Firstly, you don't need to deduce nothing special happens at the equator. That's the natural assumption: that nothing special happens. The equator point makes sense if you look from an in-model perspective. If a low concentration forms (the necessary origin assumption, like "The matter at the Big Bang exists,") then dust would be carried on flows of aether towards this. The flow would result in a low concentration left behind in the wake of the inwards flow, and so on, that's what creates the disk, and creates it in this format. The edge of the disk is the edge of the original low concentration, where the remaining low concentration inside the Earth is 'exposed.'
Let us not try and draw comparisons with real scientific theories like the Big Bang with JRowe's ad hoc DE. They are not even close to being comparable.
Onto your 'explanation'... the only thing I got from it was something along the lines of: aether flows, stuff happens, something dust aaaand presto, you got yourself a DE with a sun, moon and planets on the 'inside' of a DE! If you think I'm being overly dismissive, please try reading your
explanation back to yourself aloud. Notice how, despite the assumptions, there is no coherent connection between one assertion to the next? Apparently aether is space and can not only interact with matter, but can actually form planets and suns but can't actually be detected/measured. Do I have that right?
Yes, I went quickly, because you're asking for a ridiculously long essay and I have no desire to write it when I have no idea what your specific issues are.
Weird. You say what I'm asking would take
a ridiculously long essay to explain then in the next breath say you have no idea what my specific issues are? Which is it?
As for sunrise/set, do you understand the equator? It's connected to that, but I can't do much unless you understand that principle first.
Oh, I understand the equator thing all right. It makes no sense of course, but I understand it much like I understand how Neo can do what he does in the Matrix.
Apparently, if I stood right on the equatorial line, one half of my body would be on the northern disc and my other half on the southern disc. And, because of something something aether concentration something something no-space, no one notices anything. My body also simultaneously traverses the
space between the discs where I would pass by the sun, moon and planets (without noticing of course) when crossing the equator. You know, I used to think that bendy light was fantastic in its stupidity, but JR's aether takes the proverbial cake! Not only can it flow and concentrate, it can simulate gravity
and bend light from one side of the world to the other, all without anyone noticing!
As for the sunrise/sunset, I would like to hear your explanation for this because once upon a time I was able to get JR to expound on it briefly, so I am curious if your explanation is remotely comparable to the one he gave me (as charmingly incoherent as it was).
Because joining a forum for the exclusive purpose of insulting and mocking and deriding is such a monumentally juvenile and idiotic way to act it deserves precisely zero respect.
Who said anything about it deserving respect? I said I understood it.
Secondly, the idea of a FE and its proponents also deserve the same amount of respect ie. zero.
Lastly, welcome to the internet. Are you new here?
That's not how it works. Most models I've seen are fairly internally consistent, the problem being you need to take the time to actually learn and understand what's being said, rather than rejecting it automatically on the basis that it's wrong. For example: can you provide such a contradiction with DET?
Well, firstly I take exception to your use of the word
model for reasons you would already appreciate.
Not only that, the FE/DE
models can never be internally consistent if they are trying to describe real-world phenomena because... well, they're wrong, aren't they? I mean, if you start with the premise that all of these models describe a fictional world, I suppose it's just harmless pontificating. When, however, one tries to shoehorn this nonsense into the real world, that's when objections get raised.
Here's a much more interesting and challenging (IMO) idea for you Jane: Try creating a non-RE model that is a) internally consistent, b) describes real-world phenomena and c) is falsifiable.
Lastly, contradictions with DE? Well, since no one can actually seem to understand the properties of aether which is this
model's answer to everything, it's hard to even get a grasp on anything concrete let alone find contradictions in vague, hand-waving walls of text.
Show Posts
