The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: JRoweSkeptic on November 26, 2015, 02:31:18 PM
-
http://en.textsave.org/qeOb (http://en.textsave.org/qeOb)
As the poll I set up seems to show a slight edge in favor of people who'll actually take the time to learn a model before talking about it, I'll put that to the test. If you have any questions, this goes for guests too, the means to ask me are around: but please take the time to read those pages, and learn the model.
If you do not learn the model, it should not be too much to ask for you to not make claims about it
-
Constructive feedback from a usability perspective a link from chapter 1 to chapter 2 would be nice at the bottom of the page.
Interesting so far...
-
It was interesting, I've read it all: some questions:
However, we need to note one thing. The aether is not composed of matter: there's no friction or resistive force governing its motion, so there's nothing to slow it. Also, when a higher concentration moves to a lower, a low concentration is necessarily left in its wake. you said that things balance out and that's what we observe everywhere else. Heat and pressure and everything that moves equalises itself if you place a hot object next to
A cold object they both become the same temperature
...
The metal is heated white-hot by friction with the aether, while the rock remains dull. This provides illumination, and clearly we will observe two different sets on each side of the Earth, each rotating around the relevant pole. if the moonlight and sunlight are coming from between the two disks how is the light from
The stars being transmitted and why isn't it seriously distorted by the currants in the aether?
A note on friction: while aether would not directly have friction with the metal, it would be responsible for subtly shifting the molecules in the metal. This movement would make the metal rub against itself, creating the friction required. why doesn't this force tear them apart? Why is it strong where there stars are but not observed anywhere else?
Planets certainly have a visual similarity to stars when viewed from Earth, though their location is different (covered in a moment). no they don't, planets move across the sky relatively to the stars and have observable feature, topography, rings moons etc, they don't look like stars even to
The naked eye.
In the center would be the largest: a spotlight-star like all the others, that shines in one direction. This light would be transmitted by the similar currents of aether to those responsible for crossing the equator, over to the tops and bottoms of the Earth. This would be the Sun. how does that explain seasons? Why doesn't the moon collide with the sun? In your diagrams if the moon is smaller than the sun how can there be total
Eclipses? Apologies if that's just a scale
Issue in your drawing.
How can the currents be taking light from between the two disks and still allow stepping across from one another, either there's a gap there or there's not, by your model there is some
Either there, perhaps moving aether has less pressure like air?
-
you said that things balance out and that's what we observe everywhere else. Heat and pressure and everything that moves equalises itself if you place a hot object next to
A cold object they both become the same temperature
Because of resistive forces, this is why I fully explained what happens with aether.
if the moonlight and sunlight are coming from between the two disks how is the light from
The stars being transmitted and why isn't it seriously distorted by the currants in the aether?
The stars comes from above us, why is that a problem? The only distortion would be refraction.
why doesn't this force tear them apart? Why is it strong where there stars are but not observed anywhere else?
Friction. It is stronger higher up as the model predicted: more whirlpools combine, the force is the sum of each whirlpool.
no they don't, planets move across the sky relatively to the stars and have observable feature, topography, rings moons etc, they don't look like stars even to
The naked eye.
The first stretch is explained by closeness, the second is simply false. Brighter, yes, but clear similarity.
(http://www.markmallett.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/morningstar_000.jpg)
how does that explain seasons? Why doesn't the moon collide with the sun? In your diagrams if the moon is smaller than the sun how can there be total
Eclipses? Apologies if that's just a scale
Issue in your drawing.
Seasons are just a matter of angle, it's analogous to the classical FE explanation.
Why doesn't the moon collide with the Earth? It's in the wrong orbit to.
The moon isn't that much smaller.
How can the currents be taking light from between the two disks and still allow stepping across from one another, either there's a gap there or there's not, by your model there is some
The Sun and related don't occupy all the space between the disks. Why is the gap question either/or? If you knock a hole in the wall, building a thin pillar halfway won't remove the gap.
-
I'll get back to you on those tomorrow. And I've got lots more questions re tides and seismic waves
There's just one thing that's keeping me awake though.
How come you can't see the edge or the dust coming up or anything abnormal at the equator. Doesn't that seem weird?
You'd think it would be noticeable unless the system has been designed to be undetectable?
-
How come you can't see the edge or the dust coming up or anything abnormal at the equator. Doesn't that seem weird?
Not at all. Light moves through space.
Dust doesn't go up from the equator mind you. Not sure where that comes from. Dust is carried along the currents which originate from there, but... Not the same thing at all.
-
This is obviously trolling.
No flat earther ever discuss this model. I wonder why that is... Yeah, they the model sucks, or that the model is an act of trolling.
-
Where is the entropy in this system. I'm afraid your Aetheric currents don't make sense.
Things flow from low to high concentrations in general yes, but that doesn't leave a vacuum or empty space or a lower concentration than was there originally. That's where your model breaks down and it's the underpinning assumption that makes your model possible.
It's as fundamental as Gravity is to re theory, Gravity basically drives all the natural processes that create planets and solar systems and operates them. The difference is our gravity is observable and experimentally observed. It gets weaker as you move outwards from its centre of influence not stronger, that has been both predicted and observed. Without gravity re model can't work, it's something so fundamental and it's noticeable wherever you are no matter what your doing.
Sorry but unless you can come up with a different explanation for what drives your aetheric currants your model is impossible in my opinion.
-
Where is the entropy in this system. I'm afraid your Aetheric currents don't make sense.
No shit.
-
No flat earther ever discuss this model. I wonder why that is... Yeah, they the model sucks, or that the model is an act of trolling.
Amazing how all you do is assert this claim, and always back down from justifying it or ever discussing it. Sounds like fear to me.
Where is the entropy in this system.
Entropy does not decrease at any point in the model.
Things flow from low to high concentrations in general yes, but that doesn't leave a vacuum or empty space or a lower concentration than was there originally. That's where your model breaks down and it's the underpinning assumption that makes your model possible.
That's because the tangible examples you're thinking of include a resistive force. this is the point.
Think of it like this:
You have a cube: you put a divider halfway into it, perfectly splitting it into two watertight sections. You then fill the left all the way up with water, and the right a quarter of the way.
If you lift the central divider, water will equalize: high and low pressure balances out. However, if you only lift the divider a crack it will take time because water can't move at infinite speed. It's limited by its mass: the size of the gap, and the speed of its movement.
If you lift the divider all the way out however, they'll flow together far more quickly: and it will cause ripples, it won't become equalized in a snap of your fingers. There is back and forth motion, we just don't normally notice it because it's damped by the resistive forces.
The difference is our gravity is observable and experimentally observed. It gets weaker as you move outwards from its centre of influence not stronger, that has been both predicted and observed. Without gravity re model can't work, it's something so fundamental and it's noticeable wherever you are no matter what your doing.
The downwards force resulting from aether would get weaker as you get higher, that's fully predicted by the model. You'd have less whirlpools pushing down on you.
I refer you also to the final section, titled evidence. Aether is observable and experimentally observed, as much as gravity is: the fact your favor RET won't change that.
-
The same way they do on the top. It is explained very clearly in the model: the two sides mirror one another.
But it is not.
Ether pressure = terrestrial gravity on a flat earth plane
The other side in DET does not mirror the other in this respect: a much greater force of pressure would be needed to explain terrestrial gravity on the underside.
On the underside we would have at least one half trillion billion liters of water which must stay glued to the surface; moreover, we have to explain the tides (oceanic and atmospheric).
The underside needs a much greater force of pressure which is lacking in our real world.
Then, we have the problem of the setting/rising Sun in Antarctica, discussed earlier.
-
The same way they do on the top. It is explained very clearly in the model: the two sides mirror one another.
But it is not.
Ether pressure = terrestrial gravity on a flat earth plane
The other side in DET does not mirror the other in this respect: a much greater force of pressure would be needed to explain terrestrial gravity on the underside.
On the underside we would have at least one half trillion billion liters of water which must stay glued to the surface; moreover, we have to explain the tides (oceanic and atmospheric).
And that's exactly what has to be done on the top. There is no objective down direction under DET: the subjective downwards forces (caused by the currents of the aether) exists on both sides.
Sides are fairly simply defined as consequences of the whirlpool: the downwards force shifts subtly in intensity as the whirlpool goes around, pushing water down a bit more in one place, so it necessarily rises elsewhere. This would be linked to the aether that carries the image of the moon, causing the RE misunderstanding and assumption that corellation means causation.
Your objections primarily seem to step from the fact our models differe: I don't believe my model of aether is the same as yours, it's not surprising there are some variations.
The underside needs a much greater force of pressure which is lacking in our real world.
It does not. Each side has to keep similar amounts on.
Then, we have the problem of the setting/rising Sun in Antarctica, discussed earlier.
Daylight variations are explained by the simple tilting of the Sun. It will be biased towards one hemiplane at certain times.
-
Daylight variations are explained by the simple tilting of the Sun. It will be biased towards one hemiplane at certain times.
And who tilts the Sun and why?
-
Daylight variations are explained by the simple tilting of the Sun. It will be biased towards one hemiplane at certain times.
And who tilts the Sun and why?
Learn the model, please, it's a simple result of the currents of aether.
Why are you asking after a person and motive?!
-
The biggest problem with DET is the solar precession (whatever DET model is chosen, one in which continents face each other, an inverted earth kind of scenario, or one in which the Earth becomes a disk).
In DET, the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer are located on different surfaces, and yet the sun's orbit is bounded by these latitudes.
The distance between these latitudes is some 6000 km (global Piri Reis map).
We know that the precession amounts to 1.5 km/year.
In 2000 years, the westward shift of the sun will measure 3000 km.
In 4000 years, it will cover the entire space alloted for its orbit (the 6000 km mentioned above).
This is the biggest problem for any FE model, one which no one else, so far (with the exception of the theory I have proposed), has been able to tackle and solve properly.
-
In DET, the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer are located on different surfaces, and yet the sun's orbit is bounded by these latitudes.
Why would it not be? The Sun would not tilt endlessly: it it were its location would be unstable, and we wouldn't have days. The Tropics are simply where we notice it does not pass.
The biggest problem with DET is the solar precession (whatever DET model is chosen, one in which continents face each other, an inverted earth kind of scenario, or one in which the Earth becomes a disk).
It seems perfectly understandable in terms of the whirlpool which rotates the Sun.
-
Daylight variations are explained by the simple tilting of the Sun. It will be biased towards one hemiplane at certain times.
And who tilts the Sun and why?
Learn the model, please, it's a simple result of the currents of aether.
Why are you asking after a person and motive?!
Sure, I should have asked what tilts the Sun and why. Still, if you say currents of aether then why there are even currents of aether? If you are going to say that because there are low pressure and high pressure places then I am going to ask what makes these low pressure and high pressure places. Or is there something else what makes aether move?
-
Daylight variations are explained by the simple tilting of the Sun. It will be biased towards one hemiplane at certain times.
And who tilts the Sun and why?
Learn the model, please, it's a simple result of the currents of aether.
Why are you asking after a person and motive?!
Sure, I should have asked what tilts the Sun and why. Still, if you say currents of aether then why there are even currents of aether? If you are going to say that because there are low pressure and high pressure places then I am going to ask what makes these low pressure and high pressure places. Or is there something else what makes aether move?
And why does the universe exist, and what caused the big bang, and why are there laws of motion and thermodynamics, and why does the universe obey and rules at all, and what makes space warp when you go at high speeds, and...
Ask why enough times the only answer you're going to get is 'because.' Learn the model.
-
What would cause black holes then? Why are things sucked into the center of a black hole which even light cannot escape?
-
What would cause black holes then? Why are things sucked into the center of a black hole which even light cannot escape?
Black holes are a purely hypothetical RE concept. Analogous systems to how the Earth was formed may present the appearance of a point where all matter is drawn towards it, however.
-
No, not a theory. Pls learn what theory means.
-
No, not a theory. Pls learn what theory means.
I know what it means: a hypothesis verified by evidence, which is testable and falsifiable: but not falsified. What part of that do you believe DET fails to meet?
-
"A word on space travel: under DET, it is impossible. The higher you go, the thicker aether becomes, creating more and more difficulty. Rockets fail. "
This is just one og many, but merely an unscientfic hypothesis, based on a conspiracy, and definetly wrong.
-
It's a fairytale!
-
"A word on space travel: under DET, it is impossible. The higher you go, the thicker aether becomes, creating more and more difficulty. Rockets fail. "
This is just one og many, but merely an unscientfic hypothesis, based on a conspiracy, and definetly wrong.
It is a conclusion drawn from the rest of the model. How exactly is it unscientific? Asserting it as wrong is a waste of time, you must at least acknowledge the evidence is nowhere near as clear-cut as you suppose, you can find pages of debate on this and other forums.
It's a fairytale!
Do you have anything meaningful to add? have you, for example, learned anything about that which you are rejecting out of hand?
-
Well i read about it, no evidence for your aether, and why it gets thicker higher up. The while thing sounds made up, hence a fairytale!
-
Well i read about it, no evidence for your aether, and why it gets thicker higher up. The while thing sounds made up, hence a fairytale!
Then you clearly did not read it. The justification for the properties of aether, and why it was logical, is covered in the very first section, and the specific evidence for it extends from the evidence for all DET, which has its own section. As for why it gets thicker, this is clearly explained by the model: higher up you have the summation of the thicknesses of the lower whirlpools, hence thicker.
-
No I just scimmed it for scientific values, noen were found. I found no scientific documentation if it, I have never even heard science speak of this phenomenon, if however you are a scientist and have researched this topic, where is the paper on the subject?
-
No I just scimmed it for scientific values, noen were found. I found no scientific documentation if it, I have never even heard science speak of this phenomenon, if however you are a scientist and have researched this topic, where is the paper on the subject?
So, you skimmed rather than read part of the outline of the model, and concluded from a thoroughly incomplete understanding that you somehow knew enough to reject the model?
You can see the evidence. You can judge it for yourself. How about you make up your own mind rather than relying on the bias in academia?
-
It's a fairytale!
Perhaps, but remember Fairytales have happy endings (sometimes)
This rant called DE apparently has no end ;D
-
I found no evidence, the article is not very scientific. You simply state a few hypotheses, in which them selves are self contradicting. Your article is not a theory, and I can understand from this, that you are not a scientist. The subject is interesting but pure speculation.
-
I found no evidence, the article is not very scientific. You simply state a few hypotheses, in which them selves are self contradicting. Your article is not a theory, and I can understand from this, that you are not a scientist. The subject is interesting but pure speculation.
So, assertion.
-
Yes :)
-
Yes :)
When you have justification for what you say, I'll listen. You never know, maybe you can form an informed opinion on a model after reading it, rather than guessing.
-
Yes :)
When you have justification for what you say, I'll listen. You never know, maybe you can form an informed opinion on a model after reading it, rather than guessing.
I have read a lot of it now, and the more I read, the more sure I get that you have no clue what a scientific theory means :)
-
What would cause black holes then? Why are things sucked into the center of a black hole which even light cannot escape?
Black holes are a purely hypothetical RE concept. Analogous systems to how the Earth was formed may present the appearance of a point where all matter is drawn towards it, however.
Hypothetically, if there was a point that everything is drawn to what stops everything from being sucked into it? Basically the same question you ask RE'ers about Gravity. Would like your thoughts.
-
THIS is the amazing duel earth theory you people are talking about? *facepalm*
What would cause black holes then? Why are things sucked into the center of a black hole which even light cannot escape?
Black holes are a purely hypothetical RE concept. Analogous systems to how the Earth was formed may present the appearance of a point where all matter is drawn towards it, however.
uhh black holes aren't just a hypothetical concept they have been indirectly observed, which I'm pretty sure puts them above "hypothetical concept" level. Remember, you are claiming that a prediction of one of Einstein's theories is wrong, and I might want to point out that his IQ was an order of magnitude higher than yours.
-
I have read a lot of it now, and the more I read, the more sure I get that you have no clue what a scientific theory means
Are you ever going to provide justification for a word you say, or are you just offering baseless insults?
Hypothetically, if there was a point that everything is drawn to what stops everything from being sucked into it? Basically the same question you ask RE'ers about Gravity. Would like your thoughts.
Learn the model. One such point exists in the Earth.
I have no idea what question you're referencing.
THIS is the amazing duel earth theory you people are talking about?
So baseless rejection and nothing intelligent to add?
uhh black holes aren't just a hypothetical concept they have been indirectly observed, which I'm pretty sure puts them above "hypothetical concept" level. Remember, you are claiming that a prediction of one of Einstein's theories is wrong, and I might want to point out that his IQ was an order of magnitude higher than yours.
The theory is not purely Einstein's, it comes based on countless things which came before. If there is a problem with those, why would there not be a problem with what follows? I saw a detailed analysis of how the wizard gene would be passed on in Harry Potter once, should I accept it just because a smart person came up with it?
-
It's not a theory
-
Daylight variations are explained by the simple tilting of the Sun. It will be biased towards one hemiplane at certain times.
And who tilts the Sun and why?
Learn the model, please, it's a simple result of the currents of aether.
Why are you asking after a person and motive?!
Sure, I should have asked what tilts the Sun and why. Still, if you say currents of aether then why there are even currents of aether? If you are going to say that because there are low pressure and high pressure places then I am going to ask what makes these low pressure and high pressure places. Or is there something else what makes aether move?
And why does the universe exist, and what caused the big bang, and why are there laws of motion and thermodynamics, and why does the universe obey and rules at all, and what makes space warp when you go at high speeds, and...
Ask why enough times the only answer you're going to get is 'because.' Learn the model.
I didn't ask "why", I asked "what". If you claim that aether moves then there must be something else that makes it move. So, let your fantasy soar and think up something that can make aether move. Some fancy term like... attractor or repulsor or something like that.
-
It's not a theory
Amazing how REers keep spamming with insults like that. how long is it going to be before I can expect a justification?
I didn't ask "why", I asked "what".
Semantics. Why does the universe exist/what caused the big bang. Same thing, ultimately.
If you claim that aether moves then there must be something else that makes it move. So, let your fantasy soar and think up something that can make aether move. Some fancy term like... attractor or repulsor or something like that.
I have explained the law. Your question is, by your own admission, what causes the low pressure spot within the earth, which is all the theory is based on. I don't know: what caused the matter at the big bang and what made it go boom? Origin questions are meaningless. Could you please try to address my response rather than wasting time repeating the same absurd question?
-
If you claim that aether moves then there must be something else that makes it move. So, let your fantasy soar and think up something that can make aether move. Some fancy term like... attractor or repulsor or something like that.
I have explained the law. Your question is, by your own admission, what causes the low pressure spot within the earth, which is all the theory is based on. I don't know: what caused the matter at the big bang and what made it go boom? Origin questions are meaningless. Could you please try to address my response rather than wasting time repeating the same absurd question?
Actually a more interesting question - and one you haven't been able to answer satisfactorily is why it hasn't all equalled out - the second law of thermodynamics is violated by your model.
-
If you claim that aether moves then there must be something else that makes it move. So, let your fantasy soar and think up something that can make aether move. Some fancy term like... attractor or repulsor or something like that.
I have explained the law. Your question is, by your own admission, what causes the low pressure spot within the earth, which is all the theory is based on. I don't know: what caused the matter at the big bang and what made it go boom? Origin questions are meaningless. Could you please try to address my response rather than wasting time repeating the same absurd question?
Its not absurd question and its not origin question. You claim that aether moves and that means that somehow low pressure points are occurring right now. I don't ask you to explain how aether come to exist or how it all began but I want something for current situation. And current situation is that aether moves somehow and you fail to explain totally why it moves/what makes it move.
-
Actually a more interesting question - and one you haven't been able to answer satisfactorily is why it hasn't all equalled out - the second law of thermodynamics is violated by your model.
I've answered it. The fact you're not satisfied is your problem, not mine. The second law isn't violated: the second law says entropy will not decrease, not that it will always incease.
Its not absurd question and its not origin question. You claim that aether moves and that means that somehow low pressure points are occurring right now. I don't ask you to explain how aether come to exist or how it all began but I want something for current situation. And current situation is that aether moves somehow and you fail to explain totally why it moves/what makes it move.
I have explained what makes it move: the universal law that states things go from high concentrations to low. Please either learn the model or READ WHAT I AM SAYING. You explicitly said your question would then be what causes the low concentration: that question is analogous to "What caused the matter at the big bang?" It's an origin question, and remains ridiculous.
Can you please actually read what I'm saying rather than repeating the same old nonsense?
-
It's not a theory
Amazing how REers keep spamming with insults like that. how long is it going to be before I can expect a justification?
Not long if you publish some actual science
-
Not long if you publish some actual science
The science is given. Why is it so hard to get REers to actually respond?!
-
I must agree with the Black Hole formed from pure energy on this one. There is NOTHING scientific about your essay. So as you say, the science is given: false. The science fiction may be given but, I personally like star wars better.
-
It's not a theory
Amazing how REers keep spamming with insults like that. how long is it going to be before I can expect a justification?
Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You cussed at pretty much everybody here including me and I never said or typed a cuss word in my life.
-
I must agree with the Black Hole formed from pure energy on this one. There is NOTHING scientific about your essay. So as you say, the science is given: false. The science fiction may be given but, I personally like star wars better.
WHY IS IT LIKE PULLING TEETH TO GET A SINGLE ONE OF YOU TO JUSTIFY A SINGLE CLAIM YOU MAKE?!
Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You cussed at pretty much everybody here including me and I never said or typed a cuss word in my life.
I don't give a fuck about whatever petty detail is fuelling your ego-trip today. if you're secure in your model, WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANY HONEST DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER?!
-
I must agree with the Black Hole formed from pure energy on this one. There is NOTHING scientific about your essay. So as you say, the science is given: false. The science fiction may be given but, I personally like star wars better.
WHY IS IT LIKE PULLING TEETH TO GET A SINGLE ONE OF YOU TO JUSTIFY A SINGLE CLAIM YOU MAKE?!
Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You cussed at pretty much everybody here including me and I never said or typed a cuss word in my life.
I don't give a fuck about whatever petty detail is fuelling your ego-trip today. if you're secure in your model, WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANY HONEST DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER?!
Ok simple question: what specific evidence you have that makes DET better than the round earth?
-
I must agree with the Black Hole formed from pure energy on this one. There is NOTHING scientific about your essay. So as you say, the science is given: false. The science fiction may be given but, I personally like star wars better.
WHY IS IT LIKE PULLING TEETH TO GET A SINGLE ONE OF YOU TO JUSTIFY A SINGLE CLAIM YOU MAKE?!
Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You cussed at pretty much everybody here including me and I never said or typed a cuss word in my life.
I don't give a fuck about whatever petty detail is fuelling your ego-trip today. if you're secure in your model, WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANY HONEST DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER?!
Ok simple question: what specific evidence you have that makes DET better than the round earth?
I am not going to repeat myself. Read the model. It's given. if you have an objection to what is stated there, tell me, rather than expecting me to guess.
