lets planes fly. It's what atoms are made out of. It's everything to you.
2 questions :
- What's the orbit of the sun and the moon (schema needed)
- What's their respective distance from Earth (approximately)
So how could you explain eclipses pathes like this one : http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhistory/SEplot/SE1919May29T.pdf (https://server2.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/saun/sjclz/squix/sxmkeiad/p1/SEhistory/SEplot/SE1919May29T.pdf) ?
So when you stretch space out it get's shorter? Can you please stay consistent.What logic says it should take less time to cross a longer distance? An no, we are talking about aether. You just say aether is everything. It's space and air. It's what lets planes fly. It's what atoms are made out of. It's everything to you.
are you reading a word that i'm saying? it does not take less time to cross a longer distance, it takes less time to cross less distance. distance is the variable here. distance is what changes when space changes, because space is distance. can you please try to grasp that basic concept before arguing against it?
let's use a circle. to get to a point a quarter of the way around, you can do a quarter turn one way, or a three quarter turn the other way. what you're saying as that both turns must automatically take the same time, just because they go to the same place. that is utter nonsense.You claim that if you take a certain length of space and travel it in a certain time, it will take less time if you take that certain length of space and stretch it out. Did you forget this?
aether is not air, air does not exist. it is not necessary for aether to form matter, it is simply one of many elements of dual earth theory that simplify.It's not air but you claim it replaces air. Aether can do anything it wants according to you. Have any evidence for anything yet?
So when you stretch space out it get's shorter? Can you please stay consistent.What logic says it should take less time to cross a longer distance? An no, we are talking about aether. You just say aether is everything. It's space and air. It's what lets planes fly. It's what atoms are made out of. It's everything to you.
are you reading a word that i'm saying? it does not take less time to cross a longer distance, it takes less time to cross less distance. distance is the variable here. distance is what changes when space changes, because space is distance. can you please try to grasp that basic concept before arguing against it?Quotelet's use a circle. to get to a point a quarter of the way around, you can do a quarter turn one way, or a three quarter turn the other way. what you're saying as that both turns must automatically take the same time, just because they go to the same place. that is utter nonsense.You claim that if you take a certain length of space and travel it in a certain time, it will take less time if you take that certain length of space and stretch it out. Did you forget this?Quoteaether is not air, air does not exist. it is not necessary for aether to form matter, it is simply one of many elements of dual earth theory that simplify.It's not air but you claim it replaces air. Aether can do anything it wants according to you. Have any evidence for anything yet?
If you stretch space the amount would be less, but it would be longer. It just doesn't disappear.So when you stretch space out it get's shorter? Can you please stay consistent.What logic says it should take less time to cross a longer distance? An no, we are talking about aether. You just say aether is everything. It's space and air. It's what lets planes fly. It's what atoms are made out of. It's everything to you.
are you reading a word that i'm saying? it does not take less time to cross a longer distance, it takes less time to cross less distance. distance is the variable here. distance is what changes when space changes, because space is distance. can you please try to grasp that basic concept before arguing against it?Quotelet's use a circle. to get to a point a quarter of the way around, you can do a quarter turn one way, or a three quarter turn the other way. what you're saying as that both turns must automatically take the same time, just because they go to the same place. that is utter nonsense.You claim that if you take a certain length of space and travel it in a certain time, it will take less time if you take that certain length of space and stretch it out. Did you forget this?Quoteaether is not air, air does not exist. it is not necessary for aether to form matter, it is simply one of many elements of dual earth theory that simplify.It's not air but you claim it replaces air. Aether can do anything it wants according to you. Have any evidence for anything yet?
what the hell are you on about? if the same amount of space is stretched so, from an external of elsewhere, it occupies more space, then clearly the amount of space present in any one area will be less. what part of that are you struggling with?
i know what i'm saying, you're being incoherent. i am saying that, if speed is kept constant, the time taken to cross a specific distance will be the same. the problem is, that supposes distance is an objective measurement: if space is thinner, then more distance (from an external perspective) must be crossed before you reach that distance from an internal perspective. i refer you yet again to the spring analogy.Yes, springs get longer when you stretch them.
learn to read you illiterate buffoon. stop trolling, and acknowledge what i am actually saying, i am sick fo repeating myself to someone who is not willing to put the slightest bit of thought into comprehending what i'm saying.It's hard to keep up when you keep changing what aether is capable of.
eleven. matter is formed when extreme amounts of aether are in one location, functionally changing state.
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic link=topic=63259.msg1678935#msg1678935
eleven. matter is formed when extreme amounts of aether are in one location, functionally changing state.
[/quote
If aether can form matter, than it violates the law of conservation of mass.
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic link=topic=63259.msg1678935#msg1678935
eleven. matter is formed when extreme amounts of aether are in one location, functionally changing state.
[/quote
If aether can form matter, than it violates the law of conservation of mass.
awful quoting, and do you feel like providing any evidence for why the law is relevant in this situation? (in round earth theory, if it universally held the universe would not exist. vacuum fluctuations are also a contradiction, as well as nuclear power which converts mass to energy). i would propose that there is something fundamental beneath mass which is conserved, and it is that fundamental which we interpret as mass when aether is in the form of matter.
i should also point out dual earth theory does not require aether to be able to become matter, it is simply a way to reduce the number of assumptions.
vacuum fluctuations are also a contradiction,
as well as nuclear power which converts mass to energy)
i would propose that there is something fundamental beneath mass which is conserved, and it is that fundamental which we interpret as mass when aether is in the form of matter.
i should also point out dual earth theory does not require aether to be able to become matter, it is simply a way to reduce the number of assumptions.
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.But if the infinite amount of space can be converted into matter, then the sum total of matter/energy will be increased, violating the law of conservation of mass.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.Quoteif you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.But if the infinite amount of space can be converted into matter, then the sum total of matter/energy will be increased, violating the law of conservation of mass.Quotei notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
Your point? The law clearly applies now.
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.Quoteif you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.But if the infinite amount of space can be converted into matter, then the sum total of matter/energy will be increased, violating the law of conservation of mass.Quotei notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
Your point? The law clearly applies now.
the law clearly applies to what we observe. the exception in my theory is for space to become matter: this is where the universe came from (which round earth theory has no explanation for). the exception is the same as the one in round earth: where matter/energy originally came from.
you have no leg to stand on. in addition, you're not interested in mass. space may be related to energy, or maybe it is a third part of the energy/matter duo.
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.Quoteif you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.But if the infinite amount of space can be converted into matter, then the sum total of matter/energy will be increased, violating the law of conservation of mass.Quotei notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
Your point? The law clearly applies now.the law clearly applies to what we observe. the exception in my theory is for space to become matter: this is where the universe came from (which round earth theory has no explanation for). the exception is the same as the one in round earth: where matter/energy originally came from.
Except for the fact that you cannot verify that space has any of the properties you say they have.Quoteyou have no leg to stand on. in addition, you're not interested in mass. space may be related to energy, or maybe it is a third part of the energy/matter duo.
But you have no proof that it is. If you incorporate that into your theory then it will be an additional assumption.
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.Quoteif you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.But if the infinite amount of space can be converted into matter, then the sum total of matter/energy will be increased, violating the law of conservation of mass.Quotei notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
Your point? The law clearly applies now.the law clearly applies to what we observe. the exception in my theory is for space to become matter: this is where the universe came from (which round earth theory has no explanation for). the exception is the same as the one in round earth: where matter/energy originally came from.
Except for the fact that you cannot verify that space has any of the properties you say they have.Quoteyou have no leg to stand on. in addition, you're not interested in mass. space may be related to energy, or maybe it is a third part of the energy/matter duo.
But you have no proof that it is. If you incorporate that into your theory then it will be an additional assumption.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
you are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world. look at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.
it is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
you are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world.
look at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.
eleven. matter is formed when extreme amounts of aether are in one location, functionally changing state.
If aether can form matter, than it violates the law of conservation of mass.
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.Quoteif you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.But if the infinite amount of space can be converted into matter, then the sum total of matter/energy will be increased, violating the law of conservation of mass.Quotei notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
Your point? The law clearly applies now.the law clearly applies to what we observe. the exception in my theory is for space to become matter: this is where the universe came from (which round earth theory has no explanation for). the exception is the same as the one in round earth: where matter/energy originally came from.
Except for the fact that you cannot verify that space has any of the properties you say they have.Quoteyou have no leg to stand on. in addition, you're not interested in mass. space may be related to energy, or maybe it is a third part of the energy/matter duo.
But you have no proof that it is. If you incorporate that into your theory then it will be an additional assumption.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
you are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world. look at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
No it is not. We have proof that the Big Bang occurred. We cannot prove space can become matter. If you have to assume that space can become matter, then it is not the simplest explanation.Quoteyou are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world.
I reject it because there is no evidence you can show me.Quotelook at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.
I have never conceded any argument to you. I have only commented on this thread recently, as seen below:eleven. matter is formed when extreme amounts of aether are in one location, functionally changing state.
If aether can form matter, than it violates the law of conservation of mass.
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.Quoteif you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.But if the infinite amount of space can be converted into matter, then the sum total of matter/energy will be increased, violating the law of conservation of mass.Quotei notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
Your point? The law clearly applies now.the law clearly applies to what we observe. the exception in my theory is for space to become matter: this is where the universe came from (which round earth theory has no explanation for). the exception is the same as the one in round earth: where matter/energy originally came from.
Except for the fact that you cannot verify that space has any of the properties you say they have.Quoteyou have no leg to stand on. in addition, you're not interested in mass. space may be related to energy, or maybe it is a third part of the energy/matter duo.
But you have no proof that it is. If you incorporate that into your theory then it will be an additional assumption.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
you are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world. look at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
No it is not. We have proof that the Big Bang occurred. We cannot prove space can become matter. If you have to assume that space can become matter, then it is not the simplest explanation.Quoteyou are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world.
I reject it because there is no evidence you can show me.Quotelook at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.
I have never conceded any argument to you. I have only commented on this thread recently, as seen below:eleven. matter is formed when extreme amounts of aether are in one location, functionally changing state.
If aether can form matter, than it violates the law of conservation of mass.
we have proof matter came from somewhere. i just tie it to something that already exists. basic stuff. it's not necessary, just simpler.
it's a waste of time talking to you. when you're actually interested in having a discussion rather than closed-mindedly asserting and repeating yourself even when discredited, come back and let me know.
we have proof matter came from somewhere. i just tie it to something that already exists. basic stuff.BUT THE MECHANISM FOR HOW SPACE MAKES MATTER IS UNOBSERVED .. You say that space forms matter, but we never see this anywhere. It doesn't predict anything. It doesn't correspond to the real world in any way.
it's a waste of time talking to JRowe
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.Quoteif you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.But if the infinite amount of space can be converted into matter, then the sum total of matter/energy will be increased, violating the law of conservation of mass.Quotei notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
Your point? The law clearly applies now.the law clearly applies to what we observe. the exception in my theory is for space to become matter: this is where the universe came from (which round earth theory has no explanation for). the exception is the same as the one in round earth: where matter/energy originally came from.
Except for the fact that you cannot verify that space has any of the properties you say they have.Quoteyou have no leg to stand on. in addition, you're not interested in mass. space may be related to energy, or maybe it is a third part of the energy/matter duo.
But you have no proof that it is. If you incorporate that into your theory then it will be an additional assumption.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
you are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world. look at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
No it is not. We have proof that the Big Bang occurred. We cannot prove space can become matter. If you have to assume that space can become matter, then it is not the simplest explanation.Quoteyou are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world.
I reject it because there is no evidence you can show me.Quotelook at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.
I have never conceded any argument to you. I have only commented on this thread recently, as seen below:eleven. matter is formed when extreme amounts of aether are in one location, functionally changing state.
If aether can form matter, than it violates the law of conservation of mass.
we have proof matter came from somewhere. i just tie it to something that already exists. basic stuff. it's not necessary, just simpler.
it's a waste of time talking to you. when you're actually interested in having a discussion rather than closed-mindedly asserting and repeating yourself even when discredited, come back and let me know.Quotewe have proof matter came from somewhere. i just tie it to something that already exists. basic stuff.BUT THE MECHANISM FOR HOW SPACE MAKES MATTER IS UNOBSERVED .. You say that space forms matter, but we never see this anywhere. It doesn't predict anything. It doesn't correspond to the real world in any way.
