The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Tintagel on January 07, 2013, 01:56:52 PM
-
A little thought I've been noodling with. Using the aetheric wind model, I have placed the cosmos all around the earth-disc, rather than only above. Sigma Octanis, the southern celestial pole, is directly below the disc while Polaris, the northern celestial pole, is above.
In this model, aetheric wind brings the light up and around the edges of the disc, revealing the southern sky and Sigma Octanis to anyone in the southern hemidisc, regardless of their location. Light from above, such as from the sun and moon, travel very much as otherwise descibed in FET.
(http://i.imgur.com/t72JA.png)
Thoughts?
-
Thoughts?
Your model is based on necessity rather than evidence.
-
If the light travelled according to your diagram, it would not produce the visual effect which is observed.
-
If the light travelled according to your diagram, it would not produce the visual effect which is observed.
Unless the light fell back to earth after passing the rim.
-
If the light travelled according to your diagram, it would not produce the visual effect which is observed.
Unless the light fell back to earth after passing the rim.
The diagram does not depict that, therefore there is no reason to assume Tintagel includes that in his theory.
-
I applaud you for this theory. You are a true Zetetic.
One question, the UA is the most powerful force in the Universe.
What keeps it from destroying the very minuscule stars?
-
I applaud you for this theory. You are a true Zetetic.
One question, the UA is the most powerful force in the Universe.
What keeps it from destroying the very minuscule stars?
Reasons you're not a true zetetic though: You assume the UA is the most powerful force (non-zetetic assumption). You assume the size of the stars (non-zetetic assumption... you have no way of estimating their distance.)
-
If the light travelled according to your diagram, it would not produce the visual effect which is observed.
Unless the light fell back to earth after passing the rim.
The diagram does not depict that, therefore there is no reason to assume Tintagel includes that in his theory.
It's a work in progress.
-
If the light travelled according to your diagram, it would not produce the visual effect which is observed.
Unless the light fell back to earth after passing the rim.
The diagram does not depict that, therefore there is no reason to assume Tintagel includes that in his theory.
...her theory ;)
And honestly more a hypothesis, hence the reason I wanted to post it here for some feedback. But yes, the idea is that once the light passes the rim, as the aetheric wind rushes inward to fill the void above the earth-disc, creating the aetheric whirlpool, this light is pushed into our atmosphere at its outer (as in southern) edges. The lighter area surrounding the earth-disc in the diagram is the area where the aether and light are bent around the earth, my working name for the idea is the aetheric lens. Sorry I wasn't more clear.
-
An interesting theory. Perhaps it could be caused by Daniel's Aetheric Eddification (refraction due to the changing speeds and density of the UA as well as the difference between UA and atmosphere)
-
An interesting theory. Perhaps it could be caused by Daniel's Aetheric Eddification (refraction due to the changing speeds and density of the UA as well as the difference between UA and atmosphere)
A good point. Feel free to expand upon it in that regard. I can even make a new diagram when we're done, it'll look nice on the wiki. :D
-
Perhaps, when any sort of independent evidence of aether's existence is provided, then someone might take this thread seriously.
As it is, Tausami has failed to comment that Tintagel's theory conflicts with his own (he has aether rushing to fill a void behind the earth, she has it rushing to fill a void in front of the earth). I have asked twice, and still not received a definite reply, as to whether the aether is a stationary medium the earth is propelled through, like a car moving through air, or whether the aether itself is propelled along with the earth, like an object floating down a stream. Of course there's no info on this, because it will change depending on what you want to use aether as an excuse for.
-
Perhaps, when any sort of independent evidence of aether's existence is provided, then someone might take this thread seriously.
As it is, Tausami has failed to comment that Tintagel's theory conflicts with his own (he has aether rushing to fill a void behind the earth, she has it rushing to fill a void in front of the earth). I have asked twice, and still not received a definite reply, as to whether the aether is a stationary medium the earth is propelled through, like a car moving through air, or whether the aether itself is propelled along with the earth, like an object floating down a stream. Of course there's no info on this, because it will change depending on what you want to use aether as an excuse for.