-
THIS is the amazing duel earth theory you people are talking about? *facepalm*
What would cause black holes then? Why are things sucked into the center of a black hole which even light cannot escape?
Black holes are a purely hypothetical RE concept. Analogous systems to how the Earth was formed may present the appearance of a point where all matter is drawn towards it, however.
You know, MET explained this with mind blowing accuracy, beautiful yet simple mathematical equations.
-
THIS is the amazing duel earth theory you people are talking about? *facepalm*
What would cause black holes then? Why are things sucked into the center of a black hole which even light cannot escape?
Black holes are a purely hypothetical RE concept. Analogous systems to how the Earth was formed may present the appearance of a point where all matter is drawn towards it, however.
uhh black holes aren't just a hypothetical concept they have been indirectly observed, which I'm pretty sure puts them above "hypothetical concept" level. Remember, you are claiming that a prediction of one of Einstein's theories is wrong, and I might want to point out that his IQ was an order of magnitude higher than yours.
You know, MET explained this with mind blowing accuracy, beautiful yet simple mathematical equations.
And yet I'm still waiting for a SINGLE justification of any of your claims against DET. Instead of evidence or logic you provide straw men, insults, and parody. That really says it all.
If you can't manage a single honest argument, maybe the problem isn't with DET. Ever think of that?
-
THIS is the amazing duel earth theory you people are talking about? *facepalm*
What would cause black holes then? Why are things sucked into the center of a black hole which even light cannot escape?
Black holes are a purely hypothetical RE concept. Analogous systems to how the Earth was formed may present the appearance of a point where all matter is drawn towards it, however.
uhh black holes aren't just a hypothetical concept they have been indirectly observed, which I'm pretty sure puts them above "hypothetical concept" level. Remember, you are claiming that a prediction of one of Einstein's theories is wrong, and I might want to point out that his IQ was an order of magnitude higher than yours.
You know, MET explained this with mind blowing accuracy, beautiful yet simple mathematical equations.
And yet I'm still waiting for a SINGLE justification of any of your claims against DET. Instead of evidence or logic you provide straw men, insults, and parody. That really says it all.
If you can't manage a single honest argument, maybe the problem isn't with DET. Ever think of that?
Yes, often. You see, my arguments are based on my knowledge in science. Maybe you are the one getting insulted by the wrong reasons, ever think of that? I have never intentionally attacked you as an individual. I simply feel that it is in my right to protect science from pseudo and ad hoc ways of thinking, there's too much confusion, and I can not get any relief.
-
I must agree with the Black Hole formed from pure energy on this one. There is NOTHING scientific about your essay. So as you say, the science is given: false. The science fiction may be given but, I personally like star wars better.
WHY IS IT LIKE PULLING TEETH TO GET A SINGLE ONE OF YOU TO JUSTIFY A SINGLE CLAIM YOU MAKE?!
Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You cussed at pretty much everybody here including me and I never said or typed a cuss word in my life.
I don't give a fuck about whatever petty detail is fuelling your ego-trip today. if you're secure in your model, WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANY HONEST DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER?!
Ok simple question: what specific evidence you have that makes DET better than the round earth?
I am not going to repeat myself. Read the model. It's given. if you have an objection to what is stated there, tell me, rather than expecting me to guess.
All the model said was observation proves DET. It didnt went into what experiments have been done or can be done to prove it. And like a poster above me I'm not attacking anyone personally, I'm attacking the argument like a good debater would.
-
DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
DET predictions are wrong. At higher altitudes the density of air/atmosphere goes down, so does the refractive index.
Why the discontinuity and why it is unexplainable over RET?
Besides from what I read you are doing a lot of hand-waving. There are also few things that do no make any sense.
For instance:
The Earth is, as the theory's name suggests, a pair of discs. The rim is the equator: which sounds odd, until you remember the aether. There is no distance from the top right hand side of the Earth (viewed from any outside point), and the bottom left: to cross from one to the other, there is such a low concentration within the Earth that it would, subjectively, feel as though no distance is crossed (fig 2).
Direction is not lost. At the equator, you move as aether does, neatly connecting each side as a result of how the Earth was made.
1. With such a low concentration the equator should attract aether by, univerasal law.
2. When viewing the equator directly from above the quator, why do not we see both discs at an agle but a single plane?
3. How can you move from one side to the other (Fig2), which is thousands of km, without feeling that? That looks like a "teleportation". How do you avoid the Sun?
4. Since the equator looks like to be the escaping place for the aether, why acceleration works there? And how in fact the aether escapes through a place with so small concentration?
And other things:
5. Why the Sun and all other bodies stay inside even though the concentration of aether is low there, aehter flow goes inside and then blows away outside of the Earth discs? Aether's current will not influence them even though it causes things to accelerate towards the Earth's surface?
6. Why this is possible:
The metal is heated white-hot by friction with the aether, while the rock remains dull.
but we do not feel any friction of the aether passing through us or the Earth's surface? There is plently of metal inside us or things we built.
These 6 questions are a good start.
-
Yes, often. You see, my arguments are based on my knowledge in science. Maybe you are the one getting insulted by the wrong reasons, ever think of that? I have never intentionally attacked you as an individual. I simply feel that it is in my right to protect science from pseudo and ad hoc ways of thinking, there's too much confusion, and I can not get any relief.
And yet you NEVER offer the SLIGHTEST FUCKING THING to justify your claims, you justc oming in acting like an arrogant penguin and whine that people dare to disagree with you. Grow up.
All the model said was observation proves DET. It didnt went into what experiments have been done or can be done to prove it.
An outright lie. Once again, LEARN THE MODEL. DO you think you won't get called out on your dishonesty?
DET predictions are wrong. At higher altitudes the density of air/atmosphere goes down, so does the refractive index.
Do you not understand the meaning of the word 'vertical?'
Why the discontinuity and why it is unexplainable over RET?
Learn the model, and learn you're model. RET does not include discontinuities increasing with altitude.
With such a low concentration the equator should attract aether by, univerasal law.
As it does. Learn the model, fuckwit.
When viewing the equator directly from above the quator, why do not we see both discs at an agle but a single plane?
Because light moves through space. learn the model.
How can you move from one side to the other (Fig2), which is thousands of km, without feeling that? That looks like a "teleportation". How do you avoid the Sun?
Because it is not thousands of km, there is no distance. WHY DO YOU KEEP WASTING MY TIME WITH THESE TRIVIALITIES? IF YOU WANT THE ANSWERS THEN LEARN THE FUCKING MODEL YOU TREMENDOUS penguin, I AM SICK OF DEALING WITH YOUR BULLSHIT
Since the equator looks like to be the escaping place for the aether, why acceleration works there? And how in fact the aether escapes through a place with so small concentration?
That doesn't even remotely make sense.
Why the Sun and all other bodies stay inside even though the concentration of aether is low there, aehter flow goes inside and then blows away outside of the Earth discs? Aether's current will not influence them even though it causes things to accelerate towards the Earth's surface?
Forces balance.
Why this is possible:
Don't know what world you live on, but I definitely do feel friction: there's just more aether up there.
HOW ABOUT YOU TAKE THE TIME TO ACTUALLY LEARN THE SLIGHTEST THING ABOUT WHAT YOU WHINE ABOUT RATHER THAN SKIM TWO OR THREE SENTENCES AND IGNORE EVERY WORD OF CONTEXT AND REFUSE TO PUT ANY THOUGHT INTO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AT ALL?!
You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. I am happy to explain DET when you do more than whine about what's been covered in detail already. LEARN THE FUCKING MODEL OR FUCK OFF.
-
4. Evidence
The first question to ask is simple: what is evidence?
The answer is just as simple: observation.
There is no form of evidence beyond this. To have evidence for a model, you need only observe something in line with what that model predicts. This is what science is based on: this is all there is. The best possible kind of model is one that explains all observations proposed.
Note, also, that experiments are merely a special case of observation. They are just a specific way to observe the rules of the world when applied to a controlled setting.
Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET.
This doesn't mean much. Given enough time, any model could come up with explanations for everything. This is why we have Occam's Razor: to sort between two possible models, both explaining equal amounts, the question is which has more assumptions.
Recall your experience reading these pages. All of DET falls into place from our definition of aether; so excluding assumptions shared between models (such as the origin of matter) the only one under DET is the idea of aether forming concentrations and travelling from high to low. Now, both of these are logical: deduced in the same way we may deduce any law.
To compare this to RET however, we need only look at the most obvious aspect not shared between them: gravity. The RE model of gravity is an unexplained property of mass bending space, and an unexplained consequence of this bending.
At the very least, the two models are equal: but note also how reasonable the DE assumptions are. Bith have some evidence behind them, while the RE model relies on hope.
It is simple hypocrisy to say this is not enough. You are more than welcome to provide an example of evidence which you believe does not match the definition given above: and if you cannot, you must concede that this definition holds, and therefore what follows from it is true.
Occam's Razor favors DET over RET.
That should be enough. There is one specific experiment that may be performed to confirm the DE model over the RE model, though it requires resources I do not have.
DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
If you have the means to measure refraction accurate, and can see a change over several significant figures with altitude, as a result of that means, then please let me know. Simply increasing in altitude (thanks to, for example, a balloon) while measuring will allow us to see whether this change is continuous, or not, and could provide the final proof of DET.
I've done everybody a favor and copied and pasted the evidence section of your model OP. now we can see for ourselves of what we're talking about.
-
1. Aether
Aether is space; by which I mean, the fabric of space (which I'll define properly later). I use the term aether because it is more well-known in FET (albeit with a different definition), and it tends to make phrasing clearer, once the definition's understood. Outer space, for example, is called space: which can be misleading. In addition, I could refer to 'more aether in a certain space', in which case 'space' is meant colloquially: from an external perspective, how it might seem.
Anyway, to properly define, aether is the fabric of space: it is the dimension that is how we define distance. More aether means more distance: less aether, less distance. In this way, if we have more aether in a certain space, we have a stretch which, from an external perspective, would seem the same size as another spot, but from an internal perspective, is far longer.
A useful analogy is a spring. If you travel along the coils themselves then, no matter what, it's the same distance from A to B. However, the spring can be stretched out, or condensed: that set distance can get you from one place to another, when another route might take several compressed springs to do the same journey.
That's the basic definition. All that we have done so far is make a definition; none of this requires evidence. You could call it anything, all I do is choose an easier word.
We can tell that aether exists as an actual something: even RET accepts this. Relativity forms one example, where space is viewed as a fabric, not a mere direction.
It's trivial to note that this exists in concentrations: next to nothing is a binary in reality (even things like "Does it exist or not?" get murky at the quantum level). Even REers acknowledge there is such a thing as no space (ie: it began to exist): it follows there is a difference between the existence of space, and the non-existence of space. It's simple to then conclude there is a difference in the amount of aether that exists at various points. If that is unconvincing, mark it as an assumption: all theories are based on some (such as the definition if gravity relying on an assumption about mass, and the consequences of bent space).
It's also simple to note that, as we exist in (sort of on, terminology's confusing) aether, when aether moves, we will move with it.
All this is fairly easy to deduce, even if it seems a useless hypothetical. We'll get onto what the means for the shape of the world on the next page.
The last thing is one of the most important. We observe a universal tendency in the world: we see it in pressure, diffusion... Things move from areas of high concentrations, to low. If you blow up a balloon, the slightly compressed air (a high concentration) within the balloon will rush out, to the lower concentration around us. As this behavior appears universal, we may assume that the same holds for the aether: that if a high concentration and low concentration of aether are adjacent, they will begin to even themselves out, much of the high moving to the low.
The reason this is a fair thing to do is used at a fair few places in science. Take the Laws of Thermodynamics: clearly, they have not been tested for all places, at all times, with all things. However, we're all very happy to conclude that in a closed system, net entropy never decreases.
I've also copied and paste your first point about Aether. Don't know why nobody thought of this before. Now you can see for yourself what we're talking about.
-
Extracts:
"Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET. "
"A word on space travel: under DET, it is impossible. The higher you go, the thicker aether becomes, creating more and more difficulty. Rockets fail. "
Assumptions:
Now I would say Newtons laws of motion represents what you call RET, and we normal people call science. As I have interpreted your claim, is to say that all space travel is impossible.
Experiment:
Let me construct an experiment that will match your hypothesis, and if not, then it must be rejected and never become a theory.
Construct a rocket that can reach orbital speed(Calculus/newton), get rocket to upper atmosphere to reduce friction, accelerate to orbit.
Predictions:
Newton predicted that rocket will stay in orbit until speed is reduced. You predict that the rocket will never reach upper atmosphere. Newton will also give you the exact time.
Observation:
Look up into the sky, use binoculars and you will ser satellites and the ISS. These observations would be impossible on the parameters of your hypothesis.
Conclude?
We know of course space travel is happening as we speak and has been happening for many decades. Your hypothesis is rejected.
-
HOW ABOUT YOU TAKE THE TIME TO ACTUALLY LEARN THE SLIGHTEST THING ABOUT WHAT YOU WHINE ABOUT RATHER THAN SKIM TWO OR THREE SENTENCES AND IGNORE EVERY WORD OF CONTEXT AND REFUSE TO PUT ANY THOUGHT INTO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AT ALL?!
You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. I am happy to explain DET when you do more than whine about what's been covered in detail already. LEARN THE FUCKING MODEL OR FUCK OFF.
I wanted to learn the model. That is why I read your brief description. From the very beginning to the very end. I found few things I wanted to ask, because they did not make a sense or I was not sure how to understand them. Thanks for trash answer ("learn the model" thing over and over).
It is hilarious that you spam everyone they should learn the model, but when they start questioning things they do not understand, and they ask them directly to the creator of the model, all they receive is raging, personal calling, cursing or "learn the model" trash talk.
Thanks for not explaining anything. I will not waste more of my time on your pseudo-science.
-
"Its not a theory"
"And yet you NEVER offer the SLIGHTEST FUCKING THING to justify your claims, you justc oming in acting like an arrogant penguin and whine that people dare to disagree with you. Grow up. "
Extracts:
"Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET. "
"A word on space travel: under DET, it is impossible. The higher you go, the thicker aether becomes, creating more and more difficulty. Rockets fail. "
Assumptions:
Now I would say Newtons laws of motion represents what you call RET, and we normal people call science. As I have interpreted your claim, is to say that all space travel is impossible.
Experiment:
Let me construct an experiment that will match your hypothesis, and if not, then it must be rejected and never become a theory.
Construct a rocket that can reach orbital speed(Calculus/newton), get rocket to upper atmosphere to reduce friction, accelerate to orbit.
Predictions:
Newton predicted that rocket will stay in orbit until speed is reduced. You predict that the rocket will never reach upper atmosphere. Newton will also give you the exact time.
Observation:
Look up into the sky, use binoculars and you will ser satellites and the ISS. These observations would be impossible on the parameters of your hypothesis.
Conclude?
We know of course space travel is happening as we speak and has been happening for many decades. Your hypothesis is rejected.
That was alot of my time to actually read DEF, I have answered your request, even tho I didn't need to to prove my point. Now I demand that you respond to this or I'll know you are not serious about DEF, either way I win.
-
Don't know why nobody thought of this before. Now you can see for yourself what we're talking about.
Uh, because there's an openly available link that's far easier to access in the OP, rather than midway down a random page?
I wanted to learn the model. That is why I read your brief description. From the very beginning to the very end. I found few things I wanted to ask, because they did not make a sense or I was not sure how to understand them. Thanks for trash answer ("learn the model" thing over and over).
What you said was EXPLICITLY addressed in the model, and anyone who actually read it would see it. Do you think you wouldn't get called out on lies?
I will call you out on bullshit if that's all you provide. All you did was demand that I repeat what was already clearly explained in the model, and I'm sick of REers like you who think it's somehow funny to demand I waste my time.
Thanks for not explaining anything.
I answered all your questions, and those that were not were explained in the model. What I said was easily verifiable, but of course, you refuse to check that, and you just sit there content in the fact no REer will call you out on your lies. If you're so secure in your model why is all you rely on dishonest tactics?
I do lose my temper sometimes, as anyone would when dealing with the number of arrogant penguins and trolls on this forum, so I may have spoken harsher than you necessarily needed, but the fact remains most of what you asked was EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED IN THE MODEL. Consider reading and occasionally double-checking rather than skimming once and considering yourself an expert.
That was alot of my time to actually read DEF, I have answered your request, even tho I didn't need to to prove my point.
You very much did need to: if you are going to make a claim, the most basic thing for you to do would be to know what it is you're talking about. Why is that somehow a controversial statement?!
You were lying about DET, and doing so with no understanding of anything you said: you simply assumed it was wrong. Assertion has no place in any debate.
Now I demand that you respond to this or I'll know you are not serious about DEF, either way I win.
Win what? The ISS/satellite argument has been debunked countless times by even classical FET. Unless you have more than a tired old stock argument, DET stands.
-
But your hypothesis is based on a conspiracy, how can that ever be a theory?
Uhh, the argument perhaps??
-
But your hypothesis is based on a conspiracy, how can that ever be a theory?
Uhh, the argument perhaps??
The conspiracy is a conclusion, not an assumption.
You don't win an argument by repeating a tired old cliche.
-
4. Evidence
The first question to ask is simple: what is evidence?
The answer is just as simple: observation.
What types of observations?
There is no form of evidence beyond this. To have evidence for a model, you need only observe something in line with what that model predicts. This is what science is based on: this is all there is. The best possible kind of model is one that explains all observations proposed.
And what specific example you have?
Note, also, that experiments are merely a special case of observation. They are just a specific way to observe the rules of the world when applied to a controlled setting.
What specific example?
Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET.
That is one of the vaguest statements I have ever heard.
This doesn't mean much. Given enough time, any model could come up with explanations for everything. This is why we have Occam's Razor: to sort between two possible models, both explaining equal amounts, the question is which has more assumptions.
How exactly does Occam's razor disprove the round earth and favors DET?
Recall your experience reading these pages. All of DET falls into place from our definition of aether; so excluding assumptions shared between models (such as the origin of matter) the only one under DET is the idea of aether forming concentrations and travelling from high to low. Now, both of these are logical: deduced in the same way we may deduce any law.
To compare this to RET however, we need only look at the most obvious aspect not shared between them: gravity. The RE model of gravity is an unexplained property of mass bending space, and an unexplained consequence of this bending.
At the very least, the two models are equal: but note also how reasonable the DE assumptions are. Bith have some evidence behind them, while the RE model relies on hope.
You haven't actually proven Aether to begin with as I will show you in the next post.
It is simple hypocrisy to say this is not enough. You are more than welcome to provide an example of evidence which you believe does not match the definition given above: and if you cannot, you must concede that this definition holds, and therefore what follows from it is true.
It isn't enough if you haven't proved Aether in the first place.
Occam's Razor favors DET over RET. [/quote
Mantra. It's true because you say so.
That should be enough. There is one specific experiment that may be performed to confirm the DE model over the RE model, though it requires resources I do not have.
DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
If you have the means to measure refraction accurate, and can see a change over several significant figures with altitude, as a result of that means, then please let me know. Simply increasing in altitude (thanks to, for example, a balloon) while measuring will allow us to see whether this change is continuous, or not, and could provide the final proof of DET.
Refraction decrease with altitude. I'll find a link that proves it and then I'll tackle the Aether part of your model.
-
No, well it may be what some people call a conspiracy theory, but no scientist would ever call a conspiracy theory valid.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
Here's an article on it.
-
No, well it may be what some people call a conspiracy theory, but no scientist would ever call a conspiracy theory valid.
You cannot reject something simply because you do not like the conclusion. That is not scientific.
What types of observations?
And what specific example you have?
What specific example?
That is one of the vaguest statements I have ever heard.
Repeating the same question multiple times when the answer is given a few lines later is just childish: and I notice you refuse to address the answer. A categoric statement is not vague: it is widely applicable, and clear in each case.
How exactly does Occam's razor disprove the round earth and favors DET?
You haven't actually proven Aether to begin with as I will show you in the next post.
It isn't enough if you haven't proved Aether in the first place.
Beginning with refusing to read, and ending with a straw man.
Refraction decrease with altitude. I'll find a link that proves it and then I'll tackle the Aether part of your model.
Refraction in the vertical direction, not the horizontal.
-
I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.
-
I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.
Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.
-
I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.
Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.
That is your opinion, I reject it with alot of evidence, my favourite is this
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/iss_solar_transit_composite_150906.jpeg?itok=exqnejWx)
-
(http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/09/9731787666_4f5ff2d3a5_b.jpg)
Is that in space?
-
(http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/09/9731787666_4f5ff2d3a5_b.jpg)
Is that in space?
Well, in some sence yes!
I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.
Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.
That is your opinion, I reject it with alot of evidence, my favourite is this
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/iss_solar_transit_composite_150906.jpeg?itok=exqnejWx)
But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
-
1. Aether
Aether is space; by which I mean, the fabric of space (which I'll define properly later). I use the term aether because it is more well-known in FET (albeit with a different definition), and it tends to make phrasing clearer, once the definition's understood. Outer space, for example, is called space: which can be misleading. In addition, I could refer to 'more aether in a certain space', in which case 'space' is meant colloquially: from an external perspective, how it might seem.
How do you know (1) that Aether is what you said and (2) how you know space has a fabric to it?
Anyway, to properly define, aether is the fabric of space: it is the dimension that is how we define distance. More aether means more distance: less aether, less distance. In this way, if we have more aether in a certain space, we have a stretch which, from an external perspective, would seem the same size as another spot, but from an internal perspective, is far longer.
So there's a foot of Aether right next to me? How do you know that Aether is what you defined?
A useful analogy is a spring. If you travel along the coils themselves then, no matter what, it's the same distance from A to B. However, the spring can be stretched out, or condensed: that set distance can get you from one place to another, when another route might take several compressed springs to do the same journey.
It's only useful if we know that it exists in the first place.
That's the basic definition. All that we have done so far is make a definition; none of this requires evidence. You could call it anything, all I do is choose an easier word.
Ok.
We can tell that aether exists as an actual something: even RET accepts this. Relativity forms one example, where space is viewed as a fabric, not a mere direction.
I don't, at least as a proven fact.
It's trivial to note that this exists in concentrations: next to nothing is a binary in reality (even things like "Does it exist or not?" get murky at the quantum level). Even REers acknowledge there is such a thing as no space (ie: it began to exist): it follows there is a difference between the existence of space, and the non-existence of space. It's simple to then conclude there is a difference in the amount of aether that exists at various points. If that is unconvincing, mark it as an assumption: all theories are based on some (such as the definition if gravity relying on an assumption about mass, and the consequences of bent space).
It's also simple to note that, as we exist in (sort of on, terminology's confusing) aether, when aether moves, we will move with it.
You haven't given an example of how to prove that it exists.
All this is fairly easy to deduce, even if it seems a useless hypothetical. We'll get onto what the means for the shape of the world on the next page.
How it applies to earth is useless until you prove the basic premis that Aether exists.