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.Quoteif you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.But if the infinite amount of space can be converted into matter, then the sum total of matter/energy will be increased, violating the law of conservation of mass.Quotei notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
Your point? The law clearly applies now.the law clearly applies to what we observe. the exception in my theory is for space to become matter: this is where the universe came from (which round earth theory has no explanation for). the exception is the same as the one in round earth: where matter/energy originally came from.
Except for the fact that you cannot verify that space has any of the properties you say they have.Quoteyou have no leg to stand on. in addition, you're not interested in mass. space may be related to energy, or maybe it is a third part of the energy/matter duo.
But you have no proof that it is. If you incorporate that into your theory then it will be an additional assumption.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
you are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world. look at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
No it is not. We have proof that the Big Bang occurred. We cannot prove space can become matter. If you have to assume that space can become matter, then it is not the simplest explanation.Quoteyou are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world.
I reject it because there is no evidence you can show me.Quotelook at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.
I have never conceded any argument to you. I have only commented on this thread recently, as seen below:eleven. matter is formed when extreme amounts of aether are in one location, functionally changing state.
If aether can form matter, than it violates the law of conservation of mass.
we have proof matter came from somewhere. i just tie it to something that already exists. basic stuff. it's not necessary, just simpler.
it's a waste of time talking to you. when you're actually interested in having a discussion rather than closed-mindedly asserting and repeating yourself even when discredited, come back and let me know.Quotewe have proof matter came from somewhere. i just tie it to something that already exists. basic stuff.BUT THE MECHANISM FOR HOW SPACE MAKES MATTER IS UNOBSERVED .. You say that space forms matter, but we never see this anywhere. It doesn't predict anything. It doesn't correspond to the real world in any way.
how many times do i need to repeat myself? that mechanism is not necessary to the theory. particles moving through space work just as well, and will have the same effect.
we also have no observed in any way the process which could create the universe. that does not mean it has not happened, i just see no reason to suppose baselessly the existence of some separate entity beyond anything we know with that ability, when it is not needed.
are you going to bother to acknowledge a word i've said this time, or do you enjoy yelling too much?
how many times do i need to repeat myself? that mechanism is not necessary to the theory.
we also have no observed in any way the process which could create the universe.
i just see no reason to suppose baselessly the existence of some separate entity beyond anything we know with that ability,
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.Quoteif you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.But if the infinite amount of space can be converted into matter, then the sum total of matter/energy will be increased, violating the law of conservation of mass.Quotei notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
Your point? The law clearly applies now.the law clearly applies to what we observe. the exception in my theory is for space to become matter: this is where the universe came from (which round earth theory has no explanation for). the exception is the same as the one in round earth: where matter/energy originally came from.
Except for the fact that you cannot verify that space has any of the properties you say they have.Quoteyou have no leg to stand on. in addition, you're not interested in mass. space may be related to energy, or maybe it is a third part of the energy/matter duo.
But you have no proof that it is. If you incorporate that into your theory then it will be an additional assumption.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
you are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world. look at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
No it is not. We have proof that the Big Bang occurred. We cannot prove space can become matter. If you have to assume that space can become matter, then it is not the simplest explanation.Quoteyou are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world.
I reject it because there is no evidence you can show me.Quotelook at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.
I have never conceded any argument to you. I have only commented on this thread recently, as seen below:eleven. matter is formed when extreme amounts of aether are in one location, functionally changing state.
If aether can form matter, than it violates the law of conservation of mass.
we have proof matter came from somewhere. i just tie it to something that already exists. basic stuff. it's not necessary, just simpler.
it's a waste of time talking to you. when you're actually interested in having a discussion rather than closed-mindedly asserting and repeating yourself even when discredited, come back and let me know.Quotewe have proof matter came from somewhere. i just tie it to something that already exists. basic stuff.BUT THE MECHANISM FOR HOW SPACE MAKES MATTER IS UNOBSERVED .. You say that space forms matter, but we never see this anywhere. It doesn't predict anything. It doesn't correspond to the real world in any way.
how many times do i need to repeat myself? that mechanism is not necessary to the theory. particles moving through space work just as well, and will have the same effect.
we also have no observed in any way the process which could create the universe. that does not mean it has not happened, i just see no reason to suppose baselessly the existence of some separate entity beyond anything we know with that ability, when it is not needed.
are you going to bother to acknowledge a word i've said this time, or do you enjoy yelling too much?Quotehow many times do i need to repeat myself? that mechanism is not necessary to the theory.
Yes it is. If you're going to say it can happen, you have to show how it can happen, otherwise you are asserting.Quotewe also have no observed in any way the process which could create the universe.
Yes, but at least we know one possible way it could have happened. Hint: you mentioned it before.Quotei just see no reason to suppose baselessly the existence of some separate entity beyond anything we know with that ability,
Already told you, you mentioned something before that scientists say could have caused the universe. Where does that put your proposal that space can create matter, which we see nowhere happening?
if you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.
i notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.Quoteif you're not interested in mass, just the sum total of matter/energy, you have nothing to worry about.But if the infinite amount of space can be converted into matter, then the sum total of matter/energy will be increased, violating the law of conservation of mass.Quotei notice you also ignored my other example: there is an occasion when the law did not apply, otherwise the universe would not exist.
Your point? The law clearly applies now.the law clearly applies to what we observe. the exception in my theory is for space to become matter: this is where the universe came from (which round earth theory has no explanation for). the exception is the same as the one in round earth: where matter/energy originally came from.
Except for the fact that you cannot verify that space has any of the properties you say they have.Quoteyou have no leg to stand on. in addition, you're not interested in mass. space may be related to energy, or maybe it is a third part of the energy/matter duo.
But you have no proof that it is. If you incorporate that into your theory then it will be an additional assumption.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
you are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world. look at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.Quoteit is simpler to say 'space can become matter' rather than both 'something else ebyond anything known exists' and ''that something ele can create matter and energy and space'.
No it is not. We have proof that the Big Bang occurred. We cannot prove space can become matter. If you have to assume that space can become matter, then it is not the simplest explanation.Quoteyou are being a waste of time again. i've given you my evidence before, the fact is you reject it because you are too closed-minded to contemplate anything outside your narrow view of the world.
I reject it because there is no evidence you can show me.Quotelook at this thread, alone: you concede the argument, then hurry away to your old stock fall-back without admitting you were utterly wrong.
I have never conceded any argument to you. I have only commented on this thread recently, as seen below:eleven. matter is formed when extreme amounts of aether are in one location, functionally changing state.
If aether can form matter, than it violates the law of conservation of mass.
we have proof matter came from somewhere. i just tie it to something that already exists. basic stuff. it's not necessary, just simpler.
it's a waste of time talking to you. when you're actually interested in having a discussion rather than closed-mindedly asserting and repeating yourself even when discredited, come back and let me know.Quotewe have proof matter came from somewhere. i just tie it to something that already exists. basic stuff.BUT THE MECHANISM FOR HOW SPACE MAKES MATTER IS UNOBSERVED .. You say that space forms matter, but we never see this anywhere. It doesn't predict anything. It doesn't correspond to the real world in any way.
how many times do i need to repeat myself? that mechanism is not necessary to the theory. particles moving through space work just as well, and will have the same effect.
we also have no observed in any way the process which could create the universe. that does not mean it has not happened, i just see no reason to suppose baselessly the existence of some separate entity beyond anything we know with that ability, when it is not needed.
are you going to bother to acknowledge a word i've said this time, or do you enjoy yelling too much?Quotehow many times do i need to repeat myself? that mechanism is not necessary to the theory.
Yes it is. If you're going to say it can happen, you have to show how it can happen, otherwise you are asserting.Quotewe also have no observed in any way the process which could create the universe.
Yes, but at least we know one possible way it could have happened. Hint: you mentioned it before.Quotei just see no reason to suppose baselessly the existence of some separate entity beyond anything we know with that ability,
Already told you, you mentioned something before that scientists say could have caused the universe. Where does that put your proposal that space can create matter, which we see nowhere happening?
so, no more than assertion. the only proposed mechanism i've mentioned is quantum fluctuations, but they do not exist for any length of time, by definition. they are not a valid explanation for the universe, and they have never been observed to occur so yet again by your requirements they cannot be used.
stop with the hypocrisy and pay attention to what i am actually saying.
he only proposed mechanism i've mentioned is quantum fluctuations, but they do not exist for any length of time, by definition.Doesn't matter. Here is an article that explains (https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/)
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.
I understand the intuitive reaction that the world appears flat, therefore it is. A round earth is not intuitive, nor in most case obvious to a casual observer.
What i don't understand JRowe, is how you can reject a round earth on this basis, and then subscribe to a "theory" that includes Aether with characteristics that cannot be defined nor measured,to justify things like being instantaneously transported to other side of the earth and light being also transported, to give the illusion you have not move to the other side.
You claim neither air nor gravity is real and that we "breathe" only for heat transfer with no empirical evidence whatsoever for any of these assertions. You have subscribed to conspiracy theories which again are matters only of speculation without any hard evidence.
How is any of this consistent with believing what is simple and observable?
this is simple and observable. we can observe there is no air (open your eyes: we can feel a grain of sand, yet apparently do not feel billions of molecules hitting them),
we can see the world is flat, everything is just a simple deduction.
gravity does not need to be real, and even round earth scientists admit they do not understand what they've said about it.
aether in the dual earth model is simply space, which we know exists (as we have to exist in something), so that is also simple. Everything relies on known traits and logical deductions.
What reaction goes on in an airplane turbine engine?
What chemical reaction goes on inside airplane jet turbine engines?What reaction goes on in an airplane turbine engine?
what the hell are you going on about now?
make your questions clearer. what is your problem with air turbine engines? given that force may be imparted, i see no problem.
What observation has been made that describes the teleportation from one "earth side" to the other?
What chemical reaction goes on inside airplane jet turbine engines?What reaction goes on in an airplane turbine engine?
what the hell are you going on about now?
make your questions clearer. what is your problem with air turbine engines? given that force may be imparted, i see no problem.
A commercial jet airplane contains fuel tanks. Those tanks contain jet fuel. The jet fuel is pumped to the jet engines and the airplane goes forward. What happens to the jet fuel in the engine?What chemical reaction goes on inside airplane jet turbine engines?What reaction goes on in an airplane turbine engine?
what the hell are you going on about now?
make your questions clearer. what is your problem with air turbine engines? given that force may be imparted, i see no problem.
to my knowledge, none, but i have had no cause to examine the inner workings of turbine engines and i may well be wrong. i yet again ask you to be clearer.
I was hoping for an answer.A commercial jet airplane contains fuel tanks. Those tanks contain jet fuel. The jet fuel is pumped to the jet engines and the airplane goes forward. What happens to the jet fuel in the engine?What chemical reaction goes on inside airplane jet turbine engines?What reaction goes on in an airplane turbine engine?
what the hell are you going on about now?
make your questions clearer. what is your problem with air turbine engines? given that force may be imparted, i see no problem.
to my knowledge, none, but i have had no cause to examine the inner workings of turbine engines and i may well be wrong. i yet again ask you to be clearer.
What observation has been made that describes the teleportation from one "earth side" to the other?
it is a logical deduction to say such transportation is possible. i dislike the term teleportation since refining the theory, as it is very misleading. given that aether is space, it is simply moving through space as we do the rest of the time.
a spring analogy is my favorite. the length of metal, measuring along it, remains constant. when it is stretched out, it will take several steps to cross: when it is compressed, it could be smaller than your foot.
that is the deductive evidence for the mechanism: it is logical. observational evidence simply comes from the fact we can cross.