Yes, this hypothesis is specifically for the aetheric wind model which states that aether is flowing around us and rushing together into a whirlpool above the earth. Some prefer the classic definition of aether as an unmoving medium through which the earth and celestial bodies are accelerating, which would leave the void in our wake below us. I'm not committing to a particular Flat Earth model just yet, rather I'm doing a lot of thinking about all of them, and trying to find ways to further the movement as a whole.
-
Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.
-
Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of gravitons.
-
Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.
Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of gravitons.
Great example for the difference between hypothesis and imagination here.
-
Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of gravitons.
Bottles already contain gravitons.
-
Perhaps, when any sort of independent evidence of aether's existence is provided, then someone might take this thread seriously.
As it is, Tausami has failed to comment that Tintagel's theory conflicts with his own (he has aether rushing to fill a void behind the earth, she has it rushing to fill a void in front of the earth). I have asked twice, and still not received a definite reply, as to whether the aether is a stationary medium the earth is propelled through, like a car moving through air, or whether the aether itself is propelled along with the earth, like an object floating down a stream. Of course there's no info on this, because it will change depending on what you want to use aether as an excuse for.
I think you're misunderstanding something I said. I'm actually adding that image into the wiki article on the Aetheric Whirlpool
-
Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of gravitons.
Bottles already contain gravitons.
Would you care to elaborate or share links to support this?
-
Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.
Get back to the rest of us when someone approaches you in the first place. Do you see your username in the subject title?
Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.
-
Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.
Get back to the rest of us when someone approaches you in the first place. Do you see your username in the subject title?
Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.
If your views conflict, I'd be interested to hear them. I posted this here to subject it to a bit of scrutiny from the society, as I'm eager to learn and improve.
-
'Aether' belongs in the rubbish bin along with 'Gravity' 'Dark Matter/Energy' and other theorethical claptrap.
The Zetetic process involves simple experimentation to arrive at the demonstrable cause of phenomena, not falling victim to guesswork and speculation, the twin demons of globularist science.
OP - Re-read Chapter 1 of Earth, not a Globe then feel bad about engaging in the very thing this society stands against.
-
'Aether' belongs in the rubbish bin along with 'Gravity' 'Dark Matter/Energy' and other theorethical claptrap.
The Zetetic process involves simple experimentation to arrive at the demonstrable cause of phenomena, not falling victim to guesswork and speculation, the twin demons of globularist science.
OP - Re-read Chapter 1 of Earth, not a Globe then feel bad about engaging in the very thing this society stands against.
With all due respect, Earth Not a Globe is not a religious document, so there's no need for me to have some sort of pseudo-dogmatic guilt over the supposed sin of speculation.
-
'Aether' belongs in the rubbish bin along with 'Gravity' 'Dark Matter/Energy' and other theorethical claptrap.
The Zetetic process involves simple experimentation to arrive at the demonstrable cause of phenomena, not falling victim to guesswork and speculation, the twin demons of globularist science.
OP - Re-read Chapter 1 of Earth, not a Globe then feel bad about engaging in the very thing this society stands against.
With all due respect, Earth Not a Globe is not a religious document, so there's no need for me to have some sort of pseudo-dogmatic guilt over the supposed sin of speculation.
Not everyone has the mental discipline to adhere to the Zetetic method, its hard for everyone to admit they are unable to explain the universe around them and simply confess ignorance.
Think about what it is about yourself that requires you to take the wonders of creation and define them into your narrow terrestrial perspective.
-
Not everyone has the mental discipline to adhere to the Zetetic method...
That's alright, not everyone agrees on what the "zetetic method" really means or involves either.
-
Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of gravitons.
Poor analogy: whether gravitons exist or not, the effect of the force they would produce if they did is observable independently of what holds us to earth, quantifiable, predictable and measurable.
Whether aether exists or not, the force it would produce if it did is neither observable independently of what holds us to earth, nor quantifiable, predictable or measurable.
-
'Aether' belongs in the rubbish bin along with 'Gravity' 'Dark Matter/Energy' and other theorethical claptrap.
The Zetetic process involves simple experimentation to arrive at the demonstrable cause of phenomena, not falling victim to guesswork and speculation, the twin demons of globularist science.
OP - Re-read Chapter 1 of Earth, not a Globe then feel bad about engaging in the very thing this society stands against.