The last thing is one of the most important. We observe a universal tendency in the world: we see it in pressure, diffusion... Things move from areas of high concentrations, to low. If you blow up a balloon, the slightly compressed air (a high concentration) within the balloon will rush out, to the lower concentration around us. As this behavior appears universal, we may assume that the same holds for the aether: that if a high concentration and low concentration of aether are adjacent, they will begin to even themselves out, much of the high moving to the low.
The reason this is a fair thing to do is used at a fair few places in science. Take the Laws of Thermodynamics: clearly, they have not been tested for all places, at all times, with all things. However, we're all very happy to conclude that in a closed system, net entropy never decreases.
And what evidence you have that it exists?
-
But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
Certainly. Aerodynamicism aids efficiency, it's not required.
How do you know (1) that Aether is what you said
So there's a foot of Aether right next to me? How do you know that Aether is what you defined?
It's only useful if we know that it exists in the first place.
Look, more childish repitition of a trivially simple concept explained later. It's a definition.
and (2) how you know space has a fabric to it?
I don't, at least as a proven fact.
You haven't given an example of how to prove that it exists.
How it applies to earth is useless until you prove the basic premis that Aether exists.
And what evidence you have that it exists?
Deciding just to ignore the evidence explicitly given because you don't like it is your problem, not mine. Literally all you had was "I don't accept this." That's assertion, and no more. Come back when you've learned relativity, then maybe you can explain your problem: until then, you're wasting my time as ever.
There is also a section on evidence. You can't simply pretend it's not relevant here.
-
What you said was EXPLICITLY addressed in the model, and anyone who actually read it would see it. Do you think you wouldn't get called out on lies?
I will call you out on bullshit if that's all you provide.
I am not taking everything on word. And since you are introducing a new model, you are obligate to explain it in details to anyone interested. No, your model did not explained anything that I asked. The same follows for your answers to my questions.
All you did was demand that I repeat what was already clearly explained in the model, and I'm sick of REers like you who think it's somehow funny to demand I waste my time.
Pro tip: make a FAQ of your model and link it in your signature. Problem solves itself - you can send anyone to your signature instead of "being sick" and "wasting time" on answering the same questions.
-
But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
Certainly. Aerodynamicism aids efficiency, it's not required.
Interesting, and how do you suppose solar panels can withold 27600km/h winds?
-
I have provided a simple equation that will tell you if the ISS is in space or not:
But, I'll still give you the original equation :
D(ISS Orbit)=2H+8000miles
O(ISS Orbit)=[pi](2H+8000)miles
D(Earth)= 8000miles
H(ISS height over earth)=H
t(Time spent in 20° of your field of view straight overhead) (variable) (in seconds)
T(Time for ISS to make one full lap in orbit)=5400s
S(Length ISS travel along 20° of your field of view straight overhead)=2*H*tan(10°)miles (Using trigonometry, since this is only an approxmation and the arc is pretty small)=0.3527Hmiles (roughly)
t/T=S/D(ISS Orbit) -> ts/5400s=0.3527Hmiles/[pi](2H+8000)miles (equability)
t/5400=0.3527H/[pi](2H+8000)
t=0.3527H*5400/[pi](2H+8000)=1904.3H/[pi](2H+8000)
t[pi](2H+8000)=1904.3H
t[pi]2H+t[pi]8000=1904.3H
1904.3H-t[pi]2H=t[pi]8000
H(1904.3-2t[pi])=t[pi]8000
H=t[pi]8000/(1904.3-2t[pi])
Actually, it seems like something went wrong when I posted the equation in the earlier post, as it seems to be missing a number 2. I will edit that one quickly. This equation will only give you an approximation, as you can only approximate 20° of your FOV, approximate the time it travels and because it is doesn't take the curvature into account. But it is close enough to calculate if it is in space or not.
EDIT:
Almost forgot:
D=Diameter
O=Circumference
H=Height
S=Straight
t and T=Time
No need to debate it.
-
I am not taking everything on word. And since you are introducing a new model, you are obligate to explain it in details to anyone interested. No, your model did not explained anything that I asked. The same follows for your answers to my questions.
I HAVE explained it moron, I'm not going to waste time repeating myself to someone too lazy to click a link. You want to learn it, read it. Otherwise why shoudl I bother with you?
You're not interested. You've been called out on your lies, deal with it.
Pro tip: make a FAQ of your model and link it in your signature.
The link to the model is there you pathetic penguin, what the fuck is wrong with you?!
Interesting, and how do you suppose solar panels can withold 27600km/h winds?
What are you on about now?
I have provided a simple equation that will tell you if the ISS is in space or not:
Which relies upon presupposing the RE model, so completely irrelevant.
-
I have provided a simple equation that will tell you if the ISS is in space or not:
Which relies upon presupposing the RE model, so completely irrelevant.
Good point! BUT!:
Quote from: FEScientist on September 16, 2015, 12:51:54 PM
Quote from: Master Evar
Orbits are elliptical, if they are stable without changing parent body.
True, but we aren't dealing with an orbit in the strictest sense, if we are on a FE with no space travel.
Quote
Where did you get 200 from in d=200sin(10°). Don't you mean 100? In which case d would be 17.36 miles.
Twice 100: using 100sin(10) would give you one triangle, but for the total distance covered by the 20 degrees, you need to double it to include the other.
Quote
Where did you get 187540 from? 187540 what?
Miles: it's the product of 5400 (seconds) and d (miles per second).
Thanks for your correction, I see what you mean, I was using the cliche use of a circle. I tried to make mine more generally useful as a 20 degree arc crossing directly over the observer at halfway would be much trickier to achieve. Correcting, I think we'll find:
O = 190433 miles/t
Which should make falsifying the FE model with no space travel possible, depending on what t is.
This looks like a good tool for determining when it'll be visible:
http://iss.astroviewer.net/ (http://iss.astroviewer.net/)
Open invitation to readers, I guess. I'll wait to see when it's an accessible time for me.
Yup, that seems right. I'd change sine for tan though, as I explained earlier.
So O=5400*2H*tan(10°)/t => O=1904.3H/t
But this equation does require you to know two of the variables.
My equation for ISS height on a flat earth:
ts/5400s=2H*tan(10°)miles/39000miles (12400miles*[pi]=39000miles, roughly)
39000t/5400=2H*tan(10°)
39000t/1904.3=H
H=39000t/1904.3
If we compare them:
Round earth: H=25133t/(1904.3-[tau]*t)
Flat earth: H=38956t/1904.3
The flat earth one will give a greater H when t is low, I'll calculate the t:
25133t/(1904.3-[tau]*t)=38956t/1904.3
38956t*(1904.3-[tau]*t)=25133t*1904.3
47860772t=74183911t-244768t^2
47860772=74183911-244768t
244768t=74183911-47860772=26323139
t=26323139/244768=107.5
So as long as t is smaller than 107.5 the ISS will be higher up on a flat earth than on a round earth.
At t=107.5, H=2,200 miles.
tl;dr:
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.
-
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.
Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?
-
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.
Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?
Here's a source for yah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
-
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.
Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?
Here's a source for yah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Get a life.
-
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.
Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?
Here's a source for yah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Get a life.
I find it hilarious that you resort to blatant insults when someone destroys your theory. It's quite funny actually.
-
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.
Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?
Here's a source for yah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Get a life.
So often you confuse me with your arguments mr JRoweSkeptic, can I ask if you are a religious person?
-
I find it hilarious that you resort to blatant insults when someone destroys your theory. It's quite funny actually.
He posted a link to an irrelevant wikipedia page with no content or argument or explanation whatsoever. If you think that's destroying a theory, that... explains quite a bit actually.
I will not waste time on pathetic trolls. If you think he deserves any respect, you can fuck off too. I will have civil discussion with people who actually discuss, as I have, but I will call a troll a troll and a fuckwit a fuckwit.
So often you confuse me with your arguments mr JRoweSkeptic, can I ask if you are a religious person?
No. I believe in logic, and actual discussion. You apparently believe in ignorance, whining, trolling, spamming, and a complete lack of any honest discussion. WHy do you persist in wasting everybody's time?
-
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.
Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?
I did the math myself. If you need sources that math works, then you are not suited to debate the shape of the earth.
-
(http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/09/9731787666_4f5ff2d3a5_b.jpg)
Is that in space?
Well, in some sence yes!
I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.
Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.
That is your opinion, I reject it with alot of evidence, my favourite is this
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/iss_solar_transit_composite_150906.jpeg?itok=exqnejWx)
But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
We have 3 measurements:
- The size of the Sun
- The size of the plane
- The size of ISS
Based on these, can we determine the altitude of ISS +/-?
-
(http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/09/9731787666_4f5ff2d3a5_b.jpg)
Is that in space?
Well, in some sence yes!
I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.
Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.
That is your opinion, I reject it with alot of evidence, my favourite is this
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/iss_solar_transit_composite_150906.jpeg?itok=exqnejWx)
But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
We have 3 measurements:
- The size of the Sun
- The size of the plane
- The size of ISS
Based on these, can we determine the altitude of ISS +/-?
That example is the only thing I like about math.
-
To help determine altitude, perhaps these pics will help (Shuttle):
(http://i.space.com/images/i/000/005/297/i02/shuttle-atlantis-station-sun-2-100520-02.jpg?1292270537)
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2009/05/thierry-legault1zoom22.jpg)
BTW, all you have to do is Google "shuttle sun images", "iss sun images", etc. for more pics to use for measurements/confirmations.
-
(http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/09/9731787666_4f5ff2d3a5_b.jpg)
Is that in space?
Well, in some sence yes!
I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.
Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.
That is your opinion, I reject it with alot of evidence, my favourite is this
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/iss_solar_transit_composite_150906.jpeg?itok=exqnejWx)
But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
We have 3 measurements:
- The size of the Sun
- The size of the plane
- The size of ISS
Based on these, can we determine the altitude of ISS +/-?
He has already answered yes to this question, he literally believes that the iss could fly inside our atmosphere. That was when I shat my pants and backed out of the argue.
But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
Certainly. Aerodynamicism aids efficiency, it's not required.
This was the exact moment my pants recieved the various amount of shait.
-
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.
Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?
Generally, distance is defined when we employ an abstract distance metric. The cool part about this is how this defines space itself. For example, if we employ a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous. If instead we employ a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous. Neat eh?
-
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.
Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?
Generally, distance is defined when we employ an abstract distance metric. The cool part about this is how this defines space itself. For example, if we employ a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous. If instead we employ a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous. Neat eh?
Wow, that's a cool concept, soo... Space is discontinuous because, Gabriels Horn?
-
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.
Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?
Generally, distance is defined when we employ an abstract distance metric. The cool part about this is how this defines space itself. For example, if we employ a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous. If instead we employ a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous. Neat eh?
Wow, that's a cool concept, soo... Space is discontinuous because, Gabriels Horn?
Gabriel's Horn can be used to highlight a distinction between continuous and discontinuous space, where space is discontinuous if we, for example, employ a particle-based metric rooted in natural numbers, and is continuous if we instead use a fluid, mathematical metric. But Gabriel's Horn isn't a proof for discontinuous space. Space isn't necessarily particle-based, and instead is very much mental in nature.
-
I did the math myself. If you need sources that math works, then you are not suited to debate the shape of the earth.
Source of the discussion, fuckwit. You need sources for your measurements: and look how quickly you evade giving that. Says it all.
Generally, distance is defined when we employ an abstract distance metric. The cool part about this is how this defines space itself. For example, if we employ a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous. If instead we employ a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous. Neat eh?
So, inexplicably changing the topic.
I'm perfectly familiar with metric spaces. And normed spaces for that matter, and Banach, and Sobolev, and Hilbert. Are you going to go on about function spaces or are you going to make any kind of relevant post?
So far, all I see is refusal to provide what was simply asked for: a source for the measurements. I think that renders the case closed. You've got nothing.
-
I did the math myself. If you need sources that math works, then you are not suited to debate the shape of the earth.
Source of the discussion, fuckwit. You need sources for your measurements: and look how quickly you evade giving that. Says it all.
Generally, distance is defined when we employ an abstract distance metric. The cool part about this is how this defines space itself. For example, if we employ a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous. If instead we employ a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous. Neat eh?
So, inexplicably changing the topic.
I'm perfectly familiar with metric spaces. And normed spaces for that matter, and Banach, and Sobolev, and Hilbert. Are you going to go on about function spaces or are you going to make any kind of relevant post?
So far, all I see is refusal to provide what was simply asked for: a source for the measurements. I think that renders the case closed. You've got nothing.
I answered your question about distance, albeit in a more generalized sense. What you asked for wasn't of me, but another poster. What I said, however, has implications for your definition of aether and its relationship to space as you have defined it in your theory (which is barely comprehensible, incomplete, and demands that your audience be mind-readers). As a point of constructive criticism, your theory is so flimsy and incomplete that it should be entirely obvious why people are asking you to clarify things. Clarity is precisely what your model lacks.
-
I did the math myself. If you need sources that math works, then you are not suited to debate the shape of the earth.
Source of the discussion, fuckwit. You need sources for your measurements: and look how quickly you evade giving that. Says it all.
Wtf do you mean by the "source of the discussion"? If you meant the thread for the second post, it is the now closed "It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning your own spaceship" thread, use the search function with the keywords "Iss, height, orbital, flat" and written by me, you should find it. I tried to quote it from that thread, but because it is locked it won't let me. In no way have I refused to give you this source. Also, the measurements of earth are well known. Even google's calculator will tell you the values for round earth proportions. The ISS orbits once every 90 minutes, source is NASA but you can measure this yourself by downloading a tracker, waiting to a couple of fours before dawn when the ISS will pass overhead, and then measure the time until it passes overhead again. Should be roughly 90 minutes. The orbit on a flat earth is assumed to be roughly the size of a flat earth equator, on traditional flat earth it is actually slightly larger, and on your model it is slightly smaller, this from studying the mercator used to describe the ISS's position over land and then mapping it out roughly on an azimuthal. We known that it follows that plotted path as you can download a map with the same plotter and check for yourself that it follows it next time it passes overhead or close to you. So all of the measurements are verifiable and testable by you yourself if you wanted to.
-
I answered your question about distance, albeit in a more generalized sense.
I asked how distance was measured, you defined what distance is. That's not even close to an answer.
What you asked for wasn't of me, but another poster. What I said, however, has implications for your definition of aether and its relationship to space as you have defined it in your theory (which is barely comprehensible, incomplete, and demands that your audience be mind-readers). As a point of constructive criticism, your theory is so flimsy and incomplete that it should be entirely obvious why people are asking you to clarify things. Clarity is precisely what your model lacks.
Constructive criticism requires detail and specificity. As it is, you're just doing what every REer does and asserting falsehood without any indication of why. Just dishonesty, really. Aether is well-defined, and clear-cut, for anyone who takes the time to read rather than skim.
Also, the measurements of earth are well known. Even google's calculator will tell you the values for round earth proportions. The ISS orbits once every 90 minutes, source is NASA but you can measure this yourself by downloading a tracker, waiting to a couple of fours before dawn when the ISS will pass overhead, and then measure the time until it passes overhead again. Should be roughly 90 minutes. The orbit on a flat earth is assumed to be roughly the size of a flat earth equator, on traditional flat earth it is actually slightly larger, and on your model it is slightly smaller, this from studying the mercator used to describe the ISS's position over land and then mapping it out roughly on an azimuthal. We known that it follows that plotted path as you can download a map with the same plotter and check for yourself that it follows it next time it passes overhead or close to you. So all of the measurements are verifiable and testable by you yourself if you wanted to.
So, relying on the idea that the azimuthal map is completely accurate then.
Besides, a fast speed implies it's lower down: less distance to cross.
-
So, relying on the idea that the azimuthal map is completely accurate then.
Besides, a fast speed implies it's lower down: less distance to cross.
Whut? No, and speed isn't even part of my equations, so totally irrelevant. My equation can tell you if the ISS is in space or not with pretty much 100% accuracy. Also, a fast speed implies greater distance, if we assume time is constant. Since distance = velocity * time. Or a higher speed implies less time. More velocity never implies less distance. But, you can use my equation and see for yourself that the ISS is in space. Also, I said "roughly", not perfect. For your DET I assumed the double azimuthal projection, and I assumed it was more or less accurate as it would otherwise mean major errors in distances, errors we surely would notice if the double azimuthal was not more or less accurate but the earth was still flat and consists of two disks.
-
So, relying on the idea that the azimuthal map is completely accurate then.
Besides, a fast speed implies it's lower down: less distance to cross.
Whut? No, and speed isn't even part of my equations, so totally irrelevant. My equation can tell you if the ISS is in space or not with pretty much 100% accuracy. Also, a fast speed implies greater distance, if we assume time is constant. Since distance = velocity * time. Or a higher speed implies less time. More velocity never implies less distance. But, you can use my equation and see for yourself that the ISS is in space. Also, I said "roughly", not perfect. For your DET I assumed the double azimuthal projection, and I assumed it was more or less accurate as it would otherwise mean major errors in distances, errors we surely would notice if the double azimuthal was not more or less accurate but the earth was still flat and consists of two disks.
There would be major errors in distance on a large scale. that's true of any map. But if you go over a large distance, there are other sources of error which far dwarf them: for example, wind speed (on planes).
Speed was a separate argument. The fact is, your argument for its height relies on information we don't have.
-
So, relying on the idea that the azimuthal map is completely accurate then.
Besides, a fast speed implies it's lower down: less distance to cross.
Whut? No, and speed isn't even part of my equations, so totally irrelevant. My equation can tell you if the ISS is in space or not with pretty much 100% accuracy. Also, a fast speed implies greater distance, if we assume time is constant. Since distance = velocity * time. Or a higher speed implies less time. More velocity never implies less distance. But, you can use my equation and see for yourself that the ISS is in space. Also, I said "roughly", not perfect. For your DET I assumed the double azimuthal projection, and I assumed it was more or less accurate as it would otherwise mean major errors in distances, errors we surely would notice if the double azimuthal was not more or less accurate but the earth was still flat and consists of two disks.
There would be major errors in distance on a large scale. that's true of any map. But if you go over a large distance, there are other sources of error which far dwarf them: for example, wind speed (on planes).
Speed was a separate argument. The fact is, your argument for its height relies on information we don't have.
No, it entirely relies on information we have. I specifically made a post where I explained all the information. Which information do we not have, or is not ACCURATE ENOUGH?
-
So, relying on the idea that the azimuthal map is completely accurate then.
Besides, a fast speed implies it's lower down: less distance to cross.
Whut? No, and speed isn't even part of my equations, so totally irrelevant. My equation can tell you if the ISS is in space or not with pretty much 100% accuracy. Also, a fast speed implies greater distance, if we assume time is constant. Since distance = velocity * time. Or a higher speed implies less time. More velocity never implies less distance. But, you can use my equation and see for yourself that the ISS is in space. Also, I said "roughly", not perfect. For your DET I assumed the double azimuthal projection, and I assumed it was more or less accurate as it would otherwise mean major errors in distances, errors we surely would notice if the double azimuthal was not more or less accurate but the earth was still flat and consists of two disks.
There would be major errors in distance on a large scale. that's true of any map. But if you go over a large distance, there are other sources of error which far dwarf them: for example, wind speed (on planes).
Speed was a separate argument. The fact is, your argument for its height relies on information we don't have.
No, it entirely relies on information we have. I specifically made a post where I explained all the information. Which information do we not have, or is not ACCURATE ENOUGH?
The information I have specifically pointed out. The length of the path the ISS takes, which you appear to assume is a circle with known diameter.
-
So, relying on the idea that the azimuthal map is completely accurate then.
Besides, a fast speed implies it's lower down: less distance to cross.
Whut? No, and speed isn't even part of my equations, so totally irrelevant. My equation can tell you if the ISS is in space or not with pretty much 100% accuracy. Also, a fast speed implies greater distance, if we assume time is constant. Since distance = velocity * time. Or a higher speed implies less time. More velocity never implies less distance. But, you can use my equation and see for yourself that the ISS is in space. Also, I said "roughly", not perfect. For your DET I assumed the double azimuthal projection, and I assumed it was more or less accurate as it would otherwise mean major errors in distances, errors we surely would notice if the double azimuthal was not more or less accurate but the earth was still flat and consists of two disks.
There would be major errors in distance on a large scale. that's true of any map. But if you go over a large distance, there are other sources of error which far dwarf them: for example, wind speed (on planes).
Speed was a separate argument. The fact is, your argument for its height relies on information we don't have.
No, it entirely relies on information we have. I specifically made a post where I explained all the information. Which information do we not have, or is not ACCURATE ENOUGH?
The information I have specifically pointed out. The length of the path the ISS takes, which you appear to assume is a circle with known diameter.
I assume it is accurate. You can take positions on the mercator projection that the ISS passes over, add them to the double azimuthal and then draw lines between them. If you know the scale of the map, you can proceed to measure the distance. The double azimuthal would have to be off by a factor greater than 2 for my equation to be invalid, which it definitely not is.
-
So, relying on the idea that the azimuthal map is completely accurate then.
Besides, a fast speed implies it's lower down: less distance to cross.
Whut? No, and speed isn't even part of my equations, so totally irrelevant. My equation can tell you if the ISS is in space or not with pretty much 100% accuracy. Also, a fast speed implies greater distance, if we assume time is constant. Since distance = velocity * time. Or a higher speed implies less time. More velocity never implies less distance. But, you can use my equation and see for yourself that the ISS is in space. Also, I said "roughly", not perfect. For your DET I assumed the double azimuthal projection, and I assumed it was more or less accurate as it would otherwise mean major errors in distances, errors we surely would notice if the double azimuthal was not more or less accurate but the earth was still flat and consists of two disks.
There would be major errors in distance on a large scale. that's true of any map. But if you go over a large distance, there are other sources of error which far dwarf them: for example, wind speed (on planes).
Speed was a separate argument. The fact is, your argument for its height relies on information we don't have.
No, it entirely relies on information we have. I specifically made a post where I explained all the information. Which information do we not have, or is not ACCURATE ENOUGH?
The information I have specifically pointed out. The length of the path the ISS takes, which you appear to assume is a circle with known diameter.
I assume it is accurate. You can take positions on the mercator projection that the ISS passes over, add them to the double azimuthal and then draw lines between them. If you know the scale of the map, you can proceed to measure the distance. The double azimuthal would have to be off by a factor greater than 2 for my equation to be invalid, which it definitely not is.
Assume all you want. You're also assuming, for example, circular motion.
-
I answered your question about distance, albeit in a more generalized sense.
I asked how distance was measured, you defined what distance is. That's not even close to an answer.
What you asked for wasn't of me, but another poster. What I said, however, has implications for your definition of aether and its relationship to space as you have defined it in your theory (which is barely comprehensible, incomplete, and demands that your audience be mind-readers). As a point of constructive criticism, your theory is so flimsy and incomplete that it should be entirely obvious why people are asking you to clarify things. Clarity is precisely what your model lacks.
Constructive criticism requires detail and specificity. As it is, you're just doing what every REer does and asserting falsehood without any indication of why. Just dishonesty, really. Aether is well-defined, and clear-cut, for anyone who takes the time to read rather than skim.