I was hoping for an answer.A commercial jet airplane contains fuel tanks. Those tanks contain jet fuel. The jet fuel is pumped to the jet engines and the airplane goes forward. What happens to the jet fuel in the engine?What chemical reaction goes on inside airplane jet turbine engines?What reaction goes on in an airplane turbine engine?
what the hell are you going on about now?
make your questions clearer. what is your problem with air turbine engines? given that force may be imparted, i see no problem.
to my knowledge, none, but i have had no cause to examine the inner workings of turbine engines and i may well be wrong. i yet again ask you to be clearer.
This isn't simple enough?
A commercial jet airplane contains fuel tanks. Those tanks contain jet fuel. The jet fuel is pumped to the jet engines and the airplane goes forward. What happens to the jet fuel in the engine?
This isn't simple enough?
A commercial jet airplane contains fuel tanks. Those tanks contain jet fuel. The jet fuel is pumped to the jet engines and the airplane goes forward. What happens to the jet fuel in the engine?
I didn't say anything was impossible, I am asking how it works. It's just like the newer thread asking hoe combustion engines work.This isn't simple enough?
A commercial jet airplane contains fuel tanks. Those tanks contain jet fuel. The jet fuel is pumped to the jet engines and the airplane goes forward. What happens to the jet fuel in the engine?
i yet again ask:
please specify what detail it is you are saying is impossible.
I didn't say anything was impossible, I am asking how it works. It's just like the newer thread asking hoe combustion engines work.This isn't simple enough?
A commercial jet airplane contains fuel tanks. Those tanks contain jet fuel. The jet fuel is pumped to the jet engines and the airplane goes forward. What happens to the jet fuel in the engine?
i yet again ask:
please specify what detail it is you are saying is impossible.
Ok, I understand you don't know and can't answer simple questions about your claims.I didn't say anything was impossible, I am asking how it works. It's just like the newer thread asking hoe combustion engines work.This isn't simple enough?
A commercial jet airplane contains fuel tanks. Those tanks contain jet fuel. The jet fuel is pumped to the jet engines and the airplane goes forward. What happens to the jet fuel in the engine?
i yet again ask:
please specify what detail it is you are saying is impossible.
if you have no question relating to my theory, do not waste my time. you can look up an explanation for jet engines anywhere. the newer thread actuallymade clear what they believe the problem was. how many times must i ask you to do the same?
if there is some detail that is actually relevant to dual earth theory, or any of my theories, then come back when you are willing to actually say it rather than wasting everyone's time.
what exactly is so hard with asking you to be clear?
if you just want to know how they work, use google. i'm not going to waste time going through details i do not care about. if you have a question about how they could work in my theory, where is the problem?
i am sick of repeating myself. give a clear, relevant question, or leave.
Ok, I understand you don't know and can't answer simple questions about your claims.I didn't say anything was impossible, I am asking how it works. It's just like the newer thread asking hoe combustion engines work.This isn't simple enough?
A commercial jet airplane contains fuel tanks. Those tanks contain jet fuel. The jet fuel is pumped to the jet engines and the airplane goes forward. What happens to the jet fuel in the engine?
i yet again ask:
please specify what detail it is you are saying is impossible.
if you have no question relating to my theory, do not waste my time. you can look up an explanation for jet engines anywhere. the newer thread actuallymade clear what they believe the problem was. how many times must i ask you to do the same?
if there is some detail that is actually relevant to dual earth theory, or any of my theories, then come back when you are willing to actually say it rather than wasting everyone's time.
what exactly is so hard with asking you to be clear?
if you just want to know how they work, use google. i'm not going to waste time going through details i do not care about. if you have a question about how they could work in my theory, where is the problem?
i am sick of repeating myself. give a clear, relevant question, or leave.
I simplified the question as best I could, even a 3 year old could understand it, just not you.
when you have actually posed a question about my claims, i will be more than willing to answer it. do you think your evasion is not obvious?
how does your question even begin to tie to my theory? I HAVE ASKED THIS MULTIPLE TIMESThis was an old question relating to air. You delayed it for weeks.
come on, you always insist your theory is so reliable, why can't you do anything except evade?
WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION
HOW DOES IT TIE TO MY THEORY
answer, or stop wasting time. what is your problem with jet engines?!
if you want to know how jet engines work, that's not related to my theory, i have to desire to walk you through a wikipedia article. you apparently know already. if, instead, you believe there is some problem with the process under my model, WHAT IS IT?!You would walk me through something you don't believe in?
i cannot believe i am still waiting for an answer.I have been waiting for weeks for an answer.
Alright JRowe. You asked, so I'll ask. How do we mine? If the earth is flat,surely we're going to end up tunnelling straight through? And what about the Mariana trench? How can that exist if the earth is flat. And if the earth is flat, and extremely thick, and has several layers, as has been agreed by geographers worldwide, then surely it would resemble a sphere? Just a thought
Since you invited questions...
What makes an Hypothesis a Theory,
and why is this a Theory rather than an Hypothesis?
What Falsifiable Predictions does your Theory make?
Alright JRowe. You asked, so I'll ask. How do we mine? If the earth is flat,surely we're going to end up tunnelling straight through? And what about the Mariana trench? How can that exist if the earth is flat. And if the earth is flat, and extremely thick, and has several layers, as has been agreed by geographers worldwide, then surely it would resemble a sphere? Just a thought
if the earth is round, surely we're going to end up tunnelling all the way through?
who cares? we haven't gotten that deep, end of.
it is not extremely thick. it is far wider than it is thick. i fail to see why two thick flat surfaces would even begin to resemble a sphere, in any case.
Alright JRowe. You asked, so I'll ask. How do we mine? If the earth is flat,surely we're going to end up tunnelling straight through? And what about the Mariana trench? How can that exist if the earth is flat. And if the earth is flat, and extremely thick, and has several layers, as has been agreed by geographers worldwide, then surely it would resemble a sphere? Just a thought
if the earth is round, surely we're going to end up tunnelling all the way through?
who cares? we haven't gotten that deep, end of.
it is not extremely thick. it is far wider than it is thick. i fail to see why two thick flat surfaces would even begin to resemble a sphere, in any case.
Then what's on the side? There's the northern hemisphere on the sop, the southern on the bottom, but what about on either side? Ether? Jeez
Are the stars duplicated between upper plane and bottom plane ? In other words, will people from the upper plane see the same stars than people on bottom plane ?
I ask this because during my last journey to Kenya (I go there a lot), I could observe the same stars in Kitale and in Nairobi, which goes 100% agaisnt your model (Aetheric transmission). In Kitale, I would be on the upper plane, in Nairobi, on the bottom one. So why the same stars ?
What assumptions does round earth require?
What assumptions does dual earth require?
Humour me, so we can objectively compare.
What assumptions does round earth require?
What assumptions does dual earth require?
Humour me, so we can objectively compare.
dual earth theory requires no explicit assumptions. we kow space exists, and the properties are logically deduced: those deductions are the only thing that could be called assumptions. they are a) less space means less distance (trivial) and b) it flows from high concentrations to low (a universal tendency observed in heat and pressure, among others).
they are logical, so i suppose the only assumption is that space behaves according to common, known laws.
round earth theory has gravity: which is not fully explained. there is an equation, a source, but no explanation for how that source produces the force. saying it can is an assumption.
round earth theory also has dark matter: equations don't match observations, so an assumption is thrown in.
there are many more minor aspects (auroras, which i've had a long discussion and embarassed round earthers over, the supposed reflectivity of the moon, etc), but those two major ones already make it worse than dual earth theory.
Are the stars duplicated between upper plane and bottom plane ? In other words, will people from the upper plane see the same stars than people on bottom plane ?
I ask this because during my last journey to Kenya (I go there a lot), I could observe the same stars in Kitale and in Nairobi, which goes 100% agaisnt your model (Aetheric transmission). In Kitale, I would be on the upper plane, in Nairobi, on the bottom one. So why the same stars ?
that doesn't even begin to go against my model. you can see the top from the bottom, and the bottom from the top. light is transmitted over the equator just as matter is. why wouldn't it be? in dual earth theory, aether is space. transmission is caused by thin space: a decreased distance. if anything can cross space, it is 'transmitted'.
Are the stars duplicated between upper plane and bottom plane ? In other words, will people from the upper plane see the same stars than people on bottom plane ?
I ask this because during my last journey to Kenya (I go there a lot), I could observe the same stars in Kitale and in Nairobi, which goes 100% agaisnt your model (Aetheric transmission). In Kitale, I would be on the upper plane, in Nairobi, on the bottom one. So why the same stars ?
that doesn't even begin to go against my model. you can see the top from the bottom, and the bottom from the top. light is transmitted over the equator just as matter is. why wouldn't it be? in dual earth theory, aether is space. transmission is caused by thin space: a decreased distance. if anything can cross space, it is 'transmitted'.
That would mean that any constellation can be seen from anywhere (e.g. north hemisphere/plane AND south hemisphere/plane) at the same time. But that's just plain wrong and doesn't match the reality.
What is the interior of the Earth made out of in your "dual-Earth" hypothesis? It looks pretty thin so I'm curious what's underneath our dirt, more dirt?
What is the interior of the Earth made out of in your "dual-Earth" hypothesis? It looks pretty thin so I'm curious what's underneath our dirt, more dirt?
there is matter most of the way, and at the edges, but the majority of the interior is just aether (with the rotating, superheated metal sun at the center). there is dirt most of the way down, then there's just space.
What is the interior of the Earth made out of in your "dual-Earth" hypothesis? It looks pretty thin so I'm curious what's underneath our dirt, more dirt?
there is matter most of the way, and at the edges, but the majority of the interior is just aether (with the rotating, superheated metal sun at the center). there is dirt most of the way down, then there's just space.
Why is there a sun in the middle? Why is it rotating and made out of metal?
the sun is made out of metal, that's just a fact. it forms naturally, requires no nuclear fission (impossible with its size), and matches how it looks and (when heated) feels.
the sun is made out of metal, that's just a fact. it forms naturally, requires no nuclear fission (impossible with its size), and matches how it looks and (when heated) feels.
The sun is made out of a lot of hydrogen, some helium, and some other non-metals. It's very easy to prove using its absorption spectra. It runs on nuclear FUSION, and has a radius of 695,800 km.
this thread is about dual earth theory, not round earth. if you have no questions, do not post: all that does is waste time.
when measurements do not take into account the effect of aether, they will not give an accurate picture.
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
the sun is made out of metal, that's just a fact. it forms naturally, requires no nuclear fission (impossible with its size), and matches how it looks and (when heated) feels.
The sun is made out of a lot of hydrogen, some helium, and some other non-metals. It's very easy to prove using its absorption spectra. It runs on nuclear FUSION, and has a radius of 695,800 km.
this thread is about dual earth theory, not round earth. if you have no questions, do not post: all that does is waste time.
when measurements do not take into account the effect of aether, they will not give an accurate picture.
Dude, leave other people's conversations alone. You are worse than a 2 year old on a sugar high.
Dude, leave other people's conversations alone. You are worse than a 2 year old on a sugar high.
PEPELE NEED TRUTH YOU CAN NOT STOP IT SHILL
the sun is made out of metal, that's just a fact. it forms naturally, requires no nuclear fission (impossible with its size), and matches how it looks and (when heated) feels.
The sun is made out of a lot of hydrogen, some helium, and some other non-metals. It's very easy to prove using its absorption spectra. It runs on nuclear FUSION, and has a radius of 695,800 km.
this thread is about dual earth theory, not round earth. if you have no questions, do not post: all that does is waste time.
when measurements do not take into account the effect of aether, they will not give an accurate picture.
this thread is about dual earth theory, not round earth. if you have no questions, do not post: all that does is waste time.
when measurements do not take into account the effect of aether, they will not give an accurate picture.
This is in the debate section of the forum. Grow a pair and defend your nonsense so that we can laugh at your claims later.
I have a question though. Can you propose a diagram without using a mythical element from ancient times?
this thread is about dual earth theory, not round earth. if you have no questions, do not post: all that does is waste time.
when measurements do not take into account the effect of aether, they will not give an accurate picture.
This is in the debate section of the forum. Grow a pair and defend your nonsense so that we can laugh at your claims later.
I have a question though. Can you propose a diagram without using a mythical element from ancient times?