With all due respect, Earth Not a Globe is not a religious document, so there's no need for me to have some sort of pseudo-dogmatic guilt over the supposed sin of speculation.
Not everyone has the mental discipline to adhere to the Zetetic method, its hard for everyone to admit they are unable to explain the universe around them and simply confess ignorance.
Think about what it is about yourself that requires you to take the wonders of creation and define them into your narrow terrestrial perspective.
Yes, yes, and lo our immortal souls are unworthy to enter the kingdom of god or something. Replace "Zetetic method" in your post with "Holy Scriptures" and I would swear I stumbled onto the BibleTalk.com debate forum. I have no interest in exclusionary dogma, even if wrapped in the trappings of scientific study. Thanks but no thanks.
Now that the thread is well and truly de-railed, allow me to try to get us back on track. I've been doing some thinking about how this may work in a model where the aether is not moving, and I'll be working on a new diagram to demonstrate that possibility.
-
Yes, yes, and lo our immortal souls are unworthy to enter the kingdom of god or something. Replace "Zetetic method" in your post with "Holy Scriptures" and I would swear I stumbled onto the BibleTalk.com debate forum. I have no interest in exclusionary dogma, even if wrapped in the trappings of scientific study. Thanks but no thanks.
Now that the thread is well and truly de-railed, allow me to try to get us back on track. I've been doing some thinking about how this may work in a model where the aether is not moving, and I'll be working on a new diagram to demonstrate that possibility.
Why do you keep invoking religion in a clearly secular exchange of ideas ???
This is not a religious forum, this is a Zetetic forum. You shouldnt be suprised when you start spewing theoretical bullshit if someone calls you on it.
Perform simple experiments, arrive at the truth of the matter.
Any pre-disposed opinion you carry with you into the process will only taint the outcome. Do not venture down the path of speculation and theory that has ensnared so many.
-
This is not a religious forum, this is a Zetetic forum. You shouldnt be suprised when you start spewing theoretical bullshit if someone calls you on it.
Ahem.
Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.
One of these is a reasonable and productive response. The other is useless vitriol. See if you can guess which user I've chosen to no longer respond to.
ProTip: It isn't the FES VP.
-
Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.
One of these is a reasonable and productive response. The other is useless vitriol. See if you can guess which user I've chosen to no longer respond to.
ProTip: It isn't the FES VP.
The bolded emphasis helps arrive at the point i'm making - what exactly has your OP and his reply produced?
ProTip: Nothing.
Now you see the strength of the Zetetic method as defined in Chapter 1 of 'Earth, not a Globe' by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
-
Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.
Get back to the rest of us when someone approaches you in the first place. Do you see your username in the subject title?
Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.
If your views conflict, I'd be interested to hear them. I posted this here to subject it to a bit of scrutiny from the society, as I'm eager to learn and improve.
In short, I believe that the Earth is an infinite plane, and that gravitation and mass are linked. Moreover, I do not believe that Antarctica is a rim continent surrounding the known Earth. Your idea is interesting, but I find the weight of evidence in favour of gravitation due to mass, and Antarctic navigation, more compelling.
-
Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.
Get back to the rest of us when someone approaches you in the first place. Do you see your username in the subject title?
Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.
If your views conflict, I'd be interested to hear them. I posted this here to subject it to a bit of scrutiny from the society, as I'm eager to learn and improve.
In short, I believe that the Earth is an infinite plane, and that gravitation and mass are linked. Moreover, I do not believe that Antarctica is a rim continent surrounding the known Earth. Your idea is interesting, but I find the weight of evidence in favour of gravitation due to mass, and Antarctic navigation, more compelling.
I find the infinite plane model compelling due to its elegance, and for its explanation of gravity, as you say. I'd love to discuss that further, in another thread sometime :)
-
So this aetheric wind, how was it 'discovered'?
Or can I do something similar?
I believe the earth is round due to the aetheric pressure that pushes equally in all directions affecting mass and determining that the most perfect and elegant shape that it can form is a sphere.
Is the 'evidence' behind aetheric wind really any different than this?
-
So this aetheric wind, how was it 'discovered'?
Or can I do something similar?
I believe the earth is round due to the aetheric pressure that pushes equally in all directions affecting mass and determining that the most perfect and elegant shape that it can form is a sphere.