1) I didn't at all define what distance is, I answered how distance is measured, i.e. distance can only be measured after selecting an abstract (mental) distance metric as a scale of measurement.
2) Theories require specificity if they are to be understood. I read your theory completely, three times. This wasn't difficult to do given that it's about four pages long. My criticism is clear: It's incomprehensible inasmuch as it's incomplete, and assuming your audience isn't a group of wizards, you can't expect anything other than a stream of questions asking for additional clarity. Reading your theory is like reading a more sophisticated version of the Time Cube theory: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Time_Cube#Four_corner_day (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Time_Cube#Four_corner_day). Reading it makes you go "huh?" over and over. Deductions do not follow from premises, premises are conjecture, and so consequently there are gaps literally everywhere.
-
So, relying on the idea that the azimuthal map is completely accurate then.
Besides, a fast speed implies it's lower down: less distance to cross.
Whut? No, and speed isn't even part of my equations, so totally irrelevant. My equation can tell you if the ISS is in space or not with pretty much 100% accuracy. Also, a fast speed implies greater distance, if we assume time is constant. Since distance = velocity * time. Or a higher speed implies less time. More velocity never implies less distance. But, you can use my equation and see for yourself that the ISS is in space. Also, I said "roughly", not perfect. For your DET I assumed the double azimuthal projection, and I assumed it was more or less accurate as it would otherwise mean major errors in distances, errors we surely would notice if the double azimuthal was not more or less accurate but the earth was still flat and consists of two disks.
There would be major errors in distance on a large scale. that's true of any map. But if you go over a large distance, there are other sources of error which far dwarf them: for example, wind speed (on planes).
Speed was a separate argument. The fact is, your argument for its height relies on information we don't have.
No, it entirely relies on information we have. I specifically made a post where I explained all the information. Which information do we not have, or is not ACCURATE ENOUGH?
The information I have specifically pointed out. The length of the path the ISS takes, which you appear to assume is a circle with known diameter.
I assume it is accurate. You can take positions on the mercator projection that the ISS passes over, add them to the double azimuthal and then draw lines between them. If you know the scale of the map, you can proceed to measure the distance. The double azimuthal would have to be off by a factor greater than 2 for my equation to be invalid, which it definitely not is.
Assume all you want. You're also assuming, for example, circular motion.
I can assume what I want as long as it is accurate enough. If you can specify something which is not accurate enough, please do and explain why. And the motion is more or less circular. BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal). Now, if you have anything but false accusations and interpretations, please tell me.
-
I didn't at all define what distance is, I answered how distance is measured, i.e. distance can only be measured after selecting an abstract (mental) distance metric as a scale of measurement.
ie: you defined what distance is, the application of an abstract metric. You didn't even try to answer the actual question of where the distance given came from.
Theories require specificity if they are to be understood. I read your theory completely, three times. This wasn't difficult to do given that it's about four pages long. My criticism is clear: It's incomprehensible inasmuch as it's incomplete, and assuming your audience isn't a group of wizards, you can't expect anything other than a stream of questions asking for additional clarity. Reading your theory is like reading a more sophisticated version of the Time Cube theory: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Time_Cube#Four_corner_day. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Time_Cube#Four_corner_day.) Reading it makes you go "huh?" over and over. Deductions do not follow from premises, premises are conjecture, and so consequently there are gaps literally everywhere.
Read rather than skim, refer to diagrams, check back at definitions: go piece by piece. learn chapter one before you try to understand anything that follows.
You still refuse to be specific. if you have questions, ask them. PMing would be better to avoid another catastrophic thread, people love to troll DET, but as it stands I can only include you're wasting time.
I can assume what I want as long as it is accurate enough. If you can specify something which is not accurate enough, please do and explain why. And the motion is more or less circular. BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal). Now, if you have anything but false accusations and interpretations, please tell me.
The azimuthal maps aren't accurate, that's pretty well known. And what is your source for the claim that the ISS' motion is circular?
-
I didn't at all define what distance is, I answered how distance is measured, i.e. distance can only be measured after selecting an abstract (mental) distance metric as a scale of measurement.
ie: you defined what distance is, the application of an abstract metric. You didn't even try to answer the actual question of where the distance given came from.
Theories require specificity if they are to be understood. I read your theory completely, three times. This wasn't difficult to do given that it's about four pages long. My criticism is clear: It's incomprehensible inasmuch as it's incomplete, and assuming your audience isn't a group of wizards, you can't expect anything other than a stream of questions asking for additional clarity. Reading your theory is like reading a more sophisticated version of the Time Cube theory: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Time_Cube#Four_corner_day. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Time_Cube#Four_corner_day.) Reading it makes you go "huh?" over and over. Deductions do not follow from premises, premises are conjecture, and so consequently there are gaps literally everywhere.
Read rather than skim, refer to diagrams, check back at definitions: go piece by piece. learn chapter one before you try to understand anything that follows.
You still refuse to be specific. if you have questions, ask them. PMing would be better to avoid another catastrophic thread, people love to troll DET, but as it stands I can only include you're wasting time.
1) Correct, I did not specifically answer where the given distance came from. But it was certainly applicable to this: "Anyway, to properly define, aether is the fabric of space: it is the dimension that is how we define distance." This makes me go "huh?" not just once because it is incorrect, but twice because you are telling me that I am defining distance by referring to metric scales of measurement, while at the same time upholding your own theory in which you claim aether is how we define distance. In other words, if you are arguing against my understanding of metrics and what they do, then you are undermining your definition of aether.
2) I did look at the diagrams, and then went back, and went to the diagrams again, and then back again. It made me go "huh?" Because your page on aether is lacking, I'm left with no choice but to not understand all subsequent pages. When I get a little free time today, I'll try to ask some specific questions about aether (since you admit that the rest of the theory is founded upon the premise of aether and an accurate understanding thereof).
-
1) Correct, I did not specifically answer where the given distance came from. But it was certainly applicable to this: "Anyway, to properly define, aether is the fabric of space: it is the dimension that is how we define distance." This makes me go "huh?" not just once because it is incorrect, but twice because you are telling me that I am defining distance by referring to metric scales of measurement, while at the same time upholding your own theory in which you claim aether is how we define distance. In other words, if you are arguing against my understanding of metrics and what they do, then you are undermining your definition of aether.
Then quote that rather than a very clear question.
When have I argued against metrics? I agree with them fine, they're just an irrelevant answer to the question being asked. And even so, you're still comparing two different questions. Aether is what distance, objectively, is: metrics are how humans, subjectively, determine distance: and regardless, I'm not talking abstract mathematical metrics.
2) I did look at the diagrams, and then went back, and went to the diagrams again, and then back again. It made me go "huh?" Because your page on aether is lacking, I'm left with no choice but to not understand all subsequent pages. When I get a little free time today, I'll try to ask some specific questions about aether (since you admit that the rest of the theory is founded upon the premise of aether and an accurate understanding thereof).
Again, simply saying that the page is lacking is meaningless. I look forward to actual questions.
-
Using:
(http://i1.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/iss_atlantis_2010_25.jpg)
(http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/047/998/original/iss-how-big-100511-02.jpg?1324346170)
See (http://www.universetoday.com/64776/incredible-image-atlantis-and-iss-transit-the-sun/ (http://www.universetoday.com/64776/incredible-image-atlantis-and-iss-transit-the-sun/)) for details (3rd paragraph)...
- Sun ~1920 arcseconds in the sky (32' 00" average); ~17.125" on my monitor
- ISS height - 356' high; ~.5" on my monitor
- ISS angle ~56.06 arcseconds
- Calculated distance ~248.1 mi.
- Per orbital info, 249 mi.
Not bad...
I did the calculations...
-
The azimuthal maps aren't accurate, that's pretty well known.
No, and I never claimed. Read you stupid, I said they are not OFF by a factor greater than 2 (at least not the double azimuthal projection) which would be required for my equation to become invalid. Stop ignoring key information.
And what is your source for the claim that the ISS' motion is circular?
Oh ffs:
BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal).
I have done this, as can you. And we know that the tracker is accurate, as we can observe that the ISS passes overhead when the tracker shows it will.
-
The azimuthal maps aren't accurate, that's pretty well known.
No, and I never claimed. Read you stupid, I said they are not OFF by a factor greater than 2 (at least not the double azimuthal projection) which would be required for my equation to become invalid. Stop ignoring key information.
And what is your source for the claim that the ISS' motion is circular?
Oh ffs:
BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal).
I have done this, as can you. And we know that the tracker is accurate, as we can observe that the ISS passes overhead when the tracker shows it will.
And there you go. You rely on the map being accurate to justify your claims about distance. It wouldn't need to be off by anything near a factor of two, if you peturb the shape of the path.
You're the one ignoring key information. I addressed these points, and the flaws are in your summation of them. Don't take each one independently, assuming one objection being lessened makes it just fine to us the flawd premise.
-
The azimuthal maps aren't accurate, that's pretty well known.
No, and I never claimed. Read you stupid, I said they are not OFF by a factor greater than 2 (at least not the double azimuthal projection) which would be required for my equation to become invalid. Stop ignoring key information.
And what is your source for the claim that the ISS' motion is circular?
Oh ffs:
BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal).
I have done this, as can you. And we know that the tracker is accurate, as we can observe that the ISS passes overhead when the tracker shows it will.
And there you go. You rely on the map being accurate to justify your claims about distance. It wouldn't need to be off by anything near a factor of two, if you peturb the shape of the path.
You're the one ignoring key information. I addressed these points, and the flaws are in your summation of them. Don't take each one independently, assuming one objection being lessened makes it just fine to us the flawd premise.
Yes, it would have to be off by a factor greater than 2. Only if all distances are greater than 2 times the real distances would it falsify my equation, as it would be way too unreliable. As long as it is not off by that much, the ISS will be in space. Space starts at 100km and the ISS is higher than 300km. Height is proportional to orbit length in my equation, so the orbit length would have to be 1/3 for the ISS to be placed NEAR the border of space, although still in space. So I'm actually pretty nice with my factor of 2.
Nope, you are ignoring key information and only read what you want to read. You have pointed out no flaw yet, you have only nitpicked on a part of my equation which is well within acceptable limits. You have to prove that the double azimuthal is off by a factor greater than 2 to falsify my equation. Until then, it will remain accurate enough to tell wether the ISS is in space or not.
-
The azimuthal maps aren't accurate, that's pretty well known.
No, and I never claimed. Read you stupid, I said they are not OFF by a factor greater than 2 (at least not the double azimuthal projection) which would be required for my equation to become invalid. Stop ignoring key information.
And what is your source for the claim that the ISS' motion is circular?
Oh ffs:
BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal).
I have done this, as can you. And we know that the tracker is accurate, as we can observe that the ISS passes overhead when the tracker shows it will.
And there you go. You rely on the map being accurate to justify your claims about distance. It wouldn't need to be off by anything near a factor of two, if you peturb the shape of the path.
You're the one ignoring key information. I addressed these points, and the flaws are in your summation of them. Don't take each one independently, assuming one objection being lessened makes it just fine to us the flawd premise.
Yes, it would have to be off by a factor greater than 2. Only if all distances are greater than 2 times the real distances would it falsify my equation, as it would be way too unreliable. As long as it is not off by that much, the ISS will be in space. Space starts at 100km and the ISS is higher than 300km. Height is proportional to orbit length in my equation, so the orbit length would have to be 1/3 for the ISS to be placed NEAR the border of space, although still in space. So I'm actually pretty nice with my factor of 2.
Nope, you are ignoring key information and only read what you want to read. You have pointed out no flaw yet, you have only nitpicked on a part of my equation which is well within acceptable limits. You have to prove that the double azimuthal is off by a factor greater than 2 to falsify my equation. Until then, it will remain accurate enough to tell wether the ISS is in space or not.
Your equation relies on circular motion. Distances would not need to be off by a factor of 2 if the shape they travel in is different. I said this before. You've done nothing but assert success.
-
Your equation relies on circular motion. Distances would not need to be off by a factor of 2 if the shape they travel in is different. I said this before. You've done nothing but assert success.
No, it does not rely on circular motion at all. AND WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS INFO WHICH EXPLICITLY GIVES THE ORBIT:
BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal).
Are you unable to understand any of these words or something?
-
Your equation relies on circular motion. Distances would not need to be off by a factor of 2 if the shape they travel in is different. I said this before. You've done nothing but assert success.
No, it does not rely on circular motion at all. AND WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS INFO WHICH EXPLICITLY GIVES THE ORBIT:
BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal).
Are you unable to understand any of these words or something?
AND WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS INFO WHICH EXPLICITLY GIVES THE ORBIT
He keeps ignoring it because he knows it'll prove him wrong.
-
Your equation relies on circular motion. Distances would not need to be off by a factor of 2 if the shape they travel in is different. I said this before. You've done nothing but assert success.
No, it does not rely on circular motion at all. AND WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS INFO WHICH EXPLICITLY GIVES THE ORBIT:
BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal).
Are you unable to understand any of these words or something?
Are you just going to keep ignoring everything I say?
YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THE ACCURACY OF THE MAP.
And don't you fucking dare whinge about "But the numbers must be off by a factor of two!" THAT IS ONLY TRUE IF THE MOTION IS CIRCULAR. YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THIS
All you do is ignore half the response given. What is your problem?!
-
Your equation relies on circular motion. Distances would not need to be off by a factor of 2 if the shape they travel in is different. I said this before. You've done nothing but assert success.
No, it does not rely on circular motion at all. AND WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS INFO WHICH EXPLICITLY GIVES THE ORBIT:
BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal).
Are you unable to understand any of these words or something?
Are you just going to keep ignoring everything I say?
YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THE ACCURACY OF THE MAP.
And don't you fucking dare whinge about "But the numbers must be off by a factor of two!" THAT IS ONLY TRUE IF THE MOTION IS CIRCULAR. YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THIS
All you do is ignore half the response given. What is your problem?!
The double azimuthal projection is accurate enough, why do you struggle so much to understand this? I am not claiming perfect 100% accuracy, just "good enough" accuracy. Also, no, the numbers doesn't give a shit if the motion is circular or not. Any shape of the trajectory would suffer equally. However, the area of said shape would differ greatly depending on the shape. Learn some fucking math before you discuss it.
-
Your equation relies on circular motion. Distances would not need to be off by a factor of 2 if the shape they travel in is different. I said this before. You've done nothing but assert success.
No, it does not rely on circular motion at all. AND WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS INFO WHICH EXPLICITLY GIVES THE ORBIT:
BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal).
Are you unable to understand any of these words or something?
Are you just going to keep ignoring everything I say?
YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THE ACCURACY OF THE MAP.
And don't you fucking dare whinge about "But the numbers must be off by a factor of two!" THAT IS ONLY TRUE IF THE MOTION IS CIRCULAR. YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THIS
All you do is ignore half the response given. What is your problem?!
The double azimuthal projection is accurate enough, why do you struggle so much to understand this? I am not claiming perfect 100% accuracy, just "good enough" accuracy. Also, no, the numbers doesn't give a shit if the motion is circular or not. Any shape of the trajectory would suffer equally. However, the area of said shape would differ greatly depending on the shape. Learn some fucking math before you discuss it.
Who cares about the area? We're not discussing the area. insist it's 'accurate enough' all you want, your falsification is based on assertion and is meaningless.
-
Your equation relies on circular motion. Distances would not need to be off by a factor of 2 if the shape they travel in is different. I said this before. You've done nothing but assert success.
No, it does not rely on circular motion at all. AND WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS INFO WHICH EXPLICITLY GIVES THE ORBIT:
BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal).
Are you unable to understand any of these words or something?
Are you just going to keep ignoring everything I say?
YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THE ACCURACY OF THE MAP.
And don't you fucking dare whinge about "But the numbers must be off by a factor of two!" THAT IS ONLY TRUE IF THE MOTION IS CIRCULAR. YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THIS
All you do is ignore half the response given. What is your problem?!
The double azimuthal projection is accurate enough, why do you struggle so much to understand this? I am not claiming perfect 100% accuracy, just "good enough" accuracy. Also, no, the numbers doesn't give a shit if the motion is circular or not. Any shape of the trajectory would suffer equally. However, the area of said shape would differ greatly depending on the shape. Learn some fucking math before you discuss it.
Who cares about the area? We're not discussing the area. insist it's 'accurate enough' all you want, your falsification is based on assertion and is meaningless.
So whya re you bringing up something which only applies to area then? Did you even read my whole post before you answered, because that was an ignorant reply. Can YOU prove that the azimuthal is off by a factor greater than 2? I have done my math, and unless the length of the orbit on the double azimuthal is less than half of the mapped one, then the ISS will stay in space.
-
Your equation relies on circular motion. Distances would not need to be off by a factor of 2 if the shape they travel in is different. I said this before. You've done nothing but assert success.
No, it does not rely on circular motion at all. AND WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS INFO WHICH EXPLICITLY GIVES THE ORBIT:
BUT by taking positions from the tracker map and adding them to the azimuthal or double azimuthal, you get a circle (for azimuthal) or two half-circles (for the double azimuthal).
Are you unable to understand any of these words or something?
Are you just going to keep ignoring everything I say?
YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THE ACCURACY OF THE MAP.
And don't you fucking dare whinge about "But the numbers must be off by a factor of two!" THAT IS ONLY TRUE IF THE MOTION IS CIRCULAR. YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THIS
All you do is ignore half the response given. What is your problem?!
The double azimuthal projection is accurate enough, why do you struggle so much to understand this? I am not claiming perfect 100% accuracy, just "good enough" accuracy. Also, no, the numbers doesn't give a shit if the motion is circular or not. Any shape of the trajectory would suffer equally. However, the area of said shape would differ greatly depending on the shape. Learn some fucking math before you discuss it.
Who cares about the area? We're not discussing the area. insist it's 'accurate enough' all you want, your falsification is based on assertion and is meaningless.
So whya re you bringing up something which only applies to area then? Did you even read my whole post before you answered, because that was an ignorant reply. Can YOU prove that the azimuthal is off by a factor greater than 2? I have done my math, and unless the length of the orbit on the double azimuthal is less than half of the mapped one, then the ISS will stay in space.
And now a straw man. Fantastic.
You're claiming to have falsified DET, you need to justify your claims. Your calculations for a distance travel rely on a circle, and your justification for that relies on supposing the azimuthal projection is accurate, and all you've offered to defend that is an incomplete and false assertion that it would need to be off by a factor of two, which I have explicitly said is false, and yet you're still whining about it. Your calculations, including the factor two, are reliant on a circle. It's that simple. Stop ignoring every word I say.
-
And now a straw man. Fantastic.
You're claiming to have falsified DET, you need to justify your claims. Your calculations for a distance travel rely on a circle, and your justification for that relies on supposing the azimuthal projection is accurate, and all you've offered to defend that is an incomplete and false assertion that it would need to be off by a factor of two, which I have explicitly said is false, and yet you're still whining about it. Your calculations, including the factor two, are reliant on a circle. It's that simple. Stop ignoring every word I say.
Quote me where I claimed to have falsified DET in this discussion. I dare you, liar. If you do not quote, or quote wrongly, then you are a liar, fyi.
Yes, my calculations for the length of the ISS orbit depended on a circle (maybe because on my maps it looks like a circle, duh), but my calculation for the height of the ISS on a flat earth does not. In the equation:
H=38956t/1904.3
You just replace 38956 miles with the actual length, if you have another measurement. And I assume the azimuthal is ACCURATE ENOUGH. I have done the math and given you the rough explanation as to why it needs to be off by a factor greater than 2 here:
Yes, it would have to be off by a factor greater than 2. Only if all distances are greater than 2 times the real distances would it falsify my equation, as it would be way too unreliable. As long as it is not off by that much, the ISS will be in space. Space starts at 100km and the ISS is higher than 300km. Height is proportional to orbit length in my equation, so the orbit length would have to be 1/3 for the ISS to be placed NEAR the border of space, although still in space. So I'm actually pretty nice with my factor of 2.
I can do a far more complicated, although not that complicated in itself, calculation for finding the tolerable inaccuracy of the azimuthal projection if you want to. You have not provided any justification for your claims yet. You have said "false", I give you an explanation, evidence etc, and you keep saying "false". So, now it is YOUR turn to JUSTIFY yourself. I have justified myself many times. Even if you think my justifications are bullshit, you have to explain why, not just call them bullshit because you feel like it.
-
Quote me where I claimed to have falsified DET in this discussion. I dare you, liar. If you do not quote, or quote wrongly, then you are a liar, fyi.
Well you're claiming to be able to show space travel is genuine, which in turn would falsify DET. Do I really need to quote that? pretty obvious to everyone who's read the thread.
And I assume the azimuthal is ACCURATE ENOUGH. I have done the math and given you the rough explanation as to why it needs to be off by a factor greater than 2 here:
Stop ignoring every word I say, moron.
-
Quote me where I claimed to have falsified DET in this discussion. I dare you, liar. If you do not quote, or quote wrongly, then you are a liar, fyi.
Well you're claiming to be able to show space travel is genuine, which in turn would falsify DET. Do I really need to quote that? pretty obvious to everyone who's read the thread.
And I assume the azimuthal is ACCURATE ENOUGH. I have done the math and given you the rough explanation as to why it needs to be off by a factor greater than 2 here:
Stop ignoring every word I say, moron.
Quote me where I claimed to have falsified DET in this discussion. I dare you, liar. If you do not quote, or quote wrongly, then you are a liar, fyi.
You accused me of making a straw man in this discussion, but how could I if I never even argued against your model in this discussion? I have only defended my equation.
And I only ignore your unsupported opinions and unjustified claims. Which, combined with your whining, would explain a lot about your posts. You might need to rethink your usual way of "debating".
-
And welcome to the type of arguments I had to endure in the "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment" thread. :-\
-
You accused me of making a straw man in this discussion, but how could I if I never even argued against your model in this discussion? I have only defended my equation.
More blatant ignorance. Try paying attention this time.
Well you're claiming to be able to show space travel is genuine, which in turn would falsify DET. Do I really need to quote that? pretty obvious to everyone who's read the thread.
And I only ignore your unsupported opinions and unjustified claims. Which, combined with your whining, would explain a lot about your posts. You might need to rethink your usual way of "debating".
Pot kettle black fuckwit.
-
You accused me of making a straw man in this discussion, but how could I if I never even argued against your model in this discussion? I have only defended my equation.
More blatant ignorance. Try paying attention this time.
Well you're claiming to be able to show space travel is genuine, which in turn would falsify DET. Do I really need to quote that? pretty obvious to everyone who's read the thread.
And I only ignore your unsupported opinions and unjustified claims. Which, combined with your whining, would explain a lot about your posts. You might need to rethink your usual way of "debating".
Pot kettle black fuckwit.
Nobody likes debating with you JRetardedSkeptic for this exact reason.
-
Nobody likes debating with you JRetardedSkeptic for this exact reason.