JRoweSkeptic has been asked—literally—dozens of time to explain what exactly composes "aether". So far he's been unable to describe its chemical constituents or physical structure, its source, or any observations that we can make that prove (or even suggest) its existence. He simply repeats, over and over again that it's the "same thing as space" and which of course is absurd. Using that nonsensical definition [sic] would mean that two bell jars, one evacuated and one containing air, both contain "aether".
The myth? "Aether was the protogenos (first-born elemental god) of the bright, glowing upper air of heaven—the substance of light. Above him lay the solid dome of the sky-god, Ouranos, and below, the transparent mists of earth-bound air.
In the evening his mother Nyx drew her veil of darkness between the aither and the aer to bring night to man. In the morn his sister-wife Hemera dispersed these mists, revealing the shining blue aither of day. Night and day were regarded as quite independent of the sun in the ancient cosmogonies.
Aether was one of the three "airs". The middle air was Aer or Khaos, a colourless mist which enveloped the mortal world. The lower air was Erebos, the mists of darkness, which enveloped the dark places beneath the earth and the realm of the dead. The third was the upper air of aether, the mist of light, home of the gods of heaven. It enveloped the mountain peaks, clouds, stars, sun and moon. The stars themselves were said to be formed from the concentrated fires of aether".
—I guess you could say that this pretty well sums up JRoweSkeptic's notion of aether LOL.
The magical thing about gravity, is that it is effectively rooted (pun intended) in it's stance, and doesn't seem to have an ever-changing view. Ether is manipulated depending on your needs and what you haven't yet answered. I must refer to your logic of "space travel is disproven by evolution as animals can't hold their breaths long enough", "Air doesn't exist breathing is just a mechanism for warmth", and "Ether is space" excuse the paraphrasing. These three concepts seem to conflict. Is it just me? How can animals not have evolved to be in space if ether is space? Why is space travel impossible if ether is everywhere, so it would just be "ether travel"??? Gravity has yet to be disputed properly. ether is still in the "engine phase" if you will.
The magical thing about gravity, is that it is effectively rooted (pun intended) in it's stance, and doesn't seem to have an ever-changing view. Ether is manipulated depending on your needs and what you haven't yet answered. I must refer to your logic of "space travel is disproven by evolution as animals can't hold their breaths long enough", "Air doesn't exist breathing is just a mechanism for warmth", and "Ether is space" excuse the paraphrasing. These three concepts seem to conflict. Is it just me? How can animals not have evolved to be in space if ether is space? Why is space travel impossible if ether is everywhere, so it would just be "ether travel"??? Gravity has yet to be disputed properly. ether is still in the "engine phase" if you will.
you clearly don't know anything about gravity. the fantays behind it keeps changing. currently it's something to do with mass bending space, or something absurd like that.
i have never said "space travel is disproven by evolution as animals can't hold their breaths long enough", aether is the fabric of space, outer space exists in space, but it is not the same thing. even round earthers use the term 'space' to refer to the dimension in which we live.
aether is the fabric of space. aether travel does exist: we do it all the time. it's what moving is. magically getting to outer space is an absurdity.
pay attention to context and actually think. seriously.
The magical thing about gravity, is that it is effectively rooted (pun intended) in it's stance, and doesn't seem to have an ever-changing view. Ether is manipulated depending on your needs and what you haven't yet answered. I must refer to your logic of "space travel is disproven by evolution as animals can't hold their breaths long enough", "Air doesn't exist breathing is just a mechanism for warmth", and "Ether is space" excuse the paraphrasing. These three concepts seem to conflict. Is it just me? How can animals not have evolved to be in space if ether is space? Why is space travel impossible if ether is everywhere, so it would just be "ether travel"??? Gravity has yet to be disputed properly. ether is still in the "engine phase" if you will.
you clearly don't know anything about gravity. the fantays behind it keeps changing. currently it's something to do with mass bending space, or something absurd like that.
i have never said "space travel is disproven by evolution as animals can't hold their breaths long enough", aether is the fabric of space, outer space exists in space, but it is not the same thing. even round earthers use the term 'space' to refer to the dimension in which we live.
aether is the fabric of space. aether travel does exist: we do it all the time. it's what moving is. magically getting to outer space is an absurdity.
pay attention to context and actually think. seriously.
So you're saying that space = outer space + aether?
How exactly is "outer space travel" impossible??? What is wrong with it? How does ether have so many fucking properties, and how the fuck has it never been discovered. What is the difference in ether near to, and far from, earth?
what is wrong with you? aether: the fabric of space. EVERYWHERE. EVERYTHING EXISTS IN A POINT IN SPACE. THIS IS VERY BASIC KNOWLEDGE.
outer space is a location. it clearly occupies spatial coordinates as it exists, so what? the moon is a location in space. the earth is a location in space. are you being intentionally dense?
what is wrong with you? aether: the fabric of space. EVERYWHERE. EVERYTHING EXISTS IN A POINT IN SPACE. THIS IS VERY BASIC KNOWLEDGE.
outer space is a location. it clearly occupies spatial coordinates as it exists, so what? the moon is a location in space. the earth is a location in space. are you being intentionally dense?
Nothing, it's confusing when people give names to stuff that already has a name. Use "SPACE" instead of aether, as it's more scientific.
But still, space would have to have different properties at the equator for your idea to work, which is does not, because there are no different conditions at the equator than anywhere on earth, space-wise.
you have been paying absolutely no attention whatsoever. why do you act like you're some kind of expert? this has been explained multiple times. space is thin at the equator, which makes perfect sense in the dual earth model as it is where the low concentration of aether (the thin space) within the earth reaches the outside. it takes less time to cross less space.
do you have ay reason that isn't closed-minded assertion for why this cannot be the case? i am getting very sick of how you consistently assert that i'm wrong all over the forum and offer no evidence for any of your claims whatsoever.
you have been paying absolutely no attention whatsoever. why do you act like you're some kind of expert? this has been explained multiple times. space is thin at the equator, which makes perfect sense in the dual earth model as it is where the low concentration of aether (the thin space) within the earth reaches the outside. it takes less time to cross less space.
do you have ay reason that isn't closed-minded assertion for why this cannot be the case? i am getting very sick of how you consistently assert that i'm wrong all over the forum and offer no evidence for any of your claims whatsoever.
Well, you made an assertion, so you must come with proof for it.
Is there any non-closed-minded reason not to believe that you have silent, invisible and intangible unicorns flying through your house right now?
if you have no understanding of occam's razor or dual earth theory, stop wasting everybody's time.
if you have no understanding of occam's razor or dual earth theory, stop wasting everybody's time.
Well, if you're the only person in the world that has understanding of your ideas, then your idea isn't really useful, is it?
It seems that you don't have any proof for your claims. So, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
if you have no understanding of occam's razor or dual earth theory, stop wasting everybody's time.
Well, if you're the only person in the world that has understanding of your ideas, then your idea isn't really useful, is it?
It seems that you don't have any proof for your claims. So, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
you don't even understand clouds, why should i expect you to understand anything?
evidence has been given repeatedly (see: occam's razor). matching observations is the first step, the second is to show it requires fewer assumptions than the alternative. this is very basic. when you understand clouds and basic logic, come back then.
why should i keep wasting time on you?if you have no understanding of occam's razor or dual earth theory, stop wasting everybody's time.
Well, if you're the only person in the world that has understanding of your ideas, then your idea isn't really useful, is it?
It seems that you don't have any proof for your claims. So, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
you don't even understand clouds, why should i expect you to understand anything?
evidence has been given repeatedly (see: occam's razor). matching observations is the first step, the second is to show it requires fewer assumptions than the alternative. this is very basic. when you understand clouds and basic logic, come back then.
I do understand clouds, but you don't seem to understand the concept of density. Not my fault, mate. Probably not yours either. Did your parents send you to school?
why should i keep wasting time on you?
I'm very sorry I'm feeling the need to exert my presence here.if you have no understanding of occam's razor or dual earth theory, stop wasting everybody's time.
Well, if you're the only person in the world that has understanding of your ideas, then your idea isn't really useful, is it?
It seems that you don't have any proof for your claims. So, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
you don't even understand clouds, why should i expect you to understand anything?
evidence has been given repeatedly (see: occam's razor). matching observations is the first step, the second is to show it requires fewer assumptions than the alternative. this is very basic. when you understand clouds and basic logic, come back then.
JRowe, how the hell does your 'sun' fit in the centre of the earth? How thin is it? Is the sun flat too?? What is this?Well, it can easily be explained through Aether and fairies.
If ether is space, why not just call it space? How do you know it gets denser as you move away from earth? Where's the evidence?How exactly is "outer space travel" impossible??? What is wrong with it? How does ether have so many fucking properties, and how the fuck has it never been discovered. What is the difference in ether near to, and far from, earth?
aether has a total of two, very basic properties. are you paying any attention whatsoever?
aether has been discovered. IT IS SPACE. READ. WHAT IS THE POINT IN ME EXPLAINING ANYTHING TO YOU IF YOU IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY?
aether gets denser the further you get from earth. there's no change in properties, just in concentration.
If ether is space, why not just call it space? How do you know it gets denser as you move away from earth? Where's the evidence?How exactly is "outer space travel" impossible??? What is wrong with it? How does ether have so many fucking properties, and how the fuck has it never been discovered. What is the difference in ether near to, and far from, earth?
aether has a total of two, very basic properties. are you paying any attention whatsoever?
aether has been discovered. IT IS SPACE. READ. WHAT IS THE POINT IN ME EXPLAINING ANYTHING TO YOU IF YOU IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY?
aether gets denser the further you get from earth. there's no change in properties, just in concentration.
How come observational evidence is allowed for your hypothesis only? observational evidence for a round earth is dismissed as bollocks very quickly. You use circular reasoning as "logical sense". We can't go to space because the ether is too dense, therefore we can't go to space. Moon landing conspiracy debunked anyone? You've still yet to prove that ether behaves as you suggest it to, and why your explanation is more correct than other people's differing ideas.If ether is space, why not just call it space? How do you know it gets denser as you move away from earth? Where's the evidence?How exactly is "outer space travel" impossible??? What is wrong with it? How does ether have so many fucking properties, and how the fuck has it never been discovered. What is the difference in ether near to, and far from, earth?
aether has a total of two, very basic properties. are you paying any attention whatsoever?
aether has been discovered. IT IS SPACE. READ. WHAT IS THE POINT IN ME EXPLAINING ANYTHING TO YOU IF YOU IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY?
aether gets denser the further you get from earth. there's no change in properties, just in concentration.
aether is a known flat earth term, and the role is similar. the fact it is the fabric of space is true, but it confuses people when i replace the word with space. it is clear what i mean if you would only think, i see no reason to alter teminology.
observational evience: it matches observations (and makes logical sense).
How come observational evidence is allowed for your hypothesis only? observational evidence for a round earth is dismissed as bollocks very quickly. You use circular reasoning as "logical sense". We can't go to space because the ether is too dense, therefore we can't go to space. Moon landing conspiracy debunked anyone? You've still yet to prove that ether behaves as you suggest it to, and why your explanation is more correct than other people's differing ideas.If ether is space, why not just call it space? How do you know it gets denser as you move away from earth? Where's the evidence?How exactly is "outer space travel" impossible??? What is wrong with it? How does ether have so many fucking properties, and how the fuck has it never been discovered. What is the difference in ether near to, and far from, earth?
aether has a total of two, very basic properties. are you paying any attention whatsoever?
aether has been discovered. IT IS SPACE. READ. WHAT IS THE POINT IN ME EXPLAINING ANYTHING TO YOU IF YOU IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY?
aether gets denser the further you get from earth. there's no change in properties, just in concentration.
aether is a known flat earth term, and the role is similar. the fact it is the fabric of space is true, but it confuses people when i replace the word with space. it is clear what i mean if you would only think, i see no reason to alter teminology.
observational evience: it matches observations (and makes logical sense).
Are you familiar with one of the many definitions of insanity? -"everyone is crazy except me. i am the only sane person in the world."
Just, throwing that out there, considering the dual earth 'theory' following.