Is the 'evidence' behind aetheric wind really any different than this?
Aether is a theoretical substance, just as dark matter is, just as are gravitons. None of these have ever been directly measured, but their existence is postulated because their respective scientific models have a need for them.
I freely admit that I am in the realm of pure hypothesis in this thread, in the interest of productive thought, but some people don't seem to be able to stop beating their own "whar is teh evidence" drums long enough to enjoy a little free discourse.
-
So this aetheric wind, how was it 'discovered'?
Or can I do something similar?
I believe the earth is round due to the aetheric pressure that pushes equally in all directions affecting mass and determining that the most perfect and elegant shape that it can form is a sphere.
Is the 'evidence' behind aetheric wind really any different than this?
Aether is a theoretical substance, just as dark matter is, just as are gravitons. None of these have ever been directly measured, but their existence is postulated because their respective scientific models have a need for them.
I freely admit that I am in the realm of pure hypothesis in this thread, in the interest of productive thought, but some people don't seem to be able to stop beating their own "whar is teh evidence" drums long enough to enjoy a little free discourse.
Not at all. Apologies if it sounded that way... Not my intention to offend., just to understand the thinking... though I will never agree with your theories.
-
So this aetheric wind, how was it 'discovered'?
Or can I do something similar?
I believe the earth is round due to the aetheric pressure that pushes equally in all directions affecting mass and determining that the most perfect and elegant shape that it can form is a sphere.
Is the 'evidence' behind aetheric wind really any different than this?
Aether is a theoretical substance, just as dark matter is, just as are gravitons. None of these have ever been directly measured, but their existence is postulated because their respective scientific models have a need for them.
I freely admit that I am in the realm of pure hypothesis in this thread, in the interest of productive thought, but some people don't seem to be able to stop beating their own "whar is teh evidence" drums long enough to enjoy a little free discourse.
Another poor analogy. Dark matter was postulated because there is observed evidence that is difficult to explain without either modification of the theory of gravity, or the existence of more matter than we can detect by current conventional means - and there is NO explanation for the observations in currently proven physics. Hence the need for new hypotheses. Aether, by contrast, is not needed, as the observable environment of the earth and its visible celestial sky rotation, CAN be explained by currently proven physics - using the round earth model. You might not agree with it, you might not think it's true, but you cannot truthfully say the round earth model does not provide an explanation for what we observe around us. Because it does. If conventional physics could provide a hypothesis that would explain the anomalous rotation of galaxies, then nobody would have thought up dark matter in the first place. We demand independent evidence for aether because it is not the only explanation that works.
As for gravitons, these are theorised to exist simply because as we study the universe at a closer and closer level, it appears that almost all forces are controlled by representative particles. The graviton is a suggested particle that could operate in this way for gravity, but no serious scientists claim it exists without doubt, and it's not actually necessary to know if it's there or not to study the majority of the properties of gravity - any more than knowing that photons exist is essential for understanding the basic workings of light.
-
Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.
-
Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.
I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.
-
Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.
I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.
Light does not travel in a straight line, as a matter of fact, and this was not known until well after the discovery of photons.
-
Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.
I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.
Light does not travel in a straight line, as a matter of fact, and this was not known until well after the discovery of photons.
could i have a link to the scientific experiments that prove light bends, and to what degree over what distance pleas?
-
Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.
I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.
Light does not travel in a straight line, as a matter of fact, and this was not known until well after the discovery of photons.
One of the most well known things about light is that it travels in a straight line. Refraction is simply a change of direction, if that's what you're talking about. If not interfered with by matter, light travels in a straight line.
-
Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.
I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.
Light does not travel in a straight line, as a matter of fact, and this was not known until well after the discovery of photons.
One of the most well known things about light is that it travels in a straight line. Refraction is simply a change of direction, if that's what you're talking about. If not interfered with by matter, light travels in a straight line.
Light travels as a wave and therefore not in a straight line.
-
Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.
I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.
Light does not travel in a straight line, as a matter of fact, and this was not known until well after the discovery of photons.
One of the most well known things about light is that it travels in a straight line. Refraction is simply a change of direction, if that's what you're talking about. If not interfered with by matter, light travels in a straight line.