If you don't like to be called out on your bullshit, there's an easy answer for you.
-
More blatant ignorance. Try paying attention this time.
So it was just an insult then because you have nothing else. Got it!
Well you're claiming to be able to show space travel is genuine, which in turn would falsify DET. Do I really need to quote that? pretty obvious to everyone who's read the thread.
No, I'm claiming that the ISS is in space. And while it might disprove DET, I have not explicitly claimed that that was the intention. I do not appreciate that you put words in my mouth, it's dishonesty, if you even know what that means.
Pot kettle black fuckwit.
Wut? I am basing all my claims on math and one on probability. You base yours of your opinions and fantasy. Did you ignore that, because ohh the hypocrisy.
-
No, I'm claiming that the ISS is in space. And while it might disprove DET, I have not explicitly claimed that that was the intention. I do not appreciate that you put words in my mouth, it's dishonesty, if you even know what that means.
I don't give a fuck what your intention was, the facts of what I'm saying are perfectly accurate. If you seek to prove space travel, you seek to disprove DET.
And as with any falsification, or proof, or whatever semantic evasions you're try to pull, you still need to provide justification not based in exclusively ignoring everything I say. Look at how you completely evaded that point to whine over obvious word choice.
Now that is dishonesty.
Wut? I am basing all my claims on math and one on probability. You base yours of your opinions and fantasy. Did you ignore that, because ohh the hypocrisy.
Bullshit and you know it. just because you're too closed minded to accept any model outside your preconceptions doesn't negate the logic behind mine.
-
No, I'm claiming that the ISS is in space. And while it might disprove DET, I have not explicitly claimed that that was the intention. I do not appreciate that you put words in my mouth, it's dishonesty, if you even know what that means.
I don't give a fuck what your intention was, the facts of what I'm saying are perfectly accurate. If you seek to prove space travel, you seek to disprove DET.
And as with any falsification, or proof, or whatever semantic evasions you're try to pull, you still need to provide justification not based in exclusively ignoring everything I say. Look at how you completely evaded that point to whine over obvious word choice.
Now that is dishonesty.
Wut? I am basing all my claims on math and one on probability. You base yours of your opinions and fantasy. Did you ignore that, because ohh the hypocrisy.
Bullshit and you know it. just because you're too closed minded to accept any model outside your preconceptions doesn't negate the logic behind mine.
The hypocrisy of this statement is astounding. Absolutely astounding.
-
I don't give a fuck what your intention was, the facts of what I'm saying are perfectly accurate. If you seek to prove space travel, you seek to disprove DET.
And as with any falsification, or proof, or whatever semantic evasions you're try to pull, you still need to provide justification not based in exclusively ignoring everything I say. Look at how you completely evaded that point to whine over obvious word choice.
Now that is dishonesty.
It is not perfectly accurate. For example, the whole straw man thing and the claiming ti have falsified DET thing, which is what we are discussing, so actually horribly accurate. Maybe you need to check your aim a little? Also, I am basing my equation on math (no shit sherlock). Do you REALLY need justification that math works?
Bullshit and you know it. just because you're too closed minded to accept any model outside your preconceptions doesn't negate the logic behind mine.
Actually that is what I should be telling you.
-
I don't give a fuck what your intention was, the facts of what I'm saying are perfectly accurate. If you seek to prove space travel, you seek to disprove DET.
And as with any falsification, or proof, or whatever semantic evasions you're try to pull, you still need to provide justification not based in exclusively ignoring everything I say. Look at how you completely evaded that point to whine over obvious word choice.
Now that is dishonesty.
It is not perfectly accurate. For example, the whole straw man thing and the claiming ti have falsified DET thing, which is what we are discussing, so actually horribly accurate. Maybe you need to check your aim a little? Also, I am basing my equation on math (no shit sherlock). Do you REALLY need justification that math works?
So literally all you have is mindless repitition of the same old bullshit and a refusal to address a single word I say.
Bullshit and you know it. just because you're too closed minded to accept any model outside your preconceptions doesn't negate the logic behind mine.
Actually that is what I should be telling you.
Well you seem to struggle with any honest discussion, so go ahead. Have a blast.
-
I don't give a fuck what your intention was, the facts of what I'm saying are perfectly accurate. If you seek to prove space travel, you seek to disprove DET.
And as with any falsification, or proof, or whatever semantic evasions you're try to pull, you still need to provide justification not based in exclusively ignoring everything I say. Look at how you completely evaded that point to whine over obvious word choice.
Now that is dishonesty.
It is not perfectly accurate. For example, the whole straw man thing and the claiming ti have falsified DET thing, which is what we are discussing, so actually horribly accurate. Maybe you need to check your aim a little? Also, I am basing my equation on math (no shit sherlock). Do you REALLY need justification that math works?
So literally all you have is mindless repitition of the same old bullshit and a refusal to address a single word I say.
Bullshit and you know it. just because you're too closed minded to accept any model outside your preconceptions doesn't negate the logic behind mine.
Actually that is what I should be telling you.
Well you seem to struggle with any honest discussion, so go ahead. Have a blast.
How many actual measurements have you made to prove your theory?
Your use of language shows you are unable to discuss in a sensible way. How about an online conference call to present and discuss?
-
I don't give a fuck what your intention was, the facts of what I'm saying are perfectly accurate. If you seek to prove space travel, you seek to disprove DET.
And as with any falsification, or proof, or whatever semantic evasions you're try to pull, you still need to provide justification not based in exclusively ignoring everything I say. Look at how you completely evaded that point to whine over obvious word choice.
Now that is dishonesty.
It is not perfectly accurate. For example, the whole straw man thing and the claiming ti have falsified DET thing, which is what we are discussing, so actually horribly accurate. Maybe you need to check your aim a little? Also, I am basing my equation on math (no shit sherlock). Do you REALLY need justification that math works?
So literally all you have is mindless repitition of the same old bullshit and a refusal to address a single word I say.
Bullshit and you know it. just because you're too closed minded to accept any model outside your preconceptions doesn't negate the logic behind mine.
Actually that is what I should be telling you.
Well you seem to struggle with any honest discussion, so go ahead. Have a blast.
How many actual measurements have you made to prove your theory?
Your use of language shows you are unable to discuss in a sensible way. How about an online conference call to present and discuss?
Audio is a terrible way to learn a theory: you judge how good at improvised speaking someone is, over the model.
I'm perfectly able to discuss, I just see no reason to sugarcoat matters for trolls. I have had plenty of well-mannered, good conversations on this site. The fact you aren't part of them says far more about you than it does me. For example: asking a question that you have had answered countless times.
-
1) Correct, I did not specifically answer where the given distance came from. But it was certainly applicable to this: "Anyway, to properly define, aether is the fabric of space: it is the dimension that is how we define distance." This makes me go "huh?" not just once because it is incorrect, but twice because you are telling me that I am defining distance by referring to metric scales of measurement, while at the same time upholding your own theory in which you claim aether is how we define distance. In other words, if you are arguing against my understanding of metrics and what they do, then you are undermining your definition of aether.
Then quote that rather than a very clear question.
When have I argued against metrics? I agree with them fine, they're just an irrelevant answer to the question being asked. And even so, you're still comparing two different questions. Aether is what distance, objectively, is: metrics are how humans, subjectively, determine distance: and regardless, I'm not talking abstract mathematical metrics.
2) I did look at the diagrams, and then went back, and went to the diagrams again, and then back again. It made me go "huh?" Because your page on aether is lacking, I'm left with no choice but to not understand all subsequent pages. When I get a little free time today, I'll try to ask some specific questions about aether (since you admit that the rest of the theory is founded upon the premise of aether and an accurate understanding thereof).
Again, simply saying that the page is lacking is meaningless. I look forward to actual questions.
Okay, here are some comments/questions for you:
1) "Here is where you may find an outline of the DE model: the best model for the shape of the Earth. There is a basic overview, an FAQ, and it is kept constantly updated."
Okay, great. Is this an outline or the whole theory? If it's the outline, then why are you complaining when people are asking for additional clarity, and where is the whole theory?
Now, getting to aether...
2) "Aether is space; by which I mean, the fabric of space (which I'll define properly later)."
Okay, you'll define it later. Good.
3) "I use the term aether because it is more well-known in FET (albeit with a different definition), and it tends to make phrasing clearer, once the definition's understood."
Wouldn't using the same word for an accepted term that already has an established definition create more confusion? In any case, fine, we can let this slide. I await the definition.
4) "Outer space, for example, is called space: which can be misleading. In addition, I could refer to 'more aether in a certain space', in which case 'space' is meant colloquially: from an external perspective, how it might seem."
Why is calling outer space "space" misleading? You provide no explanation for this. Also, "for example" of what? What are you exemplifying? Are you saying that there is a need for a better term that would prevent one from being misled about [enter omitted explanation here]?
5) "In addition, I could refer to 'more aether in a certain space', in which case 'space' is meant colloquially: from an external perspective, how it might seem."
Here, you implicitly equate aether with space. Okay, fine, given that you start out by saying "aether is space."
6) "Anyway, to properly define, aether is the fabric of space: it is the dimension that is how we define distance."
Okay, aether is both: 1) the fabric of space, and 2) the dimension that is how we define distance. Let's formulate a deductive argument with this one.
P1: aether = fabric of space
P2: aether = dimension that is how we define distance.
Therefore: fabric of space = dimension that is how we define distance
7) "More aether means more distance: less aether, less distance."
Wait, what? Why? This wasn't in any way implied by your definition. Is aether equatable with distance, or is aether how we define distance as you previously stated? Or did you mean both? If you meant both, then why? Also, what do you mean by "define distance," and what is it about aether that enables us to define distance?
8 ) " In this way, if we have more aether in a certain space, we have a stretch which, from an external perspective, would seem the same size as another spot, but from an internal perspective, is far longer."
External perspective to what? Internal perspective from what? What do you mean by "spot?" Is that spot also from an external perspective, or is it from an internal perspective? Why is it the same size as viewed from that other spot, and why is it longer from an internal perspective?
9) "A useful analogy is a spring. If you travel along the coils themselves then, no matter what, it's the same distance from A to B. However, the spring can be stretched out, or condensed: that set distance can get you from one place to another, when another route might take several compressed springs to do the same journey."
What would be useful is if I knew what you meant up until this point so that the analogy could be made useful.
10) "That's the basic definition. All that we have done so far is make a definition; none of this requires evidence. You could call it anything, all I do is choose an easier word. "
I have no idea what you think aether is.
11) "We can tell that aether exists as an actual something: even RET accepts this. Relativity forms one example, where space is viewed as a fabric, not a mere direction."
How can I tell it exists when I don't know what it is? Even, if I did, by what means can I tell it exists? Are you claiming aether is found in Relativity? Specific Relativity or General Relativity?
12) "It's trivial to note that this exists in concentrations: next to nothing is a binary in reality (even things like "Does it exist or not?" get murky at the quantum level)."
What exists in concentrations, aether? How do we know this, and how do we measure such concentrations? I don't understand the connection to the latter part of your sentence.
13) "Even REers acknowledge there is such a thing as no space (ie: it began to exist): it follows there is a difference between the existence of space, and the non-existence of space."
I'm a round-earther. I conceptually acknowledge the existence of no space inasmuch as things are defined upon their inverse (e.g. space is space because it is not no-space). Wait...what are we even talking about?
14) "It's simple to then conclude there is a difference in the amount of aether that exists at various points."
Why? You were just talking about space vs. non-existence of space, and now you're back to concentrations. I don't even...there's seriously no point in finishing the first section.
TL;DR: I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
-
If it's the outline, then why are you complaining when people are asking for additional clarity, and where is the whole theory?
I don't complain when people ask for the full theory, as I have repeatedly said. i complain when they demand I repeat part of the model because they're too lazy to actually read it, or when they refuse to say what's wrong and merely assert it's not enough as if that counts for anything.
It is an outline, in that I have not addressed every conceivable aspect of the world yet: merely the most major. I tried to construct an FAQ, but the thread was swiftly overtaken by trolls. As it stands, I'm clarifying from what I see on the forum.
Why is calling outer space "space" misleading?
Because if I try to refer to that while referring to a separate quantity called space, it would fast become incoherent.
Therefore: fabric of space = dimension that is how we define distance
Well, yes. Why did this need repeating? It's common knowledge.
Wait, what? Why? This wasn't in any way implied by your definition. Is aether equatable with distance, or is aether how we define distance as you previously stated? Or did you mean both? If you meant both, then why? Also, what do you mean by "define distance," and what is it about aether that enables us to define distance?
I have no idea what you're trying to ask. Of course we equate aether with distance: how is that not the same as it being how distance is defined? And clearly, if there is more distance, there is more distance. That's so simple it's tautological. Your last question is meaningless: it's the definition.
External perspective to what? Internal perspective from what? What do you mean by "spot?" Is that spot also from an external perspective, or is it from an internal perspective? Why is it the same size as viewed from that other spot, and why is it longer from an internal perspective?
If you don't understand even the slightest thing about aether I have no idea how I'm meant to explain this to you.
What would be useful is if I knew what you meant up until this point so that the analogy could be made useful.
Analogies are aids. Consider actually thinking about the analogy rather than rejecting everything out of hand.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
That much is clear. Consider taking the time to think about what's written, your questions are mostly incoherent.
-
If it's the outline, then why are you complaining when people are asking for additional clarity, and where is the whole theory?
I don't complain when people ask for the full theory, as I have repeatedly said. i complain when they demand I repeat part of the model because they're too lazy to actually read it, or when they refuse to say what's wrong and merely assert it's not enough as if that counts for anything.
It is an outline, in that I have not addressed every conceivable aspect of the world yet: merely the most major. I tried to construct an FAQ, but the thread was swiftly overtaken by trolls. As it stands, I'm clarifying from what I see on the forum.
Why is calling outer space "space" misleading?
Because if I try to refer to that while referring to a separate quantity called space, it would fast become incoherent.
Therefore: fabric of space = dimension that is how we define distance
Well, yes. Why did this need repeating? It's common knowledge.
Wait, what? Why? This wasn't in any way implied by your definition. Is aether equatable with distance, or is aether how we define distance as you previously stated? Or did you mean both? If you meant both, then why? Also, what do you mean by "define distance," and what is it about aether that enables us to define distance?
I have no idea what you're trying to ask. Of course we equate aether with distance: how is that not the same as it being how distance is defined? And clearly, if there is more distance, there is more distance. That's so simple it's tautological. Your last question is meaningless: it's the definition.
External perspective to what? Internal perspective from what? What do you mean by "spot?" Is that spot also from an external perspective, or is it from an internal perspective? Why is it the same size as viewed from that other spot, and why is it longer from an internal perspective?
If you don't understand even the slightest thing about aether I have no idea how I'm meant to explain this to you.
What would be useful is if I knew what you meant up until this point so that the analogy could be made useful.
Analogies are aids. Consider actually thinking about the analogy rather than rejecting everything out of hand.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
That much is clear. Consider taking the time to think about what's written, your questions are mostly incoherent.
1) I would like to see the whole theory, please. As mentioned previously, I read through it (now more than) three times. This is your theory, and the burden of explaining it so that others can understand is on you. Fortunately for you, I actually love "out-of-the-box" type theories that run against the grain, but I can't seriously entertain them unless they're complete. And by "complete," I mean that I don't have to do any guesswork as to what it is I think you might mean.
2) "out·er space
noun
the physical universe beyond the earth's atmosphere."
We have a set definition for "outer space" that eliminates confusion. I'm pretty sure that if you said "there is a space between point x and y" I wouldn't think you meant outer space. Still, to some degree I can see where you're coming from if one were to say, for example, "There is space in space." So, here's another two-part question for you then: Are you simply equating aether with space, and with the intention of deferring any mention of "space" to a description of spatial difference? If so, are there any differences between what you think aether is and what round-earthers think space is?
3) It wasn't repetition, but reformulation. Apparently, it was necessary because I'm not aware of any properties of the "fabric of space" that enable us to "define distance." Last I checked, it's self-evident we define (i.e. identify) distance via observation (first-order metric), and we measure distance via distance metrics (second-order metrics).
4) Sure, a space is a distance with parameters. But doesn't "enable us" to define/identify it inasmuch as it does not provide us with a means to define/identify it. It's not my fault that you're not being specific enough in expressing what you mean. I shouldn't have to make these kind of assumptions. FYI, perception is the means by which we define/identify space. So much for my "meaningless" question...
5) Explain aether better.
6) Analogies are aids when I can relate all parts of the analogy to their counterparts. I can again try to guess what it is that you meant, but you don't even make it clear whether (for example) points A and B are on the coil or arbitrary points off the coil. It's a shame that you don't even give your own theory the proper attention and clarification it deserves. I seriously feel like you typed the whole thing out in a night or two, though I don't question that you've thought about it far longer.
7) I can't ask more specific questions about unspecific material. This is about as specific as I can get. As you can see, most of my questions are already irrelevant to your theory. Can you imagine how many more irrelevant questions you would get if I tried to be even more specific (which would require that I continue to guess about all of the little details that you likely have in your head, but nowhere on paper)?
-
I would like to see the whole theory, please. As mentioned previously, I read through it (now more than) three times. This is your theory, and the burden of explaining it so that others can understand is on you. Fortunately for you, I actually love "out-of-the-box" type theories that run against the grain, but I can't seriously entertain them unless they're complete. And by "complete," I mean that I don't have to do any guesswork as to what it is I think you might mean.
My sig links to what's written. As I said before, it is only an overview because I know there are questions REers will ask, I just don't know what those questions are.
We have a set definition for "outer space" that eliminates confusion.
So? The definition's not the problem, it's the word 'space,' which I try not to needlessly repeat.
Are you simply equating aether with space, and with the intention of deferring any mention of "space" to a description of spatial difference? If so, are there any differences between what you think aether is and what round-earthers think space is?
The definition is given: as the theory of relativity states, space (defined to be the description of distance) has a fabric to it. The only difference under DET is that I include the natural law stated to govern its behavior.
It wasn't repetition, but reformulation. Apparently, it was necessary because I'm not aware of any properties of the "fabric of space" that enable us to "define distance." Last I checked, it's self-evident we define (i.e. identify) distance via observation (first-order metric), and we measure distance via distance metrics (second-order metrics).
How exactly would you define distance in the absence of space? Space is required.
Sure, a space is a distance with parameters. But doesn't "enable us" to define/identify it inasmuch as it does not provide us with a means to define/identify it. It's not my fault that you're not being specific enough in expressing what you mean. I shouldn't have to make these kind of assumptions. FYI, perception is the means by which we define/identify space. So much for my "meaningless" question...
I'm being specific, you're being pedantic. You don't need to know a metric to know that distance exists.
Explain aether better.
Your only constructive criticism has been incoherent. There's no 'better' when you're being incredibly unclear as to what's actually missing.
I can again try to guess what it is that you meant, but you don't even make it clear whether (for example) points A and B are on the coil or arbitrary points off the coil.
On the coil. This was clear. I'm sorry I need you to actually think about what I wrote, but that's what science requires.
I can't ask more specific questions about unspecific material.
But you should try to actually ask coherent questions. You asked me to define a tautology.
-
And you want general public acceptance of DEF? If "smart" people with degrees and education can't understand what you are saying, how will school children? - Oh yes, just tell them to "read the manual" 1000x...
-
I would like to see the whole theory, please. As mentioned previously, I read through it (now more than) three times. This is your theory, and the burden of explaining it so that others can understand is on you. Fortunately for you, I actually love "out-of-the-box" type theories that run against the grain, but I can't seriously entertain them unless they're complete. And by "complete," I mean that I don't have to do any guesswork as to what it is I think you might mean.
My sig links to what's written. As I said before, it is only an overview because I know there are questions REers will ask, I just don't know what those questions are.
We have a set definition for "outer space" that eliminates confusion.
So? The definition's not the problem, it's the word 'space,' which I try not to needlessly repeat.
Are you simply equating aether with space, and with the intention of deferring any mention of "space" to a description of spatial difference? If so, are there any differences between what you think aether is and what round-earthers think space is?
The definition is given: as the theory of relativity states, space (defined to be the description of distance) has a fabric to it. The only difference under DET is that I include the natural law stated to govern its behavior.
It wasn't repetition, but reformulation. Apparently, it was necessary because I'm not aware of any properties of the "fabric of space" that enable us to "define distance." Last I checked, it's self-evident we define (i.e. identify) distance via observation (first-order metric), and we measure distance via distance metrics (second-order metrics).
How exactly would you define distance in the absence of space? Space is required.
Sure, a space is a distance with parameters. But doesn't "enable us" to define/identify it inasmuch as it does not provide us with a means to define/identify it. It's not my fault that you're not being specific enough in expressing what you mean. I shouldn't have to make these kind of assumptions. FYI, perception is the means by which we define/identify space. So much for my "meaningless" question...
I'm being specific, you're being pedantic. You don't need to know a metric to know that distance exists.
Explain aether better.
Your only constructive criticism has been incoherent. There's no 'better' when you're being incredibly unclear as to what's actually missing.
I can again try to guess what it is that you meant, but you don't even make it clear whether (for example) points A and B are on the coil or arbitrary points off the coil.
On the coil. This was clear. I'm sorry I need you to actually think about what I wrote, but that's what science requires.
I can't ask more specific questions about unspecific material.
But you should try to actually ask coherent questions. You asked me to define a tautology.
1) Okay, so it's an outline/overview. In that case, when people have questions, it's probably counterintuitive to keep deferring them back to the outline as though it should contain all of the detail necessary to answer them (and then blame them when they tell you it didn't help). Furthermore, if you don't know what questions will be asked, you also shouldn't be surprised at what comments are made (e.g. "I don't get it").
2) I think the focus on the word "space" is unnecessary, but we can agree to disagree. Regardless, it's not central to your theory, so we can let that one go.
3) Thank you for clarifying, and I can see that you state it has a natural tendency to move from high concentrations to low ones. I have a few questions about this:
a) You mention the tendency to move from high concentrations to low ones as a "universal" law. I would like some clarification on what you think this means. Specifically, I'd like to know what you think this "universal law" applies to (e.g. matter? Etc.).
i) If it does apply to matter, then is aether matter? If aether isn't matter, do you believe it has substance, and if so, then what?
ii) Do you physically distinguish between aether and space in any way? If not, then if the natural law (of physics?) applying to it is "universal," how is aether different from space as currently understood in modern science (the point being that this "universal law" should also apply to space as currently understood by modern science, and thus you aren't introducing anything new by premising your theory upon aether)?
b) What do you mean by "concentrations?" For something to be "concentrated," It needs a reference point (e.g. "not concentrated"). This leads me to ask, what are the boundaries of the concentrations? In other words, what contains these various concentrations of aether?
4) You're correct, you can't define distance in the absence of space, but space also can't be defined in the absence of observation, or measured in the absence of distance metrics. I'm not being frivolous with my critique. Your definitions are lazy and will not be understood, as they are currently written, by any capable, critical thinker. But hey, it's just an overview, right?