I was, in case you missed it, surrounding my 'lack of logic' with quotation marks, signifying I was taking this as an example of your arguments. Not repeating myself. Or rather, repeating myself in the same fashion as your circular reasoning. How do you know ether becomes too thick? Because we can't go to space? Do you see the problem here? Every theory relies on Occam's razor to some degree, but science has been thoroughly experimented, calculated, etc. Yours is based almost entirely off 'personal' observation.How come observational evidence is allowed for your hypothesis only? observational evidence for a round earth is dismissed as bollocks very quickly. You use circular reasoning as "logical sense". We can't go to space because the ether is too dense, therefore we can't go to space. Moon landing conspiracy debunked anyone? You've still yet to prove that ether behaves as you suggest it to, and why your explanation is more correct than other people's differing ideas.If ether is space, why not just call it space? How do you know it gets denser as you move away from earth? Where's the evidence?How exactly is "outer space travel" impossible??? What is wrong with it? How does ether have so many fucking properties, and how the fuck has it never been discovered. What is the difference in ether near to, and far from, earth?
aether has a total of two, very basic properties. are you paying any attention whatsoever?
aether has been discovered. IT IS SPACE. READ. WHAT IS THE POINT IN ME EXPLAINING ANYTHING TO YOU IF YOU IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY?
aether gets denser the further you get from earth. there's no change in properties, just in concentration.
aether is a known flat earth term, and the role is similar. the fact it is the fabric of space is true, but it confuses people when i replace the word with space. it is clear what i mean if you would only think, i see no reason to alter teminology.
observational evience: it matches observations (and makes logical sense).
Are you familiar with one of the many definitions of insanity? -"everyone is crazy except me. i am the only sane person in the world."
Just, throwing that out there, considering the dual earth 'theory' following.
science relies on two principles. one, observational evidence (finding an explanation that matches observations). two, occam's razor: relying on the explanation with fewest assumptions.
dual earth theory requires far simpler rules than round earth theory, and works just as well.
"We can't go to space because the ether is too dense, therefore we can't go to space." why are you repeating yourself? we can't go to space because aether becomes too thick, end of. how do you think logic works?
i have provided my evidence for the traits of aether. if you are going to reject that evidence, you need to actually say why, rather than asserting. that's how it works, you know. you can't just ignore reasoning when presented to you.
dual earth theory works, that is just a fact. every observation is explained. the only objections people have are with my personal beliefs, which are independent of dual earth theory. the only question remaining is whether it is simpler: until you can actually address the points you so resolutely ignore, it will remain so.
I was, in case you missed it, surrounding my 'lack of logic' with quotation marks, signifying I was taking this as an example of your arguments. Not repeating myself. Or rather, repeating myself in the same fashion as your circular reasoning. How do you know ether becomes too thick? Because we can't go to space? Do you see the problem here? Every theory relies on Occam's razor to some degree, but science has been thoroughly experimented, calculated, etc. Yours is based almost entirely off 'personal' observation.How come observational evidence is allowed for your hypothesis only? observational evidence for a round earth is dismissed as bollocks very quickly. You use circular reasoning as "logical sense". We can't go to space because the ether is too dense, therefore we can't go to space. Moon landing conspiracy debunked anyone? You've still yet to prove that ether behaves as you suggest it to, and why your explanation is more correct than other people's differing ideas.If ether is space, why not just call it space? How do you know it gets denser as you move away from earth? Where's the evidence?How exactly is "outer space travel" impossible??? What is wrong with it? How does ether have so many fucking properties, and how the fuck has it never been discovered. What is the difference in ether near to, and far from, earth?
aether has a total of two, very basic properties. are you paying any attention whatsoever?
aether has been discovered. IT IS SPACE. READ. WHAT IS THE POINT IN ME EXPLAINING ANYTHING TO YOU IF YOU IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY?
aether gets denser the further you get from earth. there's no change in properties, just in concentration.
aether is a known flat earth term, and the role is similar. the fact it is the fabric of space is true, but it confuses people when i replace the word with space. it is clear what i mean if you would only think, i see no reason to alter teminology.
observational evience: it matches observations (and makes logical sense).
Are you familiar with one of the many definitions of insanity? -"everyone is crazy except me. i am the only sane person in the world."
Just, throwing that out there, considering the dual earth 'theory' following.
science relies on two principles. one, observational evidence (finding an explanation that matches observations). two, occam's razor: relying on the explanation with fewest assumptions.
dual earth theory requires far simpler rules than round earth theory, and works just as well.
"We can't go to space because the ether is too dense, therefore we can't go to space." why are you repeating yourself? we can't go to space because aether becomes too thick, end of. how do you think logic works?
i have provided my evidence for the traits of aether. if you are going to reject that evidence, you need to actually say why, rather than asserting. that's how it works, you know. you can't just ignore reasoning when presented to you.
dual earth theory works, that is just a fact. every observation is explained. the only objections people have are with my personal beliefs, which are independent of dual earth theory. the only question remaining is whether it is simpler: until you can actually address the points you so resolutely ignore, it will remain so.
How do you know dual earth theory works? You're still making additions and changing it. Nobody re: nobody agrees with you on thus hypothesis. Your personal beliefs do not help your case, which even you must concede. I am addressing these points, but you are the one deflecting them repeatedly. Remember essays in school? ATQ!
Remember the insanity definition I provided, just consider it briefly. Nothing is just a fact, sorry.
i know aether becomes thick due to altitude as it is a logical deduction
familiarize yourself with the theory, seriously. why do you persist in acting like an expert about something you clearly know nothing about?
the earth formed primarily due to how the aether flowed from a higher concentration to a lower: this implies the earth is a lower concentation, and so higher up is a higher concentration. simple.
dual earth theory works to explain the world. there may be one or two minor details that i am not aware of or did not consider, but at this stage, once the dual earth model was developed, only minor refinements are required. (for example, the two-sun model is replaced by a two-images model: very similar, but without a crucial flaw, and which explains yet more observations, with no new traits required. it fits surprisingly well with the model).
i am still waiting for you to acknowledge the vast majority of what i've said to you.
the fact is, you just ignore every answer given to you because you are not interested in learning
you are interested in insulting others and boosting your own ego
you are not concerned with educating yourself
Does duel Earth theory have an explenation for sunsets?yes. read the thread. you've been pointed to it multiple times, are you physically capable of reading?
As "FETlolcakes" said, where is your evidence. How does ether behave so differently to space, yet still exist as 'space'? Your logical deductions do not, under any circumstances, replace evidence. You cannot make assertions and declarations of fact, unless you are prepared to back it up with evidence other people can see. How do you know how the earth was formed? What 'deductions' led you to this? what calculations? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Not beating around the bush, provide evidence dammit.you have yet to show it does behave differently to space. i have made only logical deductions. if you are not going to address that then leave as you're just wasting time. there is no point in trying toe duacte someone who just ignores everythign tehy're told. LEARN TO READ YOU ILLITERATE MORON
Calm it mate, jeez. deductions based off experiments, what experiments buddy? Where are these experiments? Eh? Still waiting for these experiments.
With your regards to space/ether, you are, once again, spouting bullshit. Space doesn't flow, at least not noticeably. We have been to space, through rocket fuel, which has been used over and over again to reach the moon, and the other planets in the solar system. Your hypothesis is based purely off circular reasoning (which I will happily recite again if you missed it the first time), and circular reasoning, by its very definition, cannot work. Sorry man, theory falsified. Give it up. Get a padded room. Take a nap.
shh. shh. its okay. Take your pills, calm down. You've lost your shit enough for one night. All I'm asking for is proof of your experiments, and for you to stop insulting me. You have still failed to do either. Take a moment, take some deep breaths, and think before you go mental again. You might break the padding in your room, and then you won't make it much longer. Think, understand, reason. Show these experiments, show your proof, rather than evading it, and stop the insults.
Thank you.
"tot hink"? hmm, maybe a tad more care required to stop you looking like a fool when typing, just a brief scan before your emotions overcome you? I assure you I read every word you say, but your circular reasoning can be difficult to follow. (once again, just say the word and I'll show you the evidence for it again.) If you refuse point blank to show these experiments, then show these logical deductions. Show some form of proof we can relate to, rather than rely on the word of a ranting lunatic spouting insults as soon as his hypothesis is threatened.
Speaking of which, please stop.
Does duel Earth theory have an explenation for sunsets?yes. read the thread. you've been pointed to it multiple times, are you physically capable of reading?
I HAVE REPEATEDLY YOU ILLITERATE MORON. YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN WHY NONE OF MY ARGUMENTS ARE CIRCULAR UNLESS YOU PERSIST IN STRAW MEN AND YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD HOW MY THEORY MATCHES AND EXPLAINS OBSERVATIONS AND THE LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPERTIES OF AETHER. WHY EXACTLY SHOULD I REPEAT MYSELF WHEN YOU DO NOTHING EXCEPT IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY? WHY SHOUDL I WASTE ANY MORE TIME ON YOU? CONSIDER ACTUALLY READING THE THREADS WE HAVE SPOKEN IN AND READING MY POSTS RATHER THAN BULLSHITTING TIME AND TIME AGAIN. LEARN. TO. READ.
Please show us your evidence derived from experiments.
yet more examples of how you ignore eveyrhing you are told. science does not require experiments, science requires observation. experiments are a kind of observation, but they are not required: look at astronomers.
but i bet you'll ignore that as you did the multiple other times i brought that up.
definitely blocked.
Again, you are calling me a liar simply because I am disagreeing with you.
i have plenty of reasons to call you a liar as your bs about aetheric transmission makes clear. you are ignoring correction. you are ignoring the theory i am actually proposing. how is that not dishonesty?
No, assumptions are anything you cannot directly or indirectly prove. You are leaving much out of what you are claiming you are doing. You are basing those conclusions on assumptions therefore they are not conclusions, they are still assumptions. Everything in your model is an assumption, you observe something then assume its this because you assumed this other stuff exists, well then you have to assume more properties of this other stuff, etc. This is what your dual Earth thread has been from the beginning. You are basing it off of your assumption of aether. Oh since you love to try to push others down, I will bring up something that others may not have read. You claim that the aether has told you of it's existence through direct thoughts. This is the overall basis of your model, the voices in your head.
Also, I outlined what assumptions I have made and the ones you clearly are making.
you outlined several consequences. do you understand what an assumption is? if it is deduced as a consequence of something, it is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. do i really need to explain this? please, familiarize yourself with the model, i have a new cleared up thread in the repository. everything follows from the definition of aether: just two points, both logical.
If they do not accept your answers, with good reasons, that means you have failed to defend your hypothesis.You still fail to realize that just giving the "I told you this is how it is" is not a valid response when someone is asking for clarification. So find a better way of defending your argument, no one that is asking you questions repeatedly is ignoring you. They are giving you the opportunity to prove what you are claiming. You keep refusing to do this. You just get upset and start freaking out.
and if they do not accept my answers because they've just ignored them, the i will insult them because i am sick of constantly having my time wasted.
Jrowe, if your model is so simple then why havn't you produced any math yet? My guess is that you are either afraid that you are wrong or you slept through your math classes. Possibly both.
Schizophrenia is a severe brain disorder in which people interpret reality abnormally. Schizophrenia may result in some combination of hallucinations, delusions, and extremely disordered thinking and behavior.
Jrowe, if your model is so simple then why havn't you produced any math yet? My guess is that you are either afraid that you are wrong or you slept through your math classes. Possibly both.
why are you incapable of reading the multiple answers i have given to that question? hell, there's even a whole paragraph on it in my new model thread. why do you keep asking questions if you are not interested in the answers?
what is the point in trying to educate you if you will just ignore everything i say and ask the exact same question with some insults thrown in at a later date rather than acknowledge anything?
Jrowe, if your model is so simple then why havn't you produced any math yet? My guess is that you are either afraid that you are wrong or you slept through your math classes. Possibly both.
why are you incapable of reading the multiple answers i have given to that question? hell, there's even a whole paragraph on it in my new model thread. why do you keep asking questions if you are not interested in the answers?
what is the point in trying to educate you if you will just ignore everything i say and ask the exact same question with some insults thrown in at a later date rather than acknowledge anything?