Light travels as a wave and therefore not in a straight line.
It travels as a wave in a straight line.
-
How can something with sinusoidal curves be considered a straight line? ???
-
A wave is not a straight line, but it can travel in a straight line.
-
Also it is a wave model
-
A wave is not a straight line, but it can travel in a straight line.
The wave can travel in a straight line, but the photons themselves cannot. Therefore, as photons are the fundamental particle of light, light does not travel in a straight line.
-
A wave is not a straight line, but it can travel in a straight line.
The wave can travel in a straight line, but the photons themselves cannot. Therefore, as photons are the fundamental particle of light, light does not travel in a straight line.
A photon is a wave.
-
A wave is not a straight line, but it can travel in a straight line.
The wave can travel in a straight line, but the photons themselves cannot. Therefore, as photons are the fundamental particle of light, light does not travel in a straight line.
A photon is a wave.
And a wave is a photon. Regardless of the duality, photons do not move in straight lines. However, I am willing to accept that a large enough amount of photons taken as a whole will move in a straight line.
-
What a wonderful example of trying to flip the argument based on wording rather than fact, Tausami. And huge derailment too.
-
And a wave is a photon.
Not necessarily. For example, sound is a mechanical wave and should not be confused with electromagnetic waves.
-
And a wave is a photon.
Not necessarily. For example, sound is a mechanical wave and should not be confused with electromagnetic waves.
Well, but it was implied that I was talking about EM waves
What a wonderful example of trying to flip the argument based on wording rather than fact, Tausami. And huge derailment too.
Derailment unintentional. The points that were made my original post in the derailment were
1) Incorrect
and
2) We really didn't understand light before the photon was discovered
Shall we go back to that point?
-
And a wave is a photon.
Not necessarily. For example, sound is a mechanical wave and should not be confused with electromagnetic waves.
Well, but it was implied that I was talking about EM waves
Fine, but you still haven't given a reason as to why a photon (which is both a particle and a wave) doesn't travel in a straight line. Or is this merely an unnecessarily tedious semantic debate about the definition of a "straight line" as it applies to wave propagation?
-
And a wave is a photon.
Not necessarily. For example, sound is a mechanical wave and should not be confused with electromagnetic waves.
Well, but it was implied that I was talking about EM waves
What a wonderful example of trying to flip the argument based on wording rather than fact, Tausami. And huge derailment too.
Derailment unintentional. The points that were made my original post in the derailment were
1) Incorrect
and
2) We really didn't understand light before the photon was discovered
Shall we go back to that point?
1. Not sure what bit you're referring to as "incorrect" ???
2. We did, as I said, understand the basics of how light works on a macroscopic scale. As we do with gravity, though not quite as well.
Shall we go back to my point that we don't need to know whether gravitons or gravity waves or any other form of propagation of gravity is correct in order to understand quite a lot about what it actually does? Sure, let's go back to that. I feel it's very important to go back to that, because it's a great way of squashing the persistent Society policy of trotting out the "you don't know how gravity is propagated therefore you can't say anything valid about it" line. Next time it comes out I think us Roundies should toss out "you don't know what powers the UA therefore you can't say anything valid about it".
And seriously Tausami, as an aside, trying to say that light doesn't travel in a straight line because it's a wave is the sort of counterargument I'd expect to hear from a twelve year old who'd just been learning about the electromagnetic spectrum for the first time in science class. I know you're more educated than that. There's no need to dumb yourself down.
-
Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.
This is the kind of statements that scientific illiterates say just because they do not fully understand the Scientific Method.
In Science understanding and having predicting power are almost the same thing. And you definitely can predict a lot of results from a lot of experiments and observations about light without even having the notion of a photon.
Only around the time of Planck's Law (circa 1860) we were ready to understand the difference between light as waves and light as discrete photons. But most of the laws of Optics already existed in that time, and helped understand almost everything a non-scientist will ever have to do with light.
The same goes with gravitation and gravitons. We understand (that is, we can predict results from) just about every experiment and observation regarding gravitational pull, at any scale except at galactic and inter-galactic scales. We might learn some additional, interesting things if and when we incorporate the idea of a graviton to our models about gravitation. But that does not subtract from what we already know about gravitation.