5a) Wow. Really? Pedantic? Oh the irony of wishing that nobody take the time to analyze your theory in detail. If you think you have a formal theory that you want taken seriously, then don't throw a hissy fit when it's "seriously" critiqued.
5b) Correct, you don't need to "know" a metric, but you do need some kind of metric. Perception acts as a type of binary difference metric, allowing things to be distinguishable from their counterparts. It's a first-order metric; things like the metric system are second-order metrics. We can never test whether distance defines itself in the observable sense because it would require that we collect empirical information about it in a universe void of any and all observers (an impossibility). What we do know is that we identify distance via observation in all cases.
6) My constructive criticism (which I specifically referenced as "constructive criticism") was that additional clarification was needed, and I've written a couple posts now that highlight why that's the case.
7) No, as written it isn't at all clear that points A and B are off the coil. When I read the analogy, I actually thought you meant something like this: Coil Unwound -----> [A.]UUUUUU[B.] Coil Wound -----> [A.] llll [B.]
Try reading it that way. It isn't hard to do. Again, I'm not a wizard, and I can't read your thoughts.
8 ) I sound very incoherent, don't I?
-
So literally all you have is mindless repitition of the same old bullshit and a refusal to address a single word I say.
Except I adressed it all. I did answer to all your points. I am sorry if you are too illiterate to read it. Maybe have someone else help you if that's the case?
Well you seem to struggle with any honest discussion, so go ahead. Have a blast.
Except that I am not you, so no, I'm not going to engage in any meaningless discussion made up of purely insults etc. So, can you please start debating honestly for once? It doesn't matter what you believe, my equations are unaffected by your opinions and unjustified claims. You have to give a fact which conflicts with my equation to prove it wrong.
-
Okay, so it's an outline/overview. In that case, when people have questions, it's probably counterintuitive to keep deferring them back to the outline as though it should contain all of the detail necessary to answer them (and then blame them when they tell you it didn't help). Furthermore, if you don't know what questions will be asked, you also shouldn't be surprised at what comments are made (e.g. "I don't get it").
So, straw man. I see. I only refer people back to the model when the answers are there, as I've explicitly said. I also clarify the model when they actually explain what's not understood, rather than asserting and expecting me to read their mind.
Specifically, I'd like to know what you think this "universal law" applies to
And this is yet another time for me to refer you to the model where this is explicitly stated. Diffusion, pressure...
I apply it to aether also because I see no reason it would not apply. We have not tested any law for all situations at all points at all times, for all materials: we simply make the justified assumption.
Do you physically distinguish between aether and space in any way? If not, then if the natural law (of physics?) applying to it is "universal," how is aether different from space as currently understood in modern science (the point being that this "universal law" should also apply to space as currently understood by modern science, and thus you aren't introducing anything new by premising your theory upon aether)?
It is not currently applied to space because if it were this would render RE physics incoherent. There is no adequately explained reason for why it is not.
What do you mean by "concentrations?" For something to be "concentrated," It needs a reference point (e.g. "not concentrated"). This leads me to ask, what are the boundaries of the concentrations? In other words, what contains these various concentrations of aether?
Why on earth would they need to be contained in anything? They're constantly flowing.
You're correct, you can't define distance in the absence of space, but space also can't be defined in the absence of observation, or measured in the absence of distance metrics. I'm not being frivolous with my critique. Your definitions are lazy and will not be understood, as they are currently written, by any capable, critical thinker. But hey, it's just an overview, right?
Wow. Really? Pedantic? Oh the irony of wishing that nobody take the time to analyze your theory in detail. If you think you have a formal theory that you want taken seriously, then don't throw a hissy fit when it's "seriously" critiqued.
You are being plainly frivolous. Distance does not cease to exist simply because it's not being looked at.
A serious critique consists of more than childish whinging. Don't you dare act like justified annoyance is anything else: you are obsessing over trivailities that no one who put any thought into it whatsoever could possibly misunderstand. You've been corrected, and you still insist I must be pushing a completely different, incoherent meaning.
No, as written it isn't at all clear that points A and B are off the coil. When I read the analogy, I actually thought you meant something like this:
In which case it still makes perfect sense as A and B could be modelled as points at the ends of the coil. So, yes, perfectly clear, you're just wasting time again.
Except that I am not you, so no, I'm not going to engage in any meaningless discussion made up of purely insults etc. So, can you please start debating honestly for once? It doesn't matter what you believe, my equations are unaffected by your opinions and unjustified claims. You have to give a fact which conflicts with my equation to prove it wrong.
I am debating honestly. One or two cusses does not remove from the substance of the discussion: the fact you think it does says far more about you. Address my responses, or stop wasting my time.
-
Okay, so it's an outline/overview. In that case, when people have questions, it's probably counterintuitive to keep deferring them back to the outline as though it should contain all of the detail necessary to answer them (and then blame them when they tell you it didn't help). Furthermore, if you don't know what questions will be asked, you also shouldn't be surprised at what comments are made (e.g. "I don't get it").
So, straw man. I see. I only refer people back to the model when the answers are there, as I've explicitly said. I also clarify the model when they actually explain what's not understood, rather than asserting and expecting me to read their mind.
Specifically, I'd like to know what you think this "universal law" applies to
And this is yet another time for me to refer you to the model where this is explicitly stated. Diffusion, pressure...
I apply it to aether also because I see no reason it would not apply. We have not tested any law for all situations at all points at all times, for all materials: we simply make the justified assumption.
Do you physically distinguish between aether and space in any way? If not, then if the natural law (of physics?) applying to it is "universal," how is aether different from space as currently understood in modern science (the point being that this "universal law" should also apply to space as currently understood by modern science, and thus you aren't introducing anything new by premising your theory upon aether)?
It is not currently applied to space because if it were this would render RE physics incoherent. There is no adequately explained reason for why it is not.
What do you mean by "concentrations?" For something to be "concentrated," It needs a reference point (e.g. "not concentrated"). This leads me to ask, what are the boundaries of the concentrations? In other words, what contains these various concentrations of aether?
Why on earth would they need to be contained in anything? They're constantly flowing.
You're correct, you can't define distance in the absence of space, but space also can't be defined in the absence of observation, or measured in the absence of distance metrics. I'm not being frivolous with my critique. Your definitions are lazy and will not be understood, as they are currently written, by any capable, critical thinker. But hey, it's just an overview, right?
Wow. Really? Pedantic? Oh the irony of wishing that nobody take the time to analyze your theory in detail. If you think you have a formal theory that you want taken seriously, then don't throw a hissy fit when it's "seriously" critiqued.
You are being plainly frivolous. Distance does not cease to exist simply because it's not being looked at.
A serious critique consists of more than childish whinging. Don't you dare act like justified annoyance is anything else: you are obsessing over trivailities that no one who put any thought into it whatsoever could possibly misunderstand. You've been corrected, and you still insist I must be pushing a completely different, incoherent meaning.
No, as written it isn't at all clear that points A and B are off the coil. When I read the analogy, I actually thought you meant something like this:
In which case it still makes perfect sense as A and B could be modelled as points at the ends of the coil. So, yes, perfectly clear, you're just wasting time again.
Except that I am not you, so no, I'm not going to engage in any meaningless discussion made up of purely insults etc. So, can you please start debating honestly for once? It doesn't matter what you believe, my equations are unaffected by your opinions and unjustified claims. You have to give a fact which conflicts with my equation to prove it wrong.
I am debating honestly. One or two cusses does not remove from the substance of the discussion: the fact you think it does says far more about you. Address my responses, or stop wasting my time.
1) Fine, we don't need to beat a dead horse.
2) Telling me the law applies universally to "diffusion, pressure..." doesn't tell me much of anything. First, I don't know what else the "..." is referring to. More importantly, diffusion and pressure are applicable to substances which can be diffused or pressurized, and so I'm asking because I'm trying to understand what aether is, in terms of substance, so I can know why this tendency applies to it.
3) So again I ask: How do you physically distinguish between aether and space such that this natural tendency/law applies to aether and not space? Or are you saying there is no substantive difference, and "RE physics" simply ignores or forgets this tendency should apply to space?
4) Any substance must be contained, regardless of whether its flowing or not. If the substance didn't have boundaries, it would be indistinguishable from anything else. If aether is flowing, it begs the question, "...Flowing through what?"
5a) That's ridiculous. Call it frivolous all you want, but formal theories undergo rigorous scrutiny and analysis. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want people to unquestionably accept the details at the expense of serious consideration of your theory, so be it. Just don't be surprised when it never gains any credibility among any capable thinker giving it more than a cursory glance.
5b) Does physical distance maintain itself in the absence of perception? I don't know; nobody knows because there is no theoretical way to prove this is the case. To assume it does is, well, an assumption (and an unnecessary one). If you think you have a way to prove it does, I'm all ears. I would challenge you to provide a single example of distance verified in the absence of perception. Just one.
5c) Ah, the authoritarian "you've been corrected" routine. We both know how that one goes, and I'm not getting into an "I told you so" match. Out of curiosity, how many people understand your theory to the point where you would let them speak about it on your behalf and you would trust their accuracy of understanding?
6) If points A and B are on the coil, then an agent walking along the coil travels the same distance from A to B regardless of whether the coil is wound or unwound. If A and B are off the coil, then an agent walking along the coil has a farther distance to travel from A to B if the coil is wound. If A and B are off the coil, then it contradicts your statement that "...no matter what, it's the same distance from A to B [for an agent walking along the coil]."
-
Okay, so it's an outline/overview. In that case, when people have questions, it's probably counterintuitive to keep deferring them back to the outline as though it should contain all of the detail necessary to answer them (and then blame them when they tell you it didn't help). Furthermore, if you don't know what questions will be asked, you also shouldn't be surprised at what comments are made (e.g. "I don't get it").
So, straw man. I see. I only refer people back to the model when the answers are there, as I've explicitly said. I also clarify the model when they actually explain what's not understood, rather than asserting and expecting me to read their mind.
Specifically, I'd like to know what you think this "universal law" applies to
And this is yet another time for me to refer you to the model where this is explicitly stated. Diffusion, pressure...
I apply it to aether also because I see no reason it would not apply. We have not tested any law for all situations at all points at all times, for all materials: we simply make the justified assumption.
Do you physically distinguish between aether and space in any way? If not, then if the natural law (of physics?) applying to it is "universal," how is aether different from space as currently understood in modern science (the point being that this "universal law" should also apply to space as currently understood by modern science, and thus you aren't introducing anything new by premising your theory upon aether)?
It is not currently applied to space because if it were this would render RE physics incoherent. There is no adequately explained reason for why it is not.
What do you mean by "concentrations?" For something to be "concentrated," It needs a reference point (e.g. "not concentrated"). This leads me to ask, what are the boundaries of the concentrations? In other words, what contains these various concentrations of aether?
Why on earth would they need to be contained in anything? They're constantly flowing.
You're correct, you can't define distance in the absence of space, but space also can't be defined in the absence of observation, or measured in the absence of distance metrics. I'm not being frivolous with my critique. Your definitions are lazy and will not be understood, as they are currently written, by any capable, critical thinker. But hey, it's just an overview, right?
Wow. Really? Pedantic? Oh the irony of wishing that nobody take the time to analyze your theory in detail. If you think you have a formal theory that you want taken seriously, then don't throw a hissy fit when it's "seriously" critiqued.
You are being plainly frivolous. Distance does not cease to exist simply because it's not being looked at.
A serious critique consists of more than childish whinging. Don't you dare act like justified annoyance is anything else: you are obsessing over trivailities that no one who put any thought into it whatsoever could possibly misunderstand. You've been corrected, and you still insist I must be pushing a completely different, incoherent meaning.
No, as written it isn't at all clear that points A and B are off the coil. When I read the analogy, I actually thought you meant something like this:
In which case it still makes perfect sense as A and B could be modelled as points at the ends of the coil. So, yes, perfectly clear, you're just wasting time again.
Except that I am not you, so no, I'm not going to engage in any meaningless discussion made up of purely insults etc. So, can you please start debating honestly for once? It doesn't matter what you believe, my equations are unaffected by your opinions and unjustified claims. You have to give a fact which conflicts with my equation to prove it wrong.
I am debating honestly. One or two cusses does not remove from the substance of the discussion: the fact you think it does says far more about you. Address my responses, or stop wasting my time.
1) Fine, we don't need to beat a dead horse.
2) Telling me the law applies universally to "diffusion, pressure..." doesn't tell me much of anything. First, I don't know what else the "..." is referring to. More importantly, diffusion and pressure are applicable to substances which can be diffused or pressurized, and so I'm asking because I'm trying to understand what aether is, in terms of substance, so I can know why this tendency applies to it.
3) So again I ask: How do you physically distinguish between aether and space such that this natural tendency/law applies to aether and not space? Or are you saying there is no substantive difference, and "RE physics" simply ignores or forgets this tendency should apply to space?
4) Any substance must be contained, regardless of whether its flowing or not. If the substance didn't have boundaries, it would be indistinguishable from anything else. If aether is flowing, it begs the question, "...Flowing through what?"
5a) That's ridiculous. Call it frivolous all you want, but formal theories undergo rigorous scrutiny and analysis. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want people to unquestionably accept the details at the expense of serious consideration of your theory, so be it. Just don't be surprised when it never gains any credibility among any capable thinker giving it more than a cursory glance.
5b) Does physical distance maintain itself in the absence of perception? I don't know; nobody knows because there is no theoretical way to prove this is the case. To assume it does is, well, an assumption (and an unnecessary one). If you think you have a way to prove it does, I'm all ears. I would challenge you to provide a single example of distance verified in the absence of perception. Just one.
5c) Ah, the authoritarian "you've been corrected" routine. We both know how that one goes, and I'm not getting into an "I told you so" match. Out of curiosity, how many people understand your theory to the point where you would let them speak about it on your behalf and you would trust their accuracy of understanding?
6) If points A and B are on the coil, then an agent walking along the coil travels the same distance from A to B regardless of whether the coil is wound or unwound. If A and B are off the coil, then an agent walking along the coil has a farther distance to travel from A to B if the coil is wound. If A and B are off the coil, then it contradicts your statement that "...no matter what, it's the same distance from A to B [for an agent walking along the coil]."
Huh, I've never thought about point 5c.
-
Okay, so it's an outline/overview. In that case, when people have questions, it's probably counterintuitive to keep deferring them back to the outline as though it should contain all of the detail necessary to answer them (and then blame them when they tell you it didn't help). Furthermore, if you don't know what questions will be asked, you also shouldn't be surprised at what comments are made (e.g. "I don't get it").
So, straw man. I see. I only refer people back to the model when the answers are there, as I've explicitly said. I also clarify the model when they actually explain what's not understood, rather than asserting and expecting me to read their mind.
Specifically, I'd like to know what you think this "universal law" applies to
And this is yet another time for me to refer you to the model where this is explicitly stated. Diffusion, pressure...
I apply it to aether also because I see no reason it would not apply. We have not tested any law for all situations at all points at all times, for all materials: we simply make the justified assumption.
Do you physically distinguish between aether and space in any way? If not, then if the natural law (of physics?) applying to it is "universal," how is aether different from space as currently understood in modern science (the point being that this "universal law" should also apply to space as currently understood by modern science, and thus you aren't introducing anything new by premising your theory upon aether)?
It is not currently applied to space because if it were this would render RE physics incoherent. There is no adequately explained reason for why it is not.
What do you mean by "concentrations?" For something to be "concentrated," It needs a reference point (e.g. "not concentrated"). This leads me to ask, what are the boundaries of the concentrations? In other words, what contains these various concentrations of aether?
Why on earth would they need to be contained in anything? They're constantly flowing.
You're correct, you can't define distance in the absence of space, but space also can't be defined in the absence of observation, or measured in the absence of distance metrics. I'm not being frivolous with my critique. Your definitions are lazy and will not be understood, as they are currently written, by any capable, critical thinker. But hey, it's just an overview, right?
Wow. Really? Pedantic? Oh the irony of wishing that nobody take the time to analyze your theory in detail. If you think you have a formal theory that you want taken seriously, then don't throw a hissy fit when it's "seriously" critiqued.
You are being plainly frivolous. Distance does not cease to exist simply because it's not being looked at.
A serious critique consists of more than childish whinging. Don't you dare act like justified annoyance is anything else: you are obsessing over trivailities that no one who put any thought into it whatsoever could possibly misunderstand. You've been corrected, and you still insist I must be pushing a completely different, incoherent meaning.
No, as written it isn't at all clear that points A and B are off the coil. When I read the analogy, I actually thought you meant something like this:
In which case it still makes perfect sense as A and B could be modelled as points at the ends of the coil. So, yes, perfectly clear, you're just wasting time again.
Except that I am not you, so no, I'm not going to engage in any meaningless discussion made up of purely insults etc. So, can you please start debating honestly for once? It doesn't matter what you believe, my equations are unaffected by your opinions and unjustified claims. You have to give a fact which conflicts with my equation to prove it wrong.
I am debating honestly. One or two cusses does not remove from the substance of the discussion: the fact you think it does says far more about you. Address my responses, or stop wasting my time.
1) Fine, we don't need to beat a dead horse.
2) Telling me the law applies universally to "diffusion, pressure..." doesn't tell me much of anything. First, I don't know what else the "..." is referring to. More importantly, diffusion and pressure are applicable to substances which can be diffused or pressurized, and so I'm asking because I'm trying to understand what aether is, in terms of substance, so I can know why this tendency applies to it.
3) So again I ask: How do you physically distinguish between aether and space such that this natural tendency/law applies to aether and not space? Or are you saying there is no substantive difference, and "RE physics" simply ignores or forgets this tendency should apply to space?
4) Any substance must be contained, regardless of whether its flowing or not. If the substance didn't have boundaries, it would be indistinguishable from anything else. If aether is flowing, it begs the question, "...Flowing through what?"
5a) That's ridiculous. Call it frivolous all you want, but formal theories undergo rigorous scrutiny and analysis. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want people to unquestionably accept the details at the expense of serious consideration of your theory, so be it. Just don't be surprised when it never gains any credibility among any capable thinker giving it more than a cursory glance.
5b) Does physical distance maintain itself in the absence of perception? I don't know; nobody knows because there is no theoretical way to prove this is the case. To assume it does is, well, an assumption (and an unnecessary one). If you think you have a way to prove it does, I'm all ears. I would challenge you to provide a single example of distance verified in the absence of perception. Just one.
5c) Ah, the authoritarian "you've been corrected" routine. We both know how that one goes, and I'm not getting into an "I told you so" match. Out of curiosity, how many people understand your theory to the point where you would let them speak about it on your behalf and you would trust their accuracy of understanding?
6) If points A and B are on the coil, then an agent walking along the coil travels the same distance from A to B regardless of whether the coil is wound or unwound. If A and B are off the coil, then an agent walking along the coil has a farther distance to travel from A to B if the coil is wound. If A and B are off the coil, then it contradicts your statement that "...no matter what, it's the same distance from A to B [for an agent walking along the coil]."
Huh, I've never thought about point 5c.
I assume it's important to him that, if his theory gains any traction, it is actually 'his' theory and not a butchered misrepresentation thereof. For, if he was satisfied that his theory gained traction in spite of its misrepresentation, then it would be a sign that he's in it for the recognition and not for the sake of honest, intellectual exploration.
-
On Aether
From your 1st post aether is defined with the following properties.
- Aether is space; by which I mean, the fabric of space
- More aether means more distance: less aether, less distance
- It exists in concentrations
- It moves from high concentrations to low concentrations
It's trivial to note that this exists in concentrations
You are writing a scientific paper, nothing is trivial, nothing is obvious. Remove those words from your life and vocabulary completely.
You made a statement that aether exists in concentrations. Just this statement alone requires much more explanation and LOTS of proof. You used examples which is great. But how do you know what is true for matter is true for aether. You expressly state that aether is not matter, using matter as a comparison as a proof can now no longer apply unless you can show it behaves like matter. Examples of one thing does not make another unrelated thing behave the same.
If that is unconvincing, mark it as an assumption
You did notice that you require more evidence it seems. This is good. However, if this is an assumption, all statements flowing from this property of aether must be considered assumptions too. You need to remove the doubt that come with assumptions before further statements can be taken seriously. Otherwise it will stay a thought experiment.
all theories are based on some (such as the definition if gravity relying on an assumption about mass, and the consequences of bent space)
Your stance on the proof of these is well known. But I strongly disagree with this statement, we have proof of gravity and its relation to mass. Your arguments are welcome, I can load you with lots of articles describing those proofs.
It's also simple to note that, as we exist in (sort of on, terminology's confusing) aether, when aether moves, we will move with it
Please don’t say it is simple to note. This is your theory and may be simple to you. But it is not simple to people who don’t know it. Your conclusions are not as intuitive as you may think.
Concerning your statement, I think it is a fair assessment based on one of your definitions of aether. However proof is still required to make it a definite.
All this is fairly easy to deduce
Many will disagree. You should not assume that others agree or see things the same way you do. You need to spell it out, especially concerning DEH because you are treading in new waters.
You then mention that Aether moves high to low concentrations. Again you are making an assumption that aether follows the laws of other things that are not related. I don’t have an issue with the statement, I have an issue with the assumption.
I am going to stop here for now. I am only commenting on your theory because you asked me to.
I can go into much more detail if you want. Don’t take anything I say personally, it is not.
-
Telling me the law applies universally to "diffusion, pressure..." doesn't tell me much of anything. First, I don't know what else the "..." is referring to. More importantly, diffusion and pressure are applicable to substances which can be diffused or pressurized, and so I'm asking because I'm trying to understand what aether is, in terms of substance, so I can know why this tendency applies to it.
It gives you examples of how we know this law is universal. High concentrations to low. What is it you don't understand?
So again I ask: How do you physically distinguish between aether and space such that this natural tendency/law applies to aether and not space? Or are you saying there is no substantive difference, and "RE physics" simply ignores or forgets this tendency should apply to space?
The latter, clearly. Have you been paying any attention whatsoever? Aether and space are the same thing. "It is not currently applied to space because if it were this would render RE physics incoherent. There is no adequately explained reason for why it is not." As I said, don't just ignore my answers.
Any substance must be contained, regardless of whether its flowing or not. If the substance didn't have boundaries, it would be indistinguishable from anything else. If aether is flowing, it begs the question, "...Flowing through what?"
Some five dimensional manifold, this is where it gets tricky in both models. Take space bending, as RET predicts: bending in what direction? For what we're actually concerned with, the only meaningful boundary is the edge of space.
That's ridiculous. Call it frivolous all you want, but formal theories undergo rigorous scrutiny and analysis. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want people to unquestionably accept the details at the expense of serious consideration of your theory, so be it. Just don't be surprised when it never gains any credibility among any capable thinker giving it more than a cursory glance
Back to straw men, I see.
Does physical distance maintain itself in the absence of perception? I don't know; nobody knows because there is no theoretical way to prove this is the case. To assume it does is, well, an assumption (and an unnecessary one). If you think you have a way to prove it does, I'm all ears. I would challenge you to provide a single example of distance verified in the absence of perception. Just one.