I have better things to do then read through every one of your posts.
Now do you have math or not?
Jrowe, if your model is so simple then why havn't you produced any math yet? My guess is that you are either afraid that you are wrong or you slept through your math classes. Possibly both.
why are you incapable of reading the multiple answers i have given to that question? hell, there's even a whole paragraph on it in my new model thread. why do you keep asking questions if you are not interested in the answers?
what is the point in trying to educate you if you will just ignore everything i say and ask the exact same question with some insults thrown in at a later date rather than acknowledge anything?
I have better things to do then read through every one of your posts.
Now do you have math or not?
you don't need to read through every one of my posts. you need to read the responses i directly give every time you ask that question. try it sometime. try to actually respond to a word i say, or are you too idiotic for that?
can you read?
if you are not even going to respond to my posts, i would just like to address all readers of this conversation to point out that fact. you are not even trying to have a discussion, you are just ignoring. you are pathetic.
you don't need to read through every one of my posts. you need to read the responses i directly give every time you ask that question. try it sometime. try to actually respond to a word i say, or are you too idiotic for that?
can you read?
if you are not even going to respond to my posts, i would just like to address all readers of this conversation to point out that fact. you are not even trying to have a discussion, you are just ignoring. you are pathetic.
You are basing those conclusions on assumptions therefore they are not conclusions, they are still assumptions.Fixed that for ya
so, dark matter is an assumption. if it does not exist, gravity does not work, so everything round earthers say is explained by gravity must also be an assumption. indeed, gravity itself is an assumption: we do not know why mass bends space or why that exerts a force, we simply assume it does and that there is no alternative explanation.
science is made by assumptions. you take a view of things that explains observations: that is your assumption, because you can never be completely sure that the true cause is not something else that could have the same consequences. Then you conduct experiments to determine whether your "assumption" is true. you then conclude things based upon those assumptions.
if you knew anything about any kind of logical thought, you would know the difference between corroboration and confirmation. dual earth theory has the former, no science has the latter.Are you saying that no experiments confirm dual earth to be true? If that is the case, then how do you know round earth explanations aren't true?
if you knew anything about any kind of logical thought, you would know the difference between corroboration and confirmation. dual earth theory has the former, no science has the latter.Are you saying that no experiments confirm dual earth to be true? If that is the case, then how do you know round earth explanations aren't true?
if you knew anything about any kind of logical thought, you would know the difference between corroboration and confirmation. dual earth theory has the former, no science has the latter.Are you saying that no experiments confirm dual earth to be true? If that is the case, then how do you know round earth explanations aren't true?
no science confirms anything to be true: it confirms observations. how we interpret those observations is what science is. if another observation matches an explanation, that is corroboration: it is not confirmation.
did you even read my post? come back when you understand occam's razor.
if you knew anything about any kind of logical thought, you would know the difference between corroboration and confirmation. dual earth theory has the former, no science has the latter.Are you saying that no experiments confirm dual earth to be true? If that is the case, then how do you know round earth explanations aren't true?
no science confirms anything to be true: it confirms observations. how we interpret those observations is what science is. if another observation matches an explanation, that is corroboration: it is not confirmation.
did you even read my post? come back when you understand occam's razor.
Occam's razor requires that both theories in question be equally good at making predictions. Flat Earth theory cannot make predictions because of a lack of math, so I suggest you get around to mathematically discribing aether soon.
no science confirms anything to be true: it confirms observations.And those scientific confirmations prove (or disprove) the observations to be correct. Science says that clouds consist of water vapour—or compounded hydrogen and oxygen. Measurements of the constituents of clouds (or observations) prove this to be true.
how we interpret those observations is what science is. if another observation matches an explanation, that is corroboration: it is not confirmation.
did you even read my post? come back when you understand occam's razor.
no science confirms anything to be true: it confirms observations.And those scientific confirmations prove (or disprove) the observations to be correct. Science says that clouds consist of water vapour—or compounded hydrogen and oxygen. Measurements of the constituents of clouds (or observations) prove this to be true.
no science confirms anything to be true: it confirms observations.And those scientific confirmations prove (or disprove) the observations to be correct. Science says that clouds consist of water vapour—or compounded hydrogen and oxygen. Measurements of the constituents of clouds (or observations) prove this to be true.
Um, isn't measurement of the constituent clouds science? Science cannot say what clouds consist of until their constituents are measured.
don't try to apply logic to geoff, he's here to insult. look at his post history, he's never once said anything meaningful. (for example, he's clearly neglected to understand what i was saying, otherwise he'd understand grey clouds and the fact water vapor does exist in that area, but it falls when it condenses).
in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.
if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258)
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.
if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.
ask away.
I banned you because you are a troll, no matter whatyou claim. I answered your question repeatedly, and I am singularly sick of polite trolls, that create a facade of intelligence and honesty to gain sympathy and respect when they are doing nothing but wasting time.
What matters is the strength of a ship's hull (the wall) not the mass of the entire damn thing. A child could tell you that. A child could also tell you that given I repeatedly gave you the properties of the whirlpools and instances of observations of what they accomplish, you have experiments. There is an entire evidence section devoted to why DET is scientifically preferred to alternatives, and the whirlpools are obviously a part of DET.
Stop wasting my time, I am not going to bother with your blatant and transparent dishonesty.
For context to readers:
I have been talking to this person for multiple pages, over a course of months. In all that time I have called him out for his dishonesty multiple times, and he has never changed. This is not a decision I made quickly.
You are more than welcome to read the threads where this person ignored the overview, ignored the posts he was responding to, lied to my face, and constantly demanded I repeat myself to the point of making a second thread to cover questions I had already answered in the first.
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/26/space-travel-conspiracy-another-assumption
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/32/impossibility-space-travel
A temporary ban is the least someone would do in that situation.
He is a type of troll I have a particular dislike for. There are the vulgar trolls, yes, but they are transparent. You know what you're getting into. He, meanwhile, is a troll. He uses the same smug tactics, relies on the same arrogance, both of which you can see displayed, but hides it behind a simpering act of moral superiority to try and gain pity. He deserves the exact same treatment as any troll, but he tries to make you feel bad for doing what you have to do. It is a disgusting trick, meant to manipulate flat earthers and round earther readers alike. Look at the big bad flat earther who won't put up with the constant timewasting demands! Look at the poor innocent roundie!
Not once has he asked anything that was not already answered. That is the long and short of it. He wastes time, but expects you to treat him like an actually serious user.
I like how you told me aether is gravity and aether condenses into matter.Aether is responsible for what gets called gravity, and the latter was idle speculation when I was developing the theory and I never presented it as anything else.
I have no intention on responding to your insults or question marks on my character. I only want to debate the topic at hand.If that was the case you would have already responded to the multiple times I have answered, even in this thread. Your 'character' is the entire problem here. I will not waste my time on a troll.
I like how you told me aether is gravity and aether condenses into matter.Aether is responsible for what gets called gravity, and the latter was idle speculation when I was developing the theory and I never presented it as anything else.I have no intention on responding to your insults or question marks on my character. I only want to debate the topic at hand.If that was the case you would have already responded to the multiple times I have answered, even in this thread. Your 'character' is the entire problem here. I will not waste my time on a troll.
I like how you told me aether is gravity and aether condenses into matter.Aether is responsible for what gets called gravity, and the latter was idle speculation when I was developing the theory and I never presented it as anything else.I have no intention on responding to your insults or question marks on my character. I only want to debate the topic at hand.If that was the case you would have already responded to the multiple times I have answered, even in this thread. Your 'character' is the entire problem here. I will not waste my time on a troll.
Should we not question that which we get told?
I like how you told me aether is gravity and aether condenses into matter.Aether is responsible for what gets called gravity, and the latter was idle speculation when I was developing the theory and I never presented it as anything else.I have no intention on responding to your insults or question marks on my character. I only want to debate the topic at hand.If that was the case you would have already responded to the multiple times I have answered, even in this thread. Your 'character' is the entire problem here. I will not waste my time on a troll.
Should we not question that which we get told?
Another perfect example of this sickening behavior. I particularly dislike holier-than-thou trolls and their brand of manipulation.
If he had questioned my answers rather than ignored the multiple times I gave them, we would not be in this situation.
I banned you because you are a troll, no matter whatyou claim. I answered your question repeatedly, and I am singularly sick of polite trolls, that create a facade of intelligence and honesty to gain sympathy and respect when they are doing nothing but wasting time.You mean doing nothing but refuting you.
You are lying, again. You are lying about the post you are literally quoting.No he isn't.
This is a waste of time, good riddance.Yes, if you have no intent on honestly debating all you are doing is wasting time.
You ignore my explanation about meteor showers observably being a meteor splitting apartNo they aren't.
you ignore the ENTIRE EVIDENCE SECTIONYour evidence sections is about bitching about what evidence is to pretend all the evidence for the globe is evidence for your model. You haven't actually provided any evidence for your model.
ALL THE EFFECTS OF THE WHIRLPOOL I JUST REFERENCED.But you didn't. You merely suggested that there are effects and observations. You never indicated any of them.
You are a liar and a troll. Stop acting otherwise, it is truly disgusting. I do not care about your childish "Look at me, I'm so innocent!" holier than thou act.Projecting again I see.
You are more than welcome to read the threads where this person ignored the overview, ignored the posts he was responding to, lied to my face, and constantly demanded I repeat myself to the point of making a second thread to cover questions I had already answered in the first.You mean see some more examples of your wonderful dishonesty?
A temporary ban is the least someone would do in that situation.Someone who has no confidence in their position.
See, this is why I don't bother with your site, because you are horribly biased and will just delete posts you deem too damaging to your position.I openly linked to the still-existing threads.
Such as pretending that space travel being fake is a conclusion rather than an assumption for your model to be valid?A simple fact. The facts of the model point to space travel being impossible. There is a reason to think that they lie.
Earth is a sphere and the centre of the universe, made by a god just for us.No, because you have no conception of what 'simple' means. God is the most complex entity imaginable. You would need to justify the existence of something, that something being a being, a being with the ability to create that, the desire to create that, along with all the complexities that make up the 'that.' Anyone that says the Earth is not a sphere would be lying if that model were true, but anyone logical would reject the model for the number of assumptions required.
Nice and simple.
Anything which goes against this is just a lie as it contradicts the model.
Does that sound rational or scientific to you?
QuoteI openly linked to the still-existing threads.
But you deleted my most recent post and banned me. All because I beat you in a debate.
And are all the posts still there?QuoteSee, this is why I don't bother with your site, because you are horribly biased and will just delete posts you deem too damaging to your position.I openly linked to the still-existing threads.
A simple fact. The facts of the model point to space travel being impossible. There is a reason to think that they lie.You mean the assumptions of the model point to space travel being impossible, thus to explain the observation that people claim to have been to space and launched various objects into space you need a further assumption that they are lying.
No, because you have no conception of what 'simple' means.Sure I do.
As ever you are demonstrating you understand nothing.Projecting yet again.
And are all the posts still there?I deleted one post he made by circumventing his ban. That's all. It wasn't any content lost, as covered he only repeats himself.
I have shown before that numerous posts are missing in your forum.
JRowe, you're an idiot of the highest proportions. 90% of your "theory" is based on assumptions, basing one assumption on another "base" assumption doesn't count as some kind of loophole. May work for an argument with your mom but not with the scientific community. Science is science, what you have though, that's just idiotic drunk/high nonsense. Seriously, if you honestly believe this stuff and aren't just a writer trying to sell a scifi universe I feel bad for you. You're obviously delusional to think YOU of all the people in history somehow discovered all science is a lie and not only that, you have a perfect model to refute upwards of tens of thousands observations. What in the hell are you on? I hope you're just on something, if not, seek therapy, seriously. Nobody is going to believe this crackpot handwaving nonsense, you can argue all you want but that'll still leave you alone, on this forum, wishing someone actually gave a shit about this nonsensical rambling.
Good day sir.
