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.
What do you think about conservation laws?
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.
It appears you have not really tried, yet maintain it is impossible. This attitude of yours is interfering with your goal of having a properly fleshed out theory. Once you have really tried, then you can say what is possible and not.
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?
Lets assume the distance at the equator is actually 10 kms, but that the Aetheric density reduces it to zero. Light travels from a point 2,000kms N of the Equator to a point 2000kms S of the equator. It sounds like you are saying that light will actually travel 4,010kms, but only appear to travel 4,000kms. If the light were say, an image of something, then the image would appear to be 0.03 seconds older than our perception tells us it should be. So whatever the distance the equator actually covers, should be present as information in the light that traverses it.
What do you think?
and this is the only accessible place my model predicts any majority activity in terms of density of space.
How does it predict it?
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.
But you make so many assumptions already such as:
-The earth is flat disk populated on both sides
-There is a current of aether that runs through the center of the world
-All matter is ultimately aetheric in its origin
-he aether leaves the earth at the rim, at speed, and leaves in all directions
-Some curve up over either side to form the aetheric whirlpools, some are simply pushed back into the current within the earth, the terrestrial aether, maintaining its motion
-The top and bottom of the earth are mirrored, as the aether exerts the same forces on each
-aether has an almost magnetic attraction to itself, keeping things balanced
-There is a sun above and below the earth, which appear the same because of this property
And that is from the
first paragraph!
i did not say my theory was complete.
Neither did I.
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.
Minus the profound lack of mathematics able to accurately predict behavior, any empirical evidence that favors your theory over RE and the Ad Hoc construction of the theory.
i can assume your main objection is that it does not improve upon round earth theory.
No you cannot assume that. My objection is that you are declaring that your theory is mostly complete and accurate and yet, you cannot tell me how dense the Aether is at any point, only that it is dense enough to suit your purposes.
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.
Einstein developed GR in about 10 years; your excuses do nothing to further your position.
it does, however, clearly improve in terms of simplicity.
I grant you that it is a simple conception, and I really appreciate that.
rather than the non-understood gravity, we have known space
How is space "known" and gravity is "non-understood"?
and logically deduced, explicable properties.
But without any evidence to support them.
they are explained, not rigorously with numbers due to a lack of resources, but in general times the answers are clearly there.
"In general"? This should not be sufficient to you. I can grant that it is sufficient enough to provoke a course of investigation on your part, but not to say that you have done anything to explain how the world works. I also should not expect scientists to follow you just yet since they can observe, directly, the existence of air, for example, and it matches their theory very well thank you.