Light arrives straight and only starts to bend when it is closer to the surface, where gravity is stronger, the distance/height of the celestial bodies makes no difference.
This then requires the light to be going straight down to Earth because it then magically bends up, and light to not come in from any other angle.
These results are expected for RE only in your imagination.
No, not my imagination, reality.
Aether was proven by general relativity
No it wasn't.
Not at all.
People who are desperate to cling to the aether might pretend it does, but it does not.
Observations of stars prove the existence of aether and the magnification effect generated by aether
No, they don't.
Again, these are the results directly expected for a RE.
No need to invoke any magical aether.
Your inability to understand how light works, and how can you still see bright enough objects which are too small to resolve, does not make aether exist.
Distance and altitude. The aether gradients are parabolic.
Still not explaining how.
Imagine the light rays as ropes, the ends of the ropes will bend when they touch the ground.
NO!
Don't just tell me to imagine them as something fundamentally different to what they are to pretend your nonsense works.
Instead, clearly explain what is making them bend up, because it clearly isn't what you are claiming before.
Again, an honest analogy to imagine them as would be a ball thrown through the air, or an rod suspended at one end, with it curving down.
This is enough
It is not enough to do anything, as it still completely lacks any kind of explanation.
Even RE scientists are beginning to reject this.
No, they aren't.
Gravity is quite well established and known to cause large finite objects like Earth to collapse into a roughly spherical shape.
Any model trying to tie together general relativity and quantum mechanics will still have that.
the absurd and disproven mass attraction hypothesis.
You mean the experimentally verified fact?
A globular Earth does not solve the problems related to gravity
For the problems being discussed, IT DOES!
Mass attraction is completely incapable of explaining some of the variations in gravitational acceleration. Read the links and you will see why.
Have you bothered reading the links?
Because guess what? One even describes you:
In fact, one can find these first results still cited even today (usually incompletely, incorrectly, and/or with significant creative embellishments) as evidence for a hollow Earth,3 government conspiracies, coverups, UFOs, and/or for the general failure of Newton’s law of gravity.
And it even explains it:
for additional measurements.5 In some cases the pendulums were closer together at the bottom, though in most cases they were farther apart and there was no difference seen between the use of magnetic and non-magnetic materials. Based on a very strong correlation with ventilation conditions, they concluded that the effect was entirely due to the significant (natural) airflow in the mine shafts.
But that doesn't stop people like you dishonestly misrepresenting it to pretend that it contradicts gravitational models.
This hypothesis was ruled out by the researchers. In a mine, you would have a few meters to kilometers of mass above you, but you would also have thousands of kilometers of mass below you exerting a much greater pull.
A much greater pull than the mass above you, or a much greater pull than on the surface?
A calm refraction would not be able to make a target visible below a curve
Continuing to repeat the same false claim wont save you.
Once more, the greater distances makes that behind the horizon rise more, allowing it to be seen over the horizon.
And you don't even really need to consider that.
Again, the horizon is former when the line of sight from your eye is tangent to Earth. That gives one particular distance based upon your height if light travels in straight lines. If instead light curves downwards due to refraction that will necessarily be a greater distance.
If you want to claim otherwise you need more than just an assertion.
With several curved walls in the outer blue circle
So you are now abandoning your idea of a torus. Why provide it if you are just going to discard it?
If you allow multiple curved walls, then you can get something like this:
and make the universe as large as you want.
That then means there is problem with the RE model and the massive universe it has.
And they are really your only 2 options.
Either the universe must entirely fit inside a sphere of that limiting radius, or it can be arbitrarily large.
Apparently, the measurement described for the firmament is correct, because it corresponds to what is expected, but the other measurements cannot be correct.
i.e. you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your fantasy, rejecting pretty much the entire thing, but then happily accept and cling to a single measurement which you want.
We know that the first firmament must be below the Sun, because rainbows
have nothing at all to do with the firmement.
a Sun below the firmament
You leave out the sane option, a sun without a firmament.
The height of the Sun (and the Moon too) is ≈ 12 km
No, it isn't.
Showing pictures which clearly show the FE model is wrong doesn't help you.
Especially not with how much you are demanding light curves.
Try getting a real time video of a plane taking off just before mid day, quite close to the path of the subsolar point, and then flying up above the sun, at mid day, so the sun passes below it.
But also notice just how ridiculous your position would need to be now.
You have the sun appear below the plane to claim it must be below, but then have the sun above the firmament, while the plane needs to be below it.
That just doesn't add up.
if they were, refraction and perspective would not be sufficient to cause this illusion.
They aren't sufficient to explain what is observed already with a FE. So you appeal to magical aether which you cannot justify or explain, so how do you know it can't?
Show Posts