YOU ARE ALL FAGGITS
I've got to say, this DET is a quite thorough and astonishing piece of fiction. It amazes me that there are people out there who would devote such a massive amount of time and energy to something like this. A word of advice on your future endeavors... You might want to work out the fundamentals a little bit more. You claim there is only one assumption you have to make for the DET to make sense, and then you gloss over countless problems by saying the answer can be assumed or inferred. You clearly don't know anything about scientific method if you truly believe that any fundamental aspect of a "theory" can just be assumed. For example- You say this fictional Aether stuff flows from high to low concentrations without any force acting on it, which violates one of Newtons laws right off the bat (or does it not break any laws because its not a physical substance? I'm confused now, because if that's the case, then it also wouldn't follow the laws that you claim set it in motion in the first place), and you also just freely fabricated the idea that there are naturally occurring 'low concentration' areas in the universe. How is there not a uniform concentrations of Aether naturally? And how is there a constant flow of Aether towards the surface of the Earth? If Aether flows from high to low concentration, equilibrium would have been achieved billions of years ago. There are hundreds more points i can make like this, but I have things to do over here in reality, you should make the trip over some time, I think you'd be delighted to find we actually have SCIENTIFIC theories that explain all of these things you so desperately wish to explain. I have a feeling you're going to delete this, which would just prove to me and everyone who's watching me type this that you can't argue against my logic and want me silenced so I can't poke more holes in your dreamreality. If you actually respond to this I'd be more than happy to actually discuss these things with you more in depth.
You mean the assumptions of the model point to space travel being impossible,No, i don't, I mean the model itself points to space travel being impossible. You have to lie to make an argument. You take the exact opposite of what I said and insist it is what I mean. The impossibility of space travel is a consequence of objects being torn apart due to the same force that is responsible for countless other phenomenon. A conclusion.
I also wouldn't say it is more complex than yours with aether which appears to be sentient such that it can continue to flow with no reason to do so, which knows to drag matter down to Earth, but not tear Earth apart as it continues to flow.Another outright lie, as with all your post.
I'm just saying rather than space having that sentience, some other entity does.
I deleted one post he made by circumventing his ban. That's all. It wasn't any content lost, as covered he only repeats himself.As you have shown your dishonesty, I have no reason to take your word for it.
And no, you haven't. This is another blatant lie by you. I move posts to a quarantine rather than delete themThat is as good as deleting them.
You have no evidence of mass deletion because there is none. You are openly lying to everybody's faces. This is pathetic even by your standards.I never said there was mass deletion. I just said there was deletion.
No, i don't, I mean the model itself points to space travel being impossible.No it doesn't.
You have to lie to make an argument. You take the exact opposite of what I said and insist it is what I mean.There you go projecting again.
The impossibility of space travel is a consequence of objects being torn apart due to the same force that is responsible for countless other phenomenon. A conclusion.A "conclusion" based upon assumptions you are yet to prove.
Nope, another rational analysis of your insane model which makes no sense and contradicts itself.QuoteI also wouldn't say it is more complex than yours with aether which appears to be sentient such that it can continue to flow with no reason to do so, which knows to drag matter down to Earth, but not tear Earth apart as it continues to flow.Another outright lie, as with all your post.
I'm just saying rather than space having that sentience, some other entity does.
This is obscenely dishonest. Are you that scared of people making up their own minds that you have to lie so dramatically? This isn't even a subtle bending of the truth or minor misunderstanding. This is mass, wilful misrepresentation. I am ashamed for you.Projecting again.
You are hiding posts from view and banning people. That is enough reason for me (and any rational person) to not use your site to debate your modelI temp ban trolls because I will not let such behavior go unpunished. The hiding was not an excuse, it was to allow me to point out I have a full record of what I have deleted, and so of your dishonesty. Which of those posts do you think deserved to stay?
The model itself points to the conclusion that if the model is true, space travel is impossible. That doesn't mean space travel is impossible, nor does it mean the facts of your model points to it being impossibleCircular bullshit. If it follows from the model, it is not an assumption.
The assumptions you make for your model is what indicates space travel is impossible.
They are not facts. They are assumptions.
Until you can prove your model is correct rather than alternatives, they remain as assumptions.
You are the one blatantly misrepresenting things, like pretending your model is based upon a single assumption.I leave that to all readers to decide. Unlike you I am being open and honest.
JRowe, you don't owe them an explanation.If she wants to be taken seriously she does.
JRowe, you don't owe them an explanation.If she wants to be taken seriously she does.
I temp ban trolls because I will not let such behavior go unpunished. The hiding was not an excuse, it was to allow me to point out I have a full record of what I have deleted, and so of your dishonesty.A full record which no one can see other than you. That is as good as deleting them. Again, you have shown yourself to be dishonest so I have no reason to trust you.
I would like to see this evidence you claimed to have, or was that another lie?Evidence for you banning people and "deleting" posts or evidence for space travel?
Circular bullshit. If it follows from the model, it is not an assumption.No, that would be your circular bullshit.
I leave that to all readers to decide. Unlike you I am being open and honest.Pure BS. You lie so much it isn't funny.
No, I doubt anyone cares if you take them seriously, because you take everything so super seriously. Stop harassing him about how he runs his forum. It has nothing to do with the topic.As he seems to repeatedly bring up his forum and tell people to go there, i think it is relevant to the topic.
Wow, what has Jack Black done to illicit such hate.Repeatedly refute his claims in a persistent manner rather than just giving up like many people would.
Wow, what has Jack Black done to illicit such hate.Repeatedly refute his claims in a persistent manner rather than just giving up like many people would.
Including at times explaining in clear detail why his model is wrong.
Once he tried to go through his model step by step.
I gave him his assumption of space having concentration, and that it flows from high to low concentrations.
But he couldn't establish that this flow would remain rather than dissipating as the concentrations even out.
He also said he had a long list of experiments proving his whirlpools exist, but he only actually linked to one which had the caveat it could not be carried out due to lack of resources.I have seen 2 claims of experiments to show whirlpools exist.
He reckons meteors are proof that rockets could not survive the "whirlpools" as they have been measured to be a lot bigger before entering our atmosphere, but did not see how using space technology to measure was a contradiction.From a quick skim, I don't think he was talking about that. Looked more like he was referring to things like:
He also said he had a long list of experiments proving his whirlpools exist, but he only actually linked to one which had the caveat it could not be carried out due to lack of resources.According to DET, those whirlpools are responsible for the coriolis effect, the movements of stars, the light of the stars, gravity decreasing with altitude, the movement of the Sun... I imagine he'd refer to any tests of those things as experiments. So, anything from a sniper, to measurements of gravity variation with respect to height, to just looking up at the night sky.
Ooh, this thread's back!
I'm not a FEer, I just like learning the models because the kinds of arguments made by, well, looks like jackblack's posted in this thread so there's one example, tend to do more harm than good. Judging by AR you've got first hand knowledge of that; they just antagonise FEers. The end result's not a logical realisation, but rather further certainty REers are shills/dishonest/insert whatever word you want. RET can stand an honest debate, easy.He reckons meteors are proof that rockets could not survive the "whirlpools" as they have been measured to be a lot bigger before entering our atmosphere, but did not see how using space technology to measure was a contradiction.From a quick skim, I don't think he was talking about that. Looked more like he was referring to things like:
And others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_meteor_air_burstsQuoteHe also said he had a long list of experiments proving his whirlpools exist, but he only actually linked to one which had the caveat it could not be carried out due to lack of resources.According to DET, those whirlpools are responsible for the coriolis effect, the movements of stars, the light of the stars, gravity decreasing with altitude, the movement of the Sun... I imagine he'd refer to any tests of those things as experiments. So, anything from a sniper, to measurements of gravity variation with respect to height, to just looking up at the night sky.
Well one of his biggest conclusions is the impossible nature of space travel due to nothing being able to survive transition between whirlpools at higher altitudes. His proof of this is that meteors break up and due not survive these transitions. But my argument back is how does he know the meteors broke up, how does he know that what we label an air bust is not actually multiple smaller meteors that have survived the transitions themselves.Logic, likelihood, the chance of multiple smaller rocks not only hitting the atmosphere at the same moment, but in the same basic area enough to cause only one burst, and for that matter to cause a big enough burst... It just doesn't make sense otherwise, irrespective of Earth shape.
He argues any observations in line with his whirlpools is proof of the whirlpools, but that is wholly inadequate. What I asked for was an experiment determine without refute that these whirlpools exist. The closest he came was an experiment amount changes in refraction, but then said he can't resource such an experiment.That's impossible. For pretty much anything. Anything should, theoretically, be open to refutation. There's always the possibility of another explanation, something being missed. There'll be a dozen ways to explain anything, science just picks the best. Even his cliche refraction experiment could be used to justify other points of view if it worked.
His problem was, he was unable to answer my questions and rather than seek answers of adjustments to his model, he tried taking me off track with insults, I just wasn't interested in a name calling session and so repeatedly brought him back to the debate. This caused him to ban me.I'm not interested in getting in the middle of a grudge match, I'm just giving what I know about JRowe's model.
Well one of his biggest conclusions is the impossible nature of space travel due to nothing being able to survive transition between whirlpools at higher altitudes. His proof of this is that meteors break up and due not survive these transitions. But my argument back is how does he know the meteors broke up, how does he know that what we label an air bust is not actually multiple smaller meteors that have survived the transitions themselves.Logic, likelihood, the chance of multiple smaller rocks not only hitting the atmosphere at the same moment, but in the same basic area enough to cause only one burst, and for that matter to cause a big enough burst... It just doesn't make sense otherwise, irrespective of Earth shape.QuoteHe argues any observations in line with his whirlpools is proof of the whirlpools, but that is wholly inadequate. What I asked for was an experiment determine without refute that these whirlpools exist. The closest he came was an experiment amount changes in refraction, but then said he can't resource such an experiment.That's impossible. For pretty much anything. Anything should, theoretically, be open to refutation. There's always the possibility of another explanation, something being missed. There'll be a dozen ways to explain anything, science just picks the best. Even his cliche refraction experiment could be used to justify other points of view if it worked.
One of the cliche examples of this is gravity vs 'intelligent falling,' God's hand pushing every object down to Earth, If you construct that hypothesis well enough, there's nothing you can propose to experimentally verify gravity over it. That doesn't make gravity less true.QuoteHis problem was, he was unable to answer my questions and rather than seek answers of adjustments to his model, he tried taking me off track with insults, I just wasn't interested in a name calling session and so repeatedly brought him back to the debate. This caused him to ban me.I'm not interested in getting in the middle of a grudge match, I'm just giving what I know about JRowe's model.
Logic doesn't argue one big rock over many little rocks and likelihood only comes into play if we know the exact number of the rocks in the first place. We have scientifically proven that these are, of course, meteors that break up, but the methods to prove that are not methods allowable under his theory.I don't really know what you're trying to say. When you have one sudden event, it is logically more likely to be the result of one cause rather than multiple exceptionally well-timed causes. That's true no matter what you're talking about, whether we're talking meteors or just general loud booms.
The problem is if I'm to abandon the status quo and take belief in his theory I need convincing about these whirlpools. Otherwise we could just argue the giant spaghetti monster does everything these whirlpools do.Sure, you just have to have good standards for what'd convince you.
There's no grudge on my side, I've not insulted him a single time. Judging by the angry rant forum though that hasn't extended in both directions.JRowe does that when he gets riled up. But again, not looking to get in the middle of it. I said grudge match because you seem a little... keen to claim victory. No offence intended, it just comes across as a bit uncomfortable. I'm not looking to debate whether you or JRowe was in the right, just explain what I know of his model.
Logic doesn't argue one big rock over many little rocks and likelihood only comes into play if we know the exact number of the rocks in the first place. We have scientifically proven that these are, of course, meteors that break up, but the methods to prove that are not methods allowable under his theory.I don't really know what you're trying to say. When you have one sudden event, it is logically more likely to be the result of one cause rather than multiple exceptionally well-timed causes. That's true no matter what you're talking about, whether we're talking meteors or just general loud booms.QuoteThe problem is if I'm to abandon the status quo and take belief in his theory I need convincing about these whirlpools. Otherwise we could just argue the giant spaghetti monster does everything these whirlpools do.Sure, you just have to have good standards for what'd convince you.QuoteThere's no grudge on my side, I've not insulted him a single time. Judging by the angry rant forum though that hasn't extended in both directions.JRowe does that when he gets riled up. But again, not looking to get in the middle of it. I said grudge match because you seem a little... keen to claim victory. No offence intended, it just comes across as a bit uncomfortable. I'm not looking to debate whether you or JRowe was in the right, just explain what I know of his model.