And maybe I secretly turn into a giant pink elephant when no one's looking at me. Who cares? You're being ridiculous. That kind of what is basically just suped up paranoia has no place in any kind of scientific discussion. needless complexities are rejected.
Out of curiosity, how many people understand your theory to the point where you would let them speak about it on your behalf and you would trust their accuracy of understanding?
No idea. I only know of one person who I've felt sure is genuinely trying to learn it, and that's ongoing. Typically I don't have much contact with people who understand it enough to not ask questions, for obvious reasons.
If points A and B are on the coil, then an agent walking along the coil travels the same distance from A to B regardless of whether the coil is wound or unwound. If A and B are off the coil, then an agent walking along the coil has a farther distance to travel from A to B if the coil is wound. If A and B are off the coil, then it contradicts your statement that "...no matter what, it's the same distance from A to B [for an agent walking along the coil]."
What are you talking about?! It says right there, it's someone going along the coil.
You are writing a scientific paper, nothing is trivial, nothing is obvious. Remove those words from your life and vocabulary completely.
That's false. Trivial solutions and trivial observations are fundamental to anything mathematical or scientific. At this stage, we're strictly dealing with logic (akin to math), and triviality is a well-used and known concept there.
But how do you know what is true for matter is true for aether. You expressly state that aether is not matter, using matter as a comparison as a proof can now no longer apply unless you can show it behaves like matter. Examples of one thing does not make another unrelated thing behave the same.
It's true for energy as well. My primary logic is simply that I'm not going to propose an exception to what would appear to be universal. This is a well-known idea: it's how laws are defined. Has the second law of thermodynamics been tested for all chemical reactions, at all places, at all times, or do we conclude based on limited observation of a certain subset, and logic?
You did notice that you require more evidence it seems. This is good. However, if this is an assumption, all statements flowing from this property of aether must be considered assumptions too. You need to remove the doubt that come with assumptions before further statements can be taken seriously. Otherwise it will stay a thought experiment.
All statements flowing from it aren't assumptions in their own right: if anything, they're part of the same assumption, as necessary consequences. Regardless, evidence for the model is given in its own section.
Your stance on the proof of these is well known. But I strongly disagree with this statement, we have proof of gravity and its relation to mass. Your arguments are welcome, I can load you with lots of articles describing those proofs.
We see a relation, but the reason why remains an assumption.
Many will disagree. You should not assume that others agree or see things the same way you do. You need to spell it out, especially concerning DEH because you are treading in new waters.
Often the notes for "It's simple to..." are gauges for the reader: they can determine if they understand what's been said, or not. They're signposts. If what I say isn't immediately obvious, they know to go back and double check they've got the right idea.
-
I am debating honestly. One or two cusses does not remove from the substance of the discussion: the fact you think it does says far more about you. Address my responses, or stop wasting my time.
Did you mean curses? No, they don't necessarily remove any substance form the discussion, but they don't add anything either and they remove the focus from the actual point unless used correctly so that they strengthen the effect of an argument. I have responded to your opinions and unjustified claims - they are just that. I am eagerly waiting for any kind of justification from you. Saying that the double azimuthal is too inaccurate is just your opinions until you actually point out the inaccuracies and their size. And it doesn't falsify my equation anyways, it can't. I will ONLY ever falsify the value in my equation which is the length of the orbit, which has to be corrected if that's the case. My equation is simply just an equivalence equation, nothing else.
-
That's false. Trivial solutions and trivial observations are fundamental to anything mathematical or scientific. At this stage, we're strictly dealing with logic (akin to math), and triviality is a well-used and known concept there.
Trivial is that 1+1 = 2 that is math
Does it follow that this is also trivial because it is math.
(http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cdisplaystyle+J%28x%29+%3D+Li%28x%29+%2B+%5Csum_%7B%5Crho%7D+Li%28x%5E%5Crho%29+-+%5Clog+2+%2B+%5Cint_%7Bx%7D%5E%5Cinfty+%5Cfrac%7Bdt%7D%7Bt%28t%5E2+-+1%29%5Clog+t%7D+&bg=ffffff&fg=2b2b2b&s=2)
You are introducing a new concept to the world, consider then than nothing is obvious. I am not saying this to break you down. It is for the improvement of both the hypothesis and the explanation of it.
It's true for energy as well. My primary logic is simply that I'm not going to propose an exception to what would appear to be universal. This is a well-known idea: it's how laws are defined. Has the second law of thermodynamics been tested for all chemical reactions, at all places, at all times, or do we conclude based on limited observation of a certain subset, and logic?
Although I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, my questions still goes unanswered. You have a substance that does not behave the same as matter, where does it, and where does it not behave the same? You need to draw those lines clearly. Why things behave that way are not necessary yet. How they behave is.
All statements flowing from it aren't assumptions in their own right: if anything, they're part of the same assumption, as necessary consequences. Regardless, evidence for the model is given in its own section.
Anything that requires an assumption to be true can also be considered an assumption. If certain things do not require any assumptions to be true, then they can be considered to be true. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. You need to make sure all your links are strong, starting from the first.
We see a relation, but the reason why remains an assumption.
I have said this regarding DEH, the why is always less important.
- Did person A murder person B? If yes he goes to jail regardless of the why.
- Do rocks float in water? If no, building a raft out of rock would be a bad choice of material regardless of why.
- Does mass attract other mass as described by Newton and Einstein? Yes it does, which is good because otherwise we would float off into space. Why is a less important question.
Notice the first question has a Yes or No answer. Why does not result in yes or no answer. Meaning its answer always leaves for more follow up questions. Which is good for the start of an investigation, not the end of it.
Often the notes for "It's simple to..." are gauges for the reader: they can determine if they understand what's been said, or not. They're signposts. If what I say isn't immediately obvious, they know to go back and double check they've got the right idea.
I did mention this previously. Also, there are many things that you have not yet described. for example evidence that everyone is hounding you on.
Here are some questions I would like answered. If you have not tested, seen some test that shows it or know of someone that has tested what I asked, then you are not ready to answer a question. If you dont know, its okay. If you have an answer, then I suggest you take the question, with its answer and citations references that go with it and place it in your information depository.
Can you measure aether density?
Can you show that there is a difference between aether and gravity?
Can you show that there is a difference between aether and air?
Can you show that the movement of aether moves matter with it?
Can you show that aether moves from high concentrations to low concentrations?
-
I am eagerly waiting for any kind of justification from you. Saying that the double azimuthal is too inaccurate is just your opinions until you actually point out the inaccuracies and their size. And it doesn't falsify my equation anyways, it can't. I will ONLY ever falsify the value in my equation which is the length of the orbit, which has to be corrected if that's the case. My equation is simply just an equivalence equation, nothing else.
I can't give the exact error bars: I don't have those resources. You're just wasting time. off-topic blather, whining about language, and you concede that the length of the orbit (crucial to your equation) has been falsified, so your equation proves nothing. I don't know what else I need to do. Stop wasting time.
You have a substance that does not behave the same as matter, where does it, and where does it not behave the same? You need to draw those lines clearly. Why things behave that way are not necessary yet. How they behave is.
It obeys the same laws as matter. The only difference in behavior is down to the difference in the kind of substance it is. For example, water doesn't act the same way as solid ice, as it flows: but the same laws act on both. Aether loses viscosity, mass... The only differences in behavior is when the laws that govern matter don't apply.
Anything that requires an assumption to be true can also be considered an assumption. If certain things do not require any assumptions to be true, then they can be considered to be true. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. You need to make sure all your links are strong, starting from the first.
A necessary deduction from an assumption is not a new assumption. That's all. Every scientific model is based on certain assumptions: something can only be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not completely. Every observation has multiple explanations.
Does mass attract other mass as described by Newton and Einstein? Yes it does, which is good because otherwise we would float off into space. Why is a less important question.
There is more to the theory of gravity than that: mass bending space, for example. There does not necessarily need to be an explicitly given why, but there needs to be an inkling of one, else a reasonable conclusion would be the lack of any connection.
I did mention this previously. Also, there are many things that you have not yet described. for example evidence that everyone is hounding you on.
The evidence is given explicitly. So long as you don't go in presupposing RET, it holds.
Can you measure aether density?
Can you show that there is a difference between aether and gravity?
Can you show that there is a difference between aether and air?
Can you show that the movement of aether moves matter with it?
Can you show that aether moves from high concentrations to low concentrations?
1. Indirectly: we can measure consequences.
2. Yes, if I had the resorces. Aether decreases discontinuously with altitude.
3. I don't see how the two could be confused.
For 4 and 5, the evidence is the same as the evidence for any theory: the model explains observations. That's all theories are.
-
I am eagerly waiting for any kind of justification from you. Saying that the double azimuthal is too inaccurate is just your opinions until you actually point out the inaccuracies and their size. And it doesn't falsify my equation anyways, it can't. I will ONLY ever falsify the value in my equation which is the length of the orbit, which has to be corrected if that's the case. My equation is simply just an equivalence equation, nothing else.
I can't give the exact error bars: I don't have those resources. You're just wasting time. off-topic blather, whining about language, and you concede that the length of the orbit (crucial to your equation) has been falsified, so your equation proves nothing. I don't know what else I need to do. Stop wasting time.
No, the length of the orbit has not been falsified. And as long as we have the right length of the orbit, the equation will work. If you wanted to you could do your own measurement of the length of the orbit on any map, as long as you get the real value (so if the map is distorted, which it shouldn't have to be if the earth is flat, you should account for that), or close enough.
-
Everyone is running into the problems I stated here about Aether. You will get answers but not the answers you seek (definitely no measurements - so don't ask). Aether and the answers change as needed. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64710.msg1736135#msg1736135 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64710.msg1736135#msg1736135))
-
Telling me the law applies universally to "diffusion, pressure..." doesn't tell me much of anything. First, I don't know what else the "..." is referring to. More importantly, diffusion and pressure are applicable to substances which can be diffused or pressurized, and so I'm asking because I'm trying to understand what aether is, in terms of substance, so I can know why this tendency applies to it.
It gives you examples of how we know this law is universal. High concentrations to low. What is it you don't understand?
So again I ask: How do you physically distinguish between aether and space such that this natural tendency/law applies to aether and not space? Or are you saying there is no substantive difference, and "RE physics" simply ignores or forgets this tendency should apply to space?
The latter, clearly. Have you been paying any attention whatsoever? Aether and space are the same thing. "It is not currently applied to space because if it were this would render RE physics incoherent. There is no adequately explained reason for why it is not." As I said, don't just ignore my answers.
Any substance must be contained, regardless of whether its flowing or not. If the substance didn't have boundaries, it would be indistinguishable from anything else. If aether is flowing, it begs the question, "...Flowing through what?"
Some five dimensional manifold, this is where it gets tricky in both models. Take space bending, as RET predicts: bending in what direction? For what we're actually concerned with, the only meaningful boundary is the edge of space.
That's ridiculous. Call it frivolous all you want, but formal theories undergo rigorous scrutiny and analysis. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want people to unquestionably accept the details at the expense of serious consideration of your theory, so be it. Just don't be surprised when it never gains any credibility among any capable thinker giving it more than a cursory glance
Back to straw men, I see.
Does physical distance maintain itself in the absence of perception? I don't know; nobody knows because there is no theoretical way to prove this is the case. To assume it does is, well, an assumption (and an unnecessary one). If you think you have a way to prove it does, I'm all ears. I would challenge you to provide a single example of distance verified in the absence of perception. Just one.
And maybe I secretly turn into a giant pink elephant when no one's looking at me. Who cares? You're being ridiculous. That kind of what is basically just suped up paranoia has no place in any kind of scientific discussion. needless complexities are rejected.
Out of curiosity, how many people understand your theory to the point where you would let them speak about it on your behalf and you would trust their accuracy of understanding?
No idea. I only know of one person who I've felt sure is genuinely trying to learn it, and that's ongoing. Typically I don't have much contact with people who understand it enough to not ask questions, for obvious reasons.
If points A and B are on the coil, then an agent walking along the coil travels the same distance from A to B regardless of whether the coil is wound or unwound. If A and B are off the coil, then an agent walking along the coil has a farther distance to travel from A to B if the coil is wound. If A and B are off the coil, then it contradicts your statement that "...no matter what, it's the same distance from A to B [for an agent walking along the coil]."
What are you talking about?! It says right there, it's someone going along the coil.
You are writing a scientific paper, nothing is trivial, nothing is obvious. Remove those words from your life and vocabulary completely.
That's false. Trivial solutions and trivial observations are fundamental to anything mathematical or scientific. At this stage, we're strictly dealing with logic (akin to math), and triviality is a well-used and known concept there.
But how do you know what is true for matter is true for aether. You expressly state that aether is not matter, using matter as a comparison as a proof can now no longer apply unless you can show it behaves like matter. Examples of one thing does not make another unrelated thing behave the same.
It's true for energy as well. My primary logic is simply that I'm not going to propose an exception to what would appear to be universal. This is a well-known idea: it's how laws are defined. Has the second law of thermodynamics been tested for all chemical reactions, at all places, at all times, or do we conclude based on limited observation of a certain subset, and logic?
You did notice that you require more evidence it seems. This is good. However, if this is an assumption, all statements flowing from this property of aether must be considered assumptions too. You need to remove the doubt that come with assumptions before further statements can be taken seriously. Otherwise it will stay a thought experiment.
All statements flowing from it aren't assumptions in their own right: if anything, they're part of the same assumption, as necessary consequences. Regardless, evidence for the model is given in its own section.
Your stance on the proof of these is well known. But I strongly disagree with this statement, we have proof of gravity and its relation to mass. Your arguments are welcome, I can load you with lots of articles describing those proofs.
We see a relation, but the reason why remains an assumption.
Many will disagree. You should not assume that others agree or see things the same way you do. You need to spell it out, especially concerning DEH because you are treading in new waters.
Often the notes for "It's simple to..." are gauges for the reader: they can determine if they understand what's been said, or not. They're signposts. If what I say isn't immediately obvious, they know to go back and double check they've got the right idea.
1) I don't understand why you think physical tendencies necessarily apply to something that you describe as not being comprised of matter.
2) You don't provide an explanation for why the tendency should apply to space as understood by "RE physics."
3) Five-dimensional manifold, eh? Any evidence for this? Furthermore, does "edge of space" make sense? What comprises the edge of space?
4) The straw men appear real from where I sit.
5) In empirical science, everything is dependent upon observation. No observation --> no data. In quantum mechanics, it's a basic tenant that that which cannot be observed cannot be concluded upon. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to observe it, did it really fall? Answer: Invalid question; we have no means for verification.
As for "needless complexities," who's going off about unverified five-dimensional manifolds to support the idea of aether which supports your dual-earth model?
6) So, no one that you can specifically identify? Hm. Think about that.
7) Are you a goldfish?
-
No, the length of the orbit has not been falsified. And as long as we have the right length of the orbit, the equation will work. If you wanted to you could do your own measurement of the length of the orbit on any map, as long as you get the real value (so if the map is distorted, which it shouldn't have to be if the earth is flat, you should account for that), or close enough.
How do you ascertain that the length of the orbit is accurate, given that the map you are relying on is not? Your sole answer to that has been to suppose with no justification facts about the orbit of the ISS.
1) I don't understand why you think physical tendencies necessarily apply to something that you describe as not being comprised of matter.
2) You don't provide an explanation for why the tendency should apply to space as understood by "RE physics."
You have yet to provide any issue with the justification I have given. I'm not going to waste time. until you can point out an actual problem beyond handwaving "But I don't like it!" there's no point in conversing.
3) Five-dimensional manifold, eh? Any evidence for this? Furthermore, does "edge of space" make sense? What comprises the edge of space?
This is in your own model too. I'm not wasting time debating existing areas of physics, I'm concerned with DET.
4) The straw men appear real from where I sit.
5) In empirical science, everything is dependent upon observation. No observation --> no data. In quantum mechanics, it's a basic tenant that that which cannot be observed cannot be concluded upon. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to observe it, did it really fall? Answer: Invalid question; we have no means for verification.
That's because you're ignoring everything I say. We are not at the quantum level, why is it so common for pretentious twits to try and act like quantum behavior means anything at this level?!
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to observe it, did it really fall? Answer: yes, because existing behavior does not magically stop working.
As for "needless complexities," who's going off about unverified five-dimensional manifolds to support the idea of aether which supports your dual-earth model?
A manifold on which space exists is part of your model too (Kaluza-Klein). What direction does space bend in, under RET? I'm not wasting time on hypocrisy.
So, no one that you can specifically identify? Hm. Think about that.
Hmm, maybe you should read what I actually wrote rather than purposefully ignoring it to make a pathetic point.
Are you a goldfish?
Are you? it was in what you quoted. At this stage you can only claim illiteracy.
-
No, the length of the orbit has not been falsified. And as long as we have the right length of the orbit, the equation will work. If you wanted to you could do your own measurement of the length of the orbit on any map, as long as you get the real value (so if the map is distorted, which it shouldn't have to be if the earth is flat, you should account for that), or close enough.
How do you ascertain that the length of the orbit is accurate, given that the map you are relying on is not? Your sole answer to that has been to suppose with no justification facts about the orbit of the ISS.
I take a map that is not horribly distorted and get a value that is close enough to the real value. Of course, depending one the shape of the earth the length of the orbit will vary, but that is also why I made two equations. If the flat earth equation says the ISS is in the atmosphere but the round earth one says it is in space, then my equation does not prove anything. If both says space, then it is in space. If both says in atmosphere, then it is in the atmosphere, with a really high certainty, just as with any experiment/measurement. How do you know that the distance is exactly 1cm between two centimeter markers on a ruler? You don't, and you can never tell because you don't have the resources to do it, probably. But it is probably close enough to a centimeter to not matter, and if the majority of people says it is accurate enough or better, then it can probably be used.
-
No, the length of the orbit has not been falsified. And as long as we have the right length of the orbit, the equation will work. If you wanted to you could do your own measurement of the length of the orbit on any map, as long as you get the real value (so if the map is distorted, which it shouldn't have to be if the earth is flat, you should account for that), or close enough.
How do you ascertain that the length of the orbit is accurate, given that the map you are relying on is not? Your sole answer to that has been to suppose with no justification facts about the orbit of the ISS.
1) I don't understand why you think physical tendencies necessarily apply to something that you describe as not being comprised of matter.
2) You don't provide an explanation for why the tendency should apply to space as understood by "RE physics."
You have yet to provide any issue with the justification I have given. I'm not going to waste time. until you can point out an actual problem beyond handwaving "But I don't like it!" there's no point in conversing.
3) Five-dimensional manifold, eh? Any evidence for this? Furthermore, does "edge of space" make sense? What comprises the edge of space?
This is in your own model too. I'm not wasting time debating existing areas of physics, I'm concerned with DET.
4) The straw men appear real from where I sit.
5) In empirical science, everything is dependent upon observation. No observation --> no data. In quantum mechanics, it's a basic tenant that that which cannot be observed cannot be concluded upon. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to observe it, did it really fall? Answer: Invalid question; we have no means for verification.
That's because you're ignoring everything I say. We are not at the quantum level, why is it so common for pretentious twits to try and act like quantum behavior means anything at this level?!
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to observe it, did it really fall? Answer: yes, because existing behavior does not magically stop working.
As for "needless complexities," who's going off about unverified five-dimensional manifolds to support the idea of aether which supports your dual-earth model?
A manifold on which space exists is part of your model too (Kaluza-Klein). What direction does space bend in, under RET? I'm not wasting time on hypocrisy.
So, no one that you can specifically identify? Hm. Think about that.
Hmm, maybe you should read what I actually wrote rather than purposefully ignoring it to make a pathetic point.
Are you a goldfish?
Are you? it was in what you quoted. At this stage you can only claim illiteracy.
Result of discourse: I have no further desire to try to learn about your theory, and you have failed to effectively communicate your ideas to (another) member of your audience.
Good luck with it. Maybe someday you won't be the only person in the entire world who understands it.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/udJzK5B.jpg)
Looks convincing.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/udJzK5B.jpg)
Looks convincing.
I'm still not clear why the Sun can heat the Earth (magma) on all the inner surfaces of the hemidisks (to the equators) but not melt the Moon and planets. I would also imagine the ground under the poles is hotter than at the equator??
-
Result of discourse: I have no further desire to try to learn about your theory, and you have failed to effectively communicate your ideas to (another) member of your audience.
You can't communicate effectively with someone who's not reading.
Looks convincing.
It's not meant to be convincing. It's a sketch, not the outline of the theory. Do you have anything substantial to say, or just more time wasting?
-
It's a sketch, not the outline of the theory. Do you have anything substantial to say, or just more time wasting?
I've met baboons on PCP who made clearer sketches, but essentially my substance is all in there.
If you were really developing a reasonable Earth Model, Beats All Others, why not outline the "theory" into something of substantial information?
Even sketches can have nice circles, annotation, scale and decency.
-
It's a sketch, not the outline of the theory. Do you have anything substantial to say, or just more time wasting?
I've met baboons on PCP who made clearer sketches, but essentially my substance is all in there.
If you were really developing a reasonable Earth Model, Beats All Others, why not outline the "theory" into something of substantial information?
Even sketches can have nice circles, annotation, scale and decency.
So, no addressing the actual model, just more whining about the sketch, a dash of outright ignoring the model, and timewasting. Get a life.
-
Result of discourse: I have no further desire to try to learn about your theory, and you have failed to effectively communicate your ideas to (another) member of your audience.
You can't communicate effectively with someone who's not reading.
Looks convincing.
It's not meant to be convincing. It's a sketch, not the outline of the theory. Do you have anything substantial to say, or just more time wasting?
If you want to act like a child and blame everyone but yourself for your theory's extraordinary shortcomings, go for it. Nobody at all understands what it means except for you, and so that means everyone else is stupid and can't read, right? You can even group me together with all other responders who supposedly have no idea how to read either, and I'll take it as a compliment. I haven't seen a single person acknowledge they understand what your theory says. Oh yeah, dude, I'm sure we're all just incompetent. Except you. You think you're smarter than all of us, don't you? ;)
Or you could be a good boy and learn from your peers who have courteously taken the time to provide serious and accurate criticism. The denial is so viscous you're waterboarding your theory with it. Either fix it, or let it drown in its current state of misery.
-
Result of discourse: I have no further desire to try to learn about your theory, and you have failed to effectively communicate your ideas to (another) member of your audience.
You can't communicate effectively with someone who's not reading.
Looks convincing.
It's not meant to be convincing. It's a sketch, not the outline of the theory. Do you have anything substantial to say, or just more time wasting?
If you want to act like a child and blame everyone but yourself for your theory's extraordinary shortcomings, go for it. Nobody at all understands what it means except for you, and so that means everyone else is stupid and can't read, right? You can even group me together with all other responders who supposedly have no idea how to read either, and I'll take it as a compliment. I haven't seen a single person acknowledge they understand what your theory says. Oh yeah, dude, I'm sure we're all just incompetent. Except you. You think you're smarter than all of us, don't you? ;)
Or you could be a good boy and learn from your peers who have courteously taken the time to provide serious and accurate criticism. The denial is so viscous you're waterboarding your theory with it. Either fix it, or let it drown in its current state of misery.
