ask me about dual earth theory

Quote from: Umurweird on March 30, 2015, 01:11:47 PM

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.

Quote

when 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.

Quote from: Umurweird on March 30, 2015, 01:13:36 PM

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.

I know flat earth idea isn't a theory.

And I know it's not reality.

Your diagrams and crap.

In reality....we observe smaller objects being attracted to larger ones. How does aether make this possible.

Please answer the question.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:15:08 PM

Quote from: Umurweird on March 30, 2015, 01:11:47 PM

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.

Quote

when 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?!

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?!

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.

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 30, 2015, 01:20:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:10:27 PM

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.

For aether [sic] to mimic gravity, you need it to flow from lower density to higher, not higher to lower.

Quote

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?!

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.

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. 

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:24:36 PM

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 30, 2015, 01:20:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:10:27 PM

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.

For aether [sic] to mimic gravity, you need it to flow from lower density to higher, not higher to lower.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

matter generally isn't attracted to itself, beyond individual cases of magnetism and chemical reaction. attempts to show that usually just end up measuring the way aether flows around solid objects. (while aether usually isn't too bothered by objects, they do have a small effect).
aether forms matter because it flows to low pressure areas. all the aether goes into it (as it is constantly in motion), a low pressure zone will attract a lot of aether, more than would necessarily be required. sometimes it just evens outwards, but if it's an extremely low pressure zone, some matter will be formed. at this point, the zone is still low in density because there's no aether there, so more goes in.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

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.

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.

look, 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.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 30, 2015, 01:36:14 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:24:36 PM

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 30, 2015, 01:20:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:10:27 PM

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.

For aether [sic] to mimic gravity, you need it to flow from lower density to higher, not higher to lower.

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?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 05:15:19 PM

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

look, 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.

see, you've proven it. i don't need to back up my word choice. i could call space 'bob', it's not going to change a thing. you're not going to start insisting it doesn't exist. why does calling space by a different name suddenly mean it doesn't exist?
why is the word space so precious to you? it is a word. you aren't arguing for a thing except complaining about word choice. what is wrong with you?!

i have explained everything repeatedly, your refusal to read a word is not my fault. i refer you YET AGAIN to the model thread, you illiterate idiot.

there is no point in talking to you. i explicitly referred you to the model thread, which answers those arguments, and you are still failing to acknowledge a word i'm saying. if you're not interested in reading or thinking, stop posting here, it's a waste of time for both of us.

unless you can say something that hasn't already been answered multiple times (the model thread, once more), i'm not wasting any more time trying to educate you.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:48:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 30, 2015, 01:36:14 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:24:36 PM

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 30, 2015, 01:20:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:10:27 PM

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.

For aether [sic] to mimic gravity, you need it to flow from lower density to higher, not higher to lower.

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?

it could only happen at low concentrations of space, because that's where space 'flows' into. it might happen within the earth, there's no way to know.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:52:27 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 05:15:19 PM

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?

what are you talking about? you understand that transmission is purely to do with thin space, right? i can't believe i still need to repeat that point. it's not going to alter photons any more than general transition through space: you know, like they have to do all the time.
educate yourself on a theory before arguing against it, please.

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 have defined aether well: my model has been refined, but the current form is simple.
aether is space. it has no properties (at least, none intrinsic to the model) beyond that. lots of space means a longer distance, little space means no distance. then, like everything (from fluids, to pressure, to heat, to anything) it goes from high concentrations, to low, to try and even out. that last aspect is a reasonable deduction, as it is a universal behavior.
aether is space, it is a dimension. i think i've explained this quite clearly. what is unclear?

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.

i would very much suggest you read this thread, starting at the first post.

What?  And involuntarily lose a billion more brain cells?   

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.

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 31, 2015, 03:21:55 AM

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!

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:27:50 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 31, 2015, 03:21:55 AM

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.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 08:30:48 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:27:50 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 31, 2015, 03:21:55 AM

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.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:32:24 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 08:30:48 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:27:50 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 31, 2015, 03:21:55 AM

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.

what are you talking about?! the existence (or rather, non-existence) of air is only incidental to my theory, and the observations are explained by air being thinner. you have yet to even make a start at showing that's not the case.
please, try to read.

yada yada yada

I only refered you to this topic, learn to read.

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 Ęther (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 Ęther density?  Why don't humans perceive a change in Ęther density?  It seems like there should be some sort of visual distortion accompanying the change. If you can provide a mathematical unit for Ęther then it should be possible to predict.

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 Ęther (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 Ęther density?  Why don't humans perceive a change in Ęther density?  It seems like there should be some sort of visual distortion accompanying the change. If you can provide a mathematical unit for Ęther 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.

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").