It's a weak answer in my opinion. What I'm trying to say is how do we know these whirlpools will destroy anything passing through them.Well those are the answers, strength or weakness is up to you.
Aye good standards should always be demanded.
I absolutely take no offence. I've no qualms with the way I've handled myself. I disagree with aspects of the model and I've been clear about that, I've yet to be convinced otherwise but time will tell.
.It's a weak answer in my opinion. What I'm trying to say is how do we know these whirlpools will destroy anything passing through them.Well those are the answers, strength or weakness is up to you.
Aye good standards should always be demanded.
I absolutely take no offence. I've no qualms with the way I've handled myself. I disagree with aspects of the model and I've been clear about that, I've yet to be convinced otherwise but time will tell.
Though I suppose the other answer is just "Well that's the model." If it's a possible conclusion from the premises, take it if it works. Rejecting something as impossible because one potential end result is, even if others are fine, doesn't really make sense.
Fair enough, though just be aware of how it can come across.
We have yet to experience anything break up that comes close to the mass nor durability of a space shuttle...I'm not a troll, I was looking for answers, I still am. It just seems you aren't prepared to answer them.You are looking for answers and post the first statement...?
We have yet to experience anything break up that comes close to the mass nor durability of a space shuttle...I'm not a troll, I was looking for answers, I still am. It just seems you aren't prepared to answer them.You are looking for answers and post the first statement...?
Should your profile name be changed to "ChallengerOrColumbia"?
looks like jackblack's posted in this thread so there's one example, tend to do more harm than good.And there you go jumping in with the insults.
they just antagonise FEers.Sure, if by antagonise you mean continually call them out on their lies and baseless claims.
The end result's not a logical realisation, but rather further certainty REers are shills/dishonest/insert whatever word you want. RET can stand an honest debate, easy.No, the end result is a logical realisation that FEers cannot provide rational arguments.
From a quick skim, I don't think he was talking about that. Looked more like he was referring to things like:You mean when they blow up quite far into the atmosphere (which would require them to have already gone through several transitions), rather than breaking up due to some magic whirlpool transition?
And others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_meteor_air_bursts
According to DET, those whirlpools are responsible for the coriolis effect, the movements of stars, the light of the stars, gravity decreasing with altitude, the movement of the Sun... I imagine he'd refer to any tests of those things as experiments. So, anything from a sniper, to measurements of gravity variation with respect to height, to just looking up at the night sky.Nope, none of them establish DET over the much simpler alternative.
Well one of his biggest conclusions is the impossible nature of space travel due to nothing being able to survive transition between whirlpools at higher altitudes. His proof of this is that meteors break up and due not survive these transitions. But my argument back is how does he know the meteors broke up, how does he know that what we label an air bust is not actually multiple smaller meteors that have survived the transitions themselves.Because of observations of an object (or something acting as a single object) travelling through the atmosphere before exploding.
It's a weak answer in my opinion. What I'm trying to say is how do we know these whirlpools will destroy anything passing through them.It is not the whirlpool itself, it is the transition between the whirlpools where you allegedly go from one accelerating you at some rate to another accelerating you at a different rate.
Ok....where did all your ideas on DE come from? Simple question.Observation of the world, consideration of special pleading made in mainstream science with respect to the nature of space.
Ok....where did all your ideas on DE come from? Simple question.Observation of the world, consideration of special pleading made in mainstream science with respect to the nature of space.
No observation of the world leads to your nonsense as there are no observations which indicate your model over the currently accepted model.Ok....where did all your ideas on DE come from? Simple question.Observation of the world, consideration of special pleading made in mainstream science with respect to the nature of space.
Can you also explain the details of the special pleading to which you are referring?It is apparently the one entity in all reality without a concept of concentration.
QuoteCan you also explain the details of the special pleading to which you are referring?It is apparently the one entity in all reality without a concept of concentration.
Models are not meant to be taken individually. No one individual aspect is meant to stand alone. I find the DE answer for stars satisfactory, and I have already answered your question as to composition in the relevant thread. DET as a whole, however, is believe because of the sum of all observations.
You made a thread about the topic. I suggest you start there.QuoteCan you also explain the details of the special pleading to which you are referring?It is apparently the one entity in all reality without a concept of concentration.
Models are not meant to be taken individually. No one individual aspect is meant to stand alone. I find the DE answer for stars satisfactory, and I have already answered your question as to composition in the relevant thread. DET as a whole, however, is believe because of the sum of all observations.
Can you please provide a link to your answer. I get the feeling you are avoiding addressing my honest questions.
You made a thread about the topic. I suggest you start there.QuoteCan you also explain the details of the special pleading to which you are referring?It is apparently the one entity in all reality without a concept of concentration.
Models are not meant to be taken individually. No one individual aspect is meant to stand alone. I find the DE answer for stars satisfactory, and I have already answered your question as to composition in the relevant thread. DET as a whole, however, is believe because of the sum of all observations.
Can you please provide a link to your answer. I get the feeling you are avoiding addressing my honest questions.
I get the feeling you're blatantly wasting time. Spamming the same question in multiple threads, ignoring my presence in the thread where that was the entire topic... Just as I remember you used to love spamming a repeatedly explicitly answered question.
It isn't an entity.QuoteCan you also explain the details of the special pleading to which you are referring?It is apparently the one entity in all reality without a concept of concentration.
Models are not meant to be taken individually. No one individual aspect is meant to stand alone. I find the DE answer for stars satisfactory, and I have already answered your question as to composition in the relevant thread. DET as a whole, however, is believe because of the sum of all observations.So far the closest I recall seeing you answer the question on composition is by pleading ignorance and claiming we can't know what they are made of, ignoring all the evidence which indicates what stars are made of.
DET is holier than the Bible at the point.
Well there are lots of holes in it.DET is holier than the Bible at the point.
Explain please?
Well there are lots of holes in it.DET is holier than the Bible at the point.
Explain please?
Your basically not a very nice person.I will not be nice to trolls.
According to you anyone who may disagree with you is a liar, and anyone who repeatedly asks an honest question because they never receive an honest answer is a spammer!
And it isn't the only thing.Again, you know nothing. Space has properties, it is affected by movement at high speeds for example. This is well understood.
Concentration refers to the amount of matter per unit space.
It is what is used to measure the concentration.
You could invert it and have a measure of how much space there is per unit mass or the like.
You are also yet to answer several of my questions regarding your model (in an honest way which addresses the issues), and I still have ones I haven't gotten around to asking because we are yet to even get to that point of an explanation in your model.I tried. You refuse to accept any answer that isn't RET. And, like lonegranger, you will outright lie because no one is ever going to call out a fucking round earther on their bullshit.
I will not be nice to trolls.Is that why you are so mean to yourself?
But when I answer youWe can get to that when you actually start providing answers rather than deflecting and/or ignoring what people have said and just repeat the same refuted BS.
When you spam the exact same question over multiple threads, you are a spammer and you make it very fucking clear you're not trying to debate.No. You are yet to answer these questions. We are not spammers for continually bringing up questions you have no answer to. Especially when you refuse to admit such and say it is a baseless assumption of your model or your model is unable to explain this phenomena.
Again, you know nothing.And there you go with the insults yet again.
A concentration simply applies to how much of something there is.No it doesn't.
but you can also have a concentration of heat which is just a matter of how much heat exists.Again, no it is not. It would be flux which is a measure of the flow of thermal energy between objects, and it isn't just the raw amount, it is how much per unit space.
How much space exists can be tricky to directly observe, but the concept is sound.Meanwhile the concentration of space is very easy, it is 1.
Not that you care, when you will openly bullshit like this.I'm not the one bullshitting here.
I tried. You refuse to accept any answer that isn't RET.No, you tried and failed to provide any rational justification or refutation.
And, like lonegranger, you will outright lie because no one is ever going to call out a fucking round earther on their bullshit.And there you go lying yet again.
I don't need to lie to show the problems with your model, so why would I?THEN WHY ARE YOU YOU FUCKING MORON?!
I'm not the one lying here.QuoteI don't need to lie to show the problems with your model, so why would I?THEN WHY ARE YOU
I am sick of repeating myself. It is nothing but a tremendous fucking waste of time talking to you.Then stop repeating the same refuted BS and actually answer the question in an honest, rational manner.
Can a mod lock this thread? It's clearly served it's purpose and been overrun by liars.You are the dishonest one here, not me.
As ever I will always answer questions, and have a forum with a section devoted to doing so. If jackblack's trivialities genuinely seem convincing to you, and if you are not satisfied with the answers he ignored, please feel free to visit and ask.
For now, I will no longer humor his dishonesty.
QuoteYour basically not a very nice person.I will not be nice to trolls.
According to you anyone who may disagree with you is a liar, and anyone who repeatedly asks an honest question because they never receive an honest answer is a spammer!
I welcome disagreement and discussion. But when I answer you, and you completely ignore the existence of that answer no matter how many times it is pointed out to you, you are a liar. When you spam the exact same question over multiple threads, you are a spammer and you make it very fucking clear you're not trying to debate.
You've been answered. Your inability to cope with that is your problem, not mine.And it isn't the only thing.Again, you know nothing. Space has properties, it is affected by movement at high speeds for example. This is well understood.
Concentration refers to the amount of matter per unit space.
It is what is used to measure the concentration.
You could invert it and have a measure of how much space there is per unit mass or the like.
A concentration simply applies to how much of something there is. yes, that's a concentration of matter, but you can also have a concentration of heat which is just a matter of how much heat exists.
How much space exists can be tricky to directly observe, but the concept is sound.
Not that you care, when you will openly bullshit like this.QuoteYou are also yet to answer several of my questions regarding your model (in an honest way which addresses the issues), and I still have ones I haven't gotten around to asking because we are yet to even get to that point of an explanation in your model.I tried. You refuse to accept any answer that isn't RET. And, like lonegranger, you will outright lie because no one is ever going to call out a fucking round earther on their bullshit.
JRowe is not being honest there.
I recently made 3 threads on his forum questioning his model and he deleted them and then banned me for doing so.
JRowe is not being honest there.
I recently made 3 threads on his forum questioning his model and he deleted them and then banned me for doing so.
JRowe is not being honest there.
I recently made 3 threads on his forum questioning his model and he deleted them and then banned me for doing so.
I see you still feel the need to lie.
You were banned for repeatedly ignoring my posts and wasting time. i have no tolerance for trolls. You then circumvented this ban multiple times, despite knowing the consequences, and those posts you made while breaking the rules were deleted.
You are a troll and I have no sympathy for you.
Anyone that will engage in honest discussion rather than lying to my face is always welcome.
JRowe is not being honest there.
I recently made 3 threads on his forum questioning his model and he deleted them and then banned me for doing so.
I see you still feel the need to lie.
You were banned for repeatedly ignoring my posts and wasting time. i have no tolerance for trolls. You then circumvented this ban multiple times, despite knowing the consequences, and those posts you made while breaking the rules were deleted.
You are a troll and I have no sympathy for you.
Anyone that will engage in honest discussion rather than lying to my face is always welcome.
Have you got to grips with the truth about Spectroscopy yet?
JRowe is not being honest there.
I recently made 3 threads on his forum questioning his model and he deleted them and then banned me for doing so.
I see you still feel the need to lie.
You were banned for repeatedly ignoring my posts and wasting time. i have no tolerance for trolls. You then circumvented this ban multiple times, despite knowing the consequences, and those posts you made while breaking the rules were deleted.
You are a troll and I have no sympathy for you.
Anyone that will engage in honest discussion rather than lying to my face is always welcome.
Have you got to grips with the truth about Spectroscopy yet?
I know the truth about it. Made a whole thread on the topic that's got you people running scared and evading. Do you, or are you just going to keep trolling?