What people are you on about?! I am happy to take in actual criticism when it's offered. So far all I've seen is "Oh, it doesn't make sense" or "Oh, it's wrong," or "Oh *insert straw man here!*" none of which is any kind of addition.
But sure, just imagine those people exists, and imagine most people who're addressing DET aren't blatant trolls.
Fun fact for you: people who understand the model (and I know there are some) don't have any reason to post in these threads.
I've been working on a neatened up version for a while, but it's impossible to finish when it's like pulling teeth to get any kind of actual argument from these people. i dedicated an entire thread to trying to unearth what people felt was unclear with the DET model a while ago, and it got trolled to hell and turned into a mess of debate and straw men and people whining that the thread didn't bow to their specific wishes.
The fact those people don't understand DET I take as a compliment. I'm here for serious discussion, not trolls.
Until you can make any substantive comment, I'm happy with DET as it stands.
-
Fun fact for you: people who understand the model (and I know there are some) don't have any reason to post in these threads.
Anyone? just one person? understand this and think it's likely? Please chime in :)
-
Result of discourse: I have no further desire to try to learn about your theory, and you have failed to effectively communicate your ideas to (another) member of your audience.
You can't communicate effectively with someone who's not reading.
Looks convincing.
It's not meant to be convincing. It's a sketch, not the outline of the theory. Do you have anything substantial to say, or just more time wasting?
If you want to act like a child and blame everyone but yourself for your theory's extraordinary shortcomings, go for it. Nobody at all understands what it means except for you, and so that means everyone else is stupid and can't read, right? You can even group me together with all other responders who supposedly have no idea how to read either, and I'll take it as a compliment. I haven't seen a single person acknowledge they understand what your theory says. Oh yeah, dude, I'm sure we're all just incompetent. Except you. You think you're smarter than all of us, don't you? ;)
Or you could be a good boy and learn from your peers who have courteously taken the time to provide serious and accurate criticism. The denial is so viscous you're waterboarding your theory with it. Either fix it, or let it drown in its current state of misery.
What people are you on about?! I am happy to take in actual criticism when it's offered. So far all I've seen is "Oh, it doesn't make sense" or "Oh, it's wrong," or "Oh *insert straw man here!*" none of which is any kind of addition.
But sure, just imagine those people exists, and imagine most people who're addressing DET aren't blatant trolls.
Fun fact for you: people who understand the model (and I know there are some) don't have any reason to post in these threads.
I've been working on a neatened up version for a while, but it's impossible to finish when it's like pulling teeth to get any kind of actual argument from these people. i dedicated an entire thread to trying to unearth what people felt was unclear with the DET model a while ago, and it got trolled to hell and turned into a mess of debate and straw men and people whining that the thread didn't bow to their specific wishes.
The fact those people don't understand DET I take as a compliment. I'm here for serious discussion, not trolls.
Until you can make any substantive comment, I'm happy with DET as it stands.
You seem to have a hard time understanding that nobody gives a shit about what cannot be understood. Nobody understands your model except you. Nobody. A parrot can equal your explanatory prowess when presented with questions, as all you do is respond with the same tired defenses. When literally everyone is telling you it doesn't make sense despite your insistence to the contrary, the problem is likely with you. It's beyond clear you either have no idea what you're doing, or you're too lazy to care about your theory and demonstrate that you do know what you're doing. All you have are 4 pages of informal ramblings. Get a grip on reality. Walk the walk instead of talking the talk. Nobody is buying what you're selling.
-
Anyone? just one person? understand this and think it's likely? Please chime in :)
Well they tend not to read the threads, so... There were a couple last time I was here (I had a few chats with BiJane who's popped up in the lower fora, so if she's back, ask her). Whether she thinks it's likely, I don't know, but she seemed to understand it more than most. Beyond that, there are a few I've had PM conversations with, but I don't want to reveal their names without permission.
You seem to have a hard time understanding that nobody gives a shit about what cannot be understood. Nobody understands your model except you. Nobody. A parrot can equal your explanatory prowess when presented with questions, as all you do is respond with the same tired defenses. When literally everyone is telling you it doesn't make sense despite your insistence to the contrary, the problem is likely with you. It's beyond clear you either have no idea what you're doing, or you're too lazy to care about your theory and demonstrate that you do know what you're doing. All you have are 4 pages of informal ramblings. Get a grip on reality. Walk the walk instead of talking the talk. Nobody is buying what you're selling.
And exactly as I pointed out, you still refuse to offer any substance whatsoever. Consider the fact that I'm repeating myself is down to you offering nothing new, nor paying attention to a word I say.
How am I to clarify or offer better answers if you refuse to say anything more than "Waa! it's wrong! Waa!" with no justification or elaboration or ANYTHING beyond tired old mocking and assertion?
-
Result of discourse: I have no further desire to try to learn about your theory, and you have failed to effectively communicate your ideas to (another) member of your audience.
You can't communicate effectively with someone who's not reading.
Looks convincing.
It's not meant to be convincing. It's a sketch, not the outline of the theory. Do you have anything substantial to say, or just more time wasting?
If you want to act like a child and blame everyone but yourself for your theory's extraordinary shortcomings, go for it. Nobody at all understands what it means except for you, and so that means everyone else is stupid and can't read, right? You can even group me together with all other responders who supposedly have no idea how to read either, and I'll take it as a compliment. I haven't seen a single person acknowledge they understand what your theory says. Oh yeah, dude, I'm sure we're all just incompetent. Except you. You think you're smarter than all of us, don't you? ;)
Or you could be a good boy and learn from your peers who have courteously taken the time to provide serious and accurate criticism. The denial is so viscous you're waterboarding your theory with it. Either fix it, or let it drown in its current state of misery.
What people are you on about?! I am happy to take in actual criticism when it's offered. So far all I've seen is "Oh, it doesn't make sense" or "Oh, it's wrong," or "Oh *insert straw man here!*" none of which is any kind of addition.
But sure, just imagine those people exists, and imagine most people who're addressing DET aren't blatant trolls.
Fun fact for you: people who understand the model (and I know there are some) don't have any reason to post in these threads.
I've been working on a neatened up version for a while, but it's impossible to finish when it's like pulling teeth to get any kind of actual argument from these people. i dedicated an entire thread to trying to unearth what people felt was unclear with the DET model a while ago, and it got trolled to hell and turned into a mess of debate and straw men and people whining that the thread didn't bow to their specific wishes.
The fact those people don't understand DET I take as a compliment. I'm here for serious discussion, not trolls.
Until you can make any substantive comment, I'm happy with DET as it stands.
You seem to have a hard time understanding that nobody gives a shit about what cannot be understood. Nobody understands your model except you. Nobody. A parrot can equal your explanatory prowess when presented with questions, as all you do is respond with the same tired defenses. When literally everyone is telling you it doesn't make sense despite your insistence to the contrary, the problem is likely with you. It's beyond clear you either have no idea what you're doing, or you're too lazy to care about your theory and demonstrate that you do know what you're doing. All you have are 4 pages of informal ramblings. Get a grip on reality. Walk the walk instead of talking the talk. Nobody is buying what you're selling.
I think that is the whole problem with DEF.
TFES can't toss the traditional single disk model in favor of DEF. Since only JRoweSkeptic understands it, if he disappears, there goes FE and the whole website. He claims he doesn't want trolls and if there are only a few people who really want to learn it, that is good enough. So, to have a whole website for a few people would be dumb.
-
Anyone? just one person? understand this and think it's likely? Please chime in :)
Well they tend not to read the threads, so... There were a couple last time I was here (I had a few chats with BiJane who's popped up in the lower fora, so if she's back, ask her). Whether she thinks it's likely, I don't know, but she seemed to understand it more than most. Beyond that, there are a few I've had PM conversations with, but I don't want to reveal their names without permission.
OR the masses 0 people that have posted on your forum?
-
Anyone? just one person? understand this and think it's likely? Please chime in :)
Well they tend not to read the threads, so... There were a couple last time I was here (I had a few chats with BiJane who's popped up in the lower fora, so if she's back, ask her). Whether she thinks it's likely, I don't know, but she seemed to understand it more than most. Beyond that, there are a few I've had PM conversations with, but I don't want to reveal their names without permission.
OR the masses 0 people that have posted on your forum?
The forum is a recent invention and most prefer to post here. Your point?
-
Hey, Jrowe, I was over at skewl and I clicked the link in your sig, and it was blocked. CONSPIRACY!
-
Hey, Jrowe, I was over at skewl and I clicked the link in your sig, and it was blocked. CONSPIRACY!
It worked for me.
-
Anyone? just one person? understand this and think it's likely? Please chime in :)
Well they tend not to read the threads, so... There were a couple last time I was here (I had a few chats with BiJane who's popped up in the lower fora, so if she's back, ask her). Whether she thinks it's likely, I don't know, but she seemed to understand it more than most. Beyond that, there are a few I've had PM conversations with, but I don't want to reveal their names without permission.
OR the masses 0 people that have posted on your forum?
The forum is a recent invention and most prefer to post here. Your point?
My point is you haven't convinced anyone of this.
-
Hey, Jrowe, I was over at skewl and I clicked the link in your sig, and it was blocked. CONSPIRACY!
It worked for me.
... I meant to try to put of mentioning this for as long as possible, because it's bound to get me discredited: I'm a highschool student trolling the forums in my free time at school. I'm 14 :) I'm also in 10th grade, and...
I'm also autistic :o
-
Hey, Jrowe, I was over at skewl and I clicked the link in your sig, and it was blocked. CONSPIRACY!
It worked for me.
... I meant to try to put of mentioning this for as long as possible, because it's bound to get me discredited: I'm a highschool student trolling the forums in my free time at school. I'm 14 :) I'm also in 10th grade, and...
I'm also autistic :o
Your intelligence and capabilities are beyond what you say you are. :)
-
Hey, Jrowe, I was over at skewl and I clicked the link in your sig, and it was blocked. CONSPIRACY!
It worked for me.
... I meant to try to put of mentioning this for as long as possible, because it's bound to get me discredited: I'm a highschool student trolling the forums in my free time at school. I'm 14 :) I'm also in 10th grade, and...
I'm also autistic :o
Your intelligence and capabilities are beyond what you say you are. :)
Nope, I'm a 14 year old in 10th grade
Asperger's syndrome
High functioning autism
-
What people are you on about?!
One right here, and at least a dozen others from multiple posts.
-
Oh look, someone magically posted on his forum when I mentioned it.
Just to ask how come no one believes his theory.
-
My point is you haven't convinced anyone of this.
Who would you expect me to convince? Most of the users on this forum are just trolling: one's admitted to it even in this thread. There's no convincing people too arrogant and closed minded to even consider an alternative.
I'm raising interest, that's all.
One right here, and at least a dozen others from multiple posts.
Hilarious. You pop in to mock and jeer and the only substance you've ever provided you completely ignored my response to and claimed it wasn't offered.
-
Anyone? just one person? understand this and think it's likely? Please chime in :)
Well they tend not to read the threads, so... There were a couple last time I was here (I had a few chats with BiJane who's popped up in the lower fora, so if she's back, ask her). Whether she thinks it's likely, I don't know, but she seemed to understand it more than most. Beyond that, there are a few I've had PM conversations with, but I don't want to reveal their names without permission.
You seem to have a hard time understanding that nobody gives a shit about what cannot be understood. Nobody understands your model except you. Nobody. A parrot can equal your explanatory prowess when presented with questions, as all you do is respond with the same tired defenses. When literally everyone is telling you it doesn't make sense despite your insistence to the contrary, the problem is likely with you. It's beyond clear you either have no idea what you're doing, or you're too lazy to care about your theory and demonstrate that you do know what you're doing. All you have are 4 pages of informal ramblings. Get a grip on reality. Walk the walk instead of talking the talk. Nobody is buying what you're selling.
And exactly as I pointed out, you still refuse to offer any substance whatsoever. Consider the fact that I'm repeating myself is down to you offering nothing new, nor paying attention to a word I say.
How am I to clarify or offer better answers if you refuse to say anything more than "Waa! it's wrong! Waa!" with no justification or elaboration or ANYTHING beyond tired old mocking and assertion?
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that was actually what transpired throughout our discourse. Please continue to delude yourself that there is anything specific enough contained in your theory that warrants any further criticism other than, "Explain everything in far, far more detail." I tried to be courteous and ask specific questions and make specific criticisms, and of course I got the run around, just like everyone else.
-
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that was actually what transpired throughout our discourse. Please continue to delude yourself that there is anything specific enough contained in your theory that warrants any further criticism other than, "Explain everything in far, far more detail." I tried to be courteous and ask specific questions and make specific criticisms, and of course I got the run around, just like everyone else.
That post is the same as basically every other one you've made. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT ME TO SAY WHEN YOU REFUSE TO SAY WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE EXISTING ANSWER?
Get a life, try to include a little substance in your posts, this is just tedious. HOW AM I TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING BETTER WHEN YOU REFUSE TO SAY WHAT'S WRONG?!
Everything you've said is a matter of record, in your past posts. You were called out on a straw man, and insisted it was accurate even after with no explanation. You inexplicably claimed aether and space were two different things despite explicitly being told otherwise. You openly lied about analogy, you refused to say what was wrong with the evidence beyond a hypocritical assertion, and you pointlessly derailed a thread with a clear bastardization, as through distance ceases to exist unless observed.
If that is your idea of any kind of substanstive discussion, good riddance.
-
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that was actually what transpired throughout our discourse. Please continue to delude yourself that there is anything specific enough contained in your theory that warrants any further criticism other than, "Explain everything in far, far more detail." I tried to be courteous and ask specific questions and make specific criticisms, and of course I got the run around, just like everyone else.
That post is the same as basically every other one you've made. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT ME TO SAY WHEN YOU REFUSE TO SAY WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE EXISTING ANSWER?
Get a life, try to include a little substance in your posts, this is just tedious. HOW AM I TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING BETTER WHEN YOU REFUSE TO SAY WHAT'S WRONG?!
Everything you've said is a matter of record, in your past posts. You were called out on a straw man, and insisted it was accurate even after with no explanation. You inexplicably claimed aether and space were two different things despite explicitly being told otherwise. You openly lied about analogy, you refused to say what was wrong with the evidence beyond a hypocritical assertion, and you pointlessly derailed a thread with a clear bastardization, as through distance ceases to exist unless observed.
If that is your idea of any kind of substanstive discussion, good riddance.
I told you I have no desire to learn anything else about your theory, which is why I'm no longer asking specific questions or making specific criticisms. I already tried that and we got nowhere. I'm back to blanket criticism to save myself the time.
-
These are the kind of answers I got too... next, you to will be ignored ;) BTW, the response goes like this... (1) Read/reread/reread the text (2) if you try to put something in the text together with something else (1+1=2) you are wrong or bastardizing it (3) somewhere, I've explained it, I am only going to say something once, then you go search the forum for my answer - I am not wasting time with lazy people.
So, 10 pages... Has JRoweSkeptic provided any measurements? In my Telescope Alignment thread, 10 pages... no measurements.
Simply put, this model is FANTASY that you can't measure. Wait for 20 pages... you won't get anything either. You are wasting your time.
In all these threads about DEF, how has your understanding of DEF improved much beyond the original "wall of text" or his sig link? Are you now more convinced that DEF is true (or RET is true)?
-
I told you I have no desire to learn anything else about your theory, which is why I'm no longer asking specific questions or making specific criticisms. I already tried that and we got nowhere. I'm back to blanket criticism to save myself the time.
You never had any desire to learn. That's a matter of record. You mocked and jeered and threw up straw men and refused to admit the slightest flaw. How do you expect to get anywhere if you refuse to move?
-
I told you I have no desire to learn anything else about your theory, which is why I'm no longer asking specific questions or making specific criticisms. I already tried that and we got nowhere. I'm back to blanket criticism to save myself the time.
You never had any desire to learn. That's a matter of record. You mocked and jeered and threw up straw men and refused to admit the slightest flaw. How do you expect to get anywhere if you refuse to move?
Reread the "record." JRoweSkeptic, meet reality.
-
I told you I have no desire to learn anything else about your theory, which is why I'm no longer asking specific questions or making specific criticisms. I already tried that and we got nowhere. I'm back to blanket criticism to save myself the time.
You never had any desire to learn. That's a matter of record. You mocked and jeered and threw up straw men and refused to admit the slightest flaw. How do you expect to get anywhere if you refuse to move?
Reread the "record." JRoweSkeptic, meet reality.
Likewise. I've already called you out on your bullshit just a couple of posts ago.
-
I told you I have no desire to learn anything else about your theory, which is why I'm no longer asking specific questions or making specific criticisms. I already tried that and we got nowhere. I'm back to blanket criticism to save myself the time.
You never had any desire to learn. That's a matter of record. You mocked and jeered and threw up straw men and refused to admit the slightest flaw. How do you expect to get anywhere if you refuse to move?
Reread the "record." JRoweSkeptic, meet reality.
Likewise. I've already called you out on your bullshit just a couple of posts ago.
You should be more concerned about your theory than my "bullshit." I have nothing at stake here, so I don't need to be particularly concerned with the way I come across. If I was presenting my own theory, you better believe I would be ready to debate and support it, *and* in a manner that was inviting to my audience.
-
Has the definition of Aether changed?
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62968.msg1674172#msg1674172 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62968.msg1674172#msg1674172))
3/25/15 - "i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas"
I like your logic. So now/today, it has properties of a gas (going from high to low concentrations) but not have properties of a gas (equalize concentrations/oscillate and go back from low to high concentrations). So it is not a gas, but acts like one except when it doesn't ("if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed"). So you can't use the properties of matter (a gas) to justify Aether's properties/existence because it is something else (non-material). You like to use the universal "going from high to low concentrations" but not the universal equalization/equilibrium and "NOT going from low to high concentrations" as proof of its properties. Hmm... very confusing.
-
I told you I have no desire to learn anything else about your theory, which is why I'm no longer asking specific questions or making specific criticisms. I already tried that and we got nowhere. I'm back to blanket criticism to save myself the time.
You never had any desire to learn. That's a matter of record. You mocked and jeered and threw up straw men and refused to admit the slightest flaw. How do you expect to get anywhere if you refuse to move?
Reread the "record." JRoweSkeptic, meet reality.
Likewise. I've already called you out on your bullshit just a couple of posts ago.
You should be more concerned about your theory than my "bullshit." I have nothing at stake here, so I don't need to be particularly concerned with the way I come across. If I was presenting my own theory, you better believe I would be ready to debate and support it, *and* in a manner that was inviting to my audience.
There's no debate with someone who offers nothing except straw men. A conversation takes two parties, not one and one troll.
You're concerned with your ego. You want to come across well so you act smug and arrogant and lie whenever you're about to lose a point; notice how you evaded the fact I called you out on your bullshit. There's no debating with the likes of you.
-
I told you I have no desire to learn anything else about your theory, which is why I'm no longer asking specific questions or making specific criticisms. I already tried that and we got nowhere. I'm back to blanket criticism to save myself the time.
You never had any desire to learn. That's a matter of record. You mocked and jeered and threw up straw men and refused to admit the slightest flaw. How do you expect to get anywhere if you refuse to move?
Reread the "record." JRoweSkeptic, meet reality.
Likewise. I've already called you out on your bullshit just a couple of posts ago.
You should be more concerned about your theory than my "bullshit." I have nothing at stake here, so I don't need to be particularly concerned with the way I come across. If I was presenting my own theory, you better believe I would be ready to debate and support it, *and* in a manner that was inviting to my audience.
There's no debate with someone who offers nothing except straw men. A conversation takes two parties, not one and one troll.
You're concerned with your ego. You want to come across well so you act smug and arrogant and lie whenever you're about to lose a point; notice how you evaded the fact I called you out on your bullshit. There's no debating with the likes of you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)
-
I told you I have no desire to learn anything else about your theory, which is why I'm no longer asking specific questions or making specific criticisms. I already tried that and we got nowhere. I'm back to blanket criticism to save myself the time.
You never had any desire to learn. That's a matter of record. You mocked and jeered and threw up straw men and refused to admit the slightest flaw. How do you expect to get anywhere if you refuse to move?
Reread the "record." JRoweSkeptic, meet reality.
Likewise. I've already called you out on your bullshit just a couple of posts ago.
You should be more concerned about your theory than my "bullshit." I have nothing at stake here, so I don't need to be particularly concerned with the way I come across. If I was presenting my own theory, you better believe I would be ready to debate and support it, *and* in a manner that was inviting to my audience.
There's no debate with someone who offers nothing except straw men. A conversation takes two parties, not one and one troll.
You're concerned with your ego. You want to come across well so you act smug and arrogant and lie whenever you're about to lose a point; notice how you evaded the fact I called you out on your bullshit. There's no debating with the likes of you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)
Suits him nicely. :)
-
One right here, and at least a dozen others from multiple posts.
Hilarious. You pop in to mock and jeer and the only substance you've ever provided you completely ignored my response to and claimed it wasn't offered.
Not a claim, a sustained fact considering multiple others have noticed the same thing independent of my posts.
-
You should be more concerned about your theory than my "bullshit." I have nothing at stake here, so I don't need to be particularly concerned with the way I come across. If I was presenting my own theory, you better believe I would be ready to debate and support it, *and* in a manner that was inviting to my audience.
I've already barked up that tree and it got no where.
-
One right here, and at least a dozen others from multiple posts.
Hilarious. You pop in to mock and jeer and the only substance you've ever provided you completely ignored my response to and claimed it wasn't offered.
Not a claim, a sustained fact considering multiple others have noticed the same thing independent of my posts.
Now that's what I call a peer review. If a bunch of us can point out the vagueness of something then maybe its time to look at the model to change it.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
And you're the one insisting you're capable of actual discussion. Says it all.
Not a claim, a sustained fact considering multiple others have noticed the same thing independent of my posts.
Because most people here are trolls, what's your point? How about making up your own mind rather than forcing your arrogance to where it isn't wanted.
Now that's what I call a peer review. If a bunch of us can point out the vagueness of something then maybe its time to look at the model to change it.
Which, on multiple occasions, i have said that I am doing. I'm rewriting, but EVERY FUCKING TIME I try to ask REer for details as to what's vague or what doesn't make sense, you offer NOTHING. I've dedicated threads to the question,a ll I get is trolls and spamming. That's a matter of record.
Seems to me like you're the ones being vague here.
-
Saying you are doing it and actually doing it are two very different things.
-
Saying you are doing it and actually doing it are two very different things.
So, wasting time. I see. Get a fucking life. What exactly is the point of that post, beyond whinging? How about you try responding to what I'm saying rather than rejecting an entire model simply because you're too much of an arrogant penguin to dare consider anything beyond RET?