dual earth prediction verified

-Aether does not interact with matter
- Matter moves within and with aether
approximately correct. no mutual interaction is required for dual earth theory (without getting into personal beliefs as this thread is not about those). all aether is, is the space in which matter exists. matter does not need to influence it: so there is no interaction as such.
clearly matter moves through space, however: and similarly, as space moves, any matter will move with it.

I can't understand why you think this is Einstein's prediction, Einstein did not think gravity would reduce linearly.
that's purely down to observation: his model itself has no reason to obey the inverse square law.

It's more like a field. Do you think a magnetic field doesn't spread out?
who cares? magnetism is a force (and you repeatedly insist gravity is not) and is dependent on physical properties: electrons etc.
can you offer any actual explanation rather than an example based upon a completely different entity? you could always try responding to the question i directly posed. this should be helpful for you: what causes the inverse square law to hold generally? why is gravity capable of spreading out despite not being tangible?

Why do different masses move with the same acceleration?
why wouldn't they? if the space they're moving in moves at the same rate...
don't expect the words i use to be a perfect description: there are no perfect descriptions, this is complex science. this is why i am asking you to actually think about my model rather than going for stock responses that, more often than not, are unrelated.

I can't understand why you think this is Einstein's prediction, Einstein did not think gravity would reduce linearly.
that's purely down to observation: his model itself has no reason to obey the inverse square law.

Observation? Observation of what? This was not Einstein's prediction this was yours so why does it mean Einstein was wrong?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 03, 2015, 12:42:48 PM

I can't understand why you think this is Einstein's prediction, Einstein did not think gravity would reduce linearly.
that's purely down to observation: his model itself has no reason to obey the inverse square law.

Observation? Observation of what? This was not Einstein's prediction this was yours so why does it mean Einstein was wrong?

einstein observed how gravity actually reduced: or at least, had reports of it. of course he'd put those calculations into his prediction: that doesn't change the fact it does not make sense, as i have explained.

Quote from: Wygyfop on June 03, 2015, 12:52:35 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 03, 2015, 12:42:48 PM

I can't understand why you think this is Einstein's prediction, Einstein did not think gravity would reduce linearly.
that's purely down to observation: his model itself has no reason to obey the inverse square law.

Observation? Observation of what? This was not Einstein's prediction this was yours so why does it mean Einstein was wrong?

einstein observed how gravity actually reduced: or at least, had reports of it. of course he'd put those calculations into his prediction: that doesn't change the fact it does not make sense, as i have explained.

I don't understand what you mean. Einstein knew how gravity reduced and this was what his theory had predicted. What isn't making sense to you?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 03, 2015, 12:55:30 PM

Quote from: Wygyfop on June 03, 2015, 12:52:35 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 03, 2015, 12:42:48 PM

I can't understand why you think this is Einstein's prediction, Einstein did not think gravity would reduce linearly.
that's purely down to observation: his model itself has no reason to obey the inverse square law.

Observation? Observation of what? This was not Einstein's prediction this was yours so why does it mean Einstein was wrong?

einstein observed how gravity actually reduced: or at least, had reports of it. of course he'd put those calculations into his prediction: that doesn't change the fact it does not make sense, as i have explained.

I don't understand what you mean. Einstein knew how gravity reduced and this was what his theory had predicted. What isn't making sense to you?

apparently it's not a prediction if your model is already known.
and yet again, he did not predict it: he used that knowledge as a starting point. it was already part of the equation, it would essentially be impossible for him to contradict it.

Quote from: Wygyfop on June 03, 2015, 02:35:12 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 03, 2015, 12:55:30 PM

Quote from: Wygyfop on June 03, 2015, 12:52:35 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 03, 2015, 12:42:48 PM

I can't understand why you think this is Einstein's prediction, Einstein did not think gravity would reduce linearly.
that's purely down to observation: his model itself has no reason to obey the inverse square law.

Observation? Observation of what? This was not Einstein's prediction this was yours so why does it mean Einstein was wrong?

einstein observed how gravity actually reduced: or at least, had reports of it. of course he'd put those calculations into his prediction: that doesn't change the fact it does not make sense, as i have explained.

I don't understand what you mean. Einstein knew how gravity reduced and this was what his theory had predicted. What isn't making sense to you?

apparently it's not a prediction if your model is already known.
and yet again, he did not predict it: he used that knowledge as a starting point. it was already part of the equation, it would essentially be impossible for him to contradict it.

Einstein created a model of how he thought gravity was caused, from this he generated equations showing the effects it would have. The equations are formed from the model not the other way around.

Nope, you clearly said that gravity drops off linearly even though it does not.  Quit lying.
where?

Well...

it should reduce linearly.

GIVE ME A REASON WHY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW APPLIES TO GRAVITY OR SHUT UP.

Because that's what experiments and observations show.

you could always read my first post where i explicitly said this si what we expect from your model, and it does not happen.

Exactly. Anybody can say things. The ocean is yellow. I have 7 arms. Rabbits aren't real.
It's another thing to back up a statement with thought out analysis and evidence.

So I'm giving you another chance. Concisely (i.e. no meandering rants) and logically (i.e. no assumptions) and scientifically, show us why gravity doesn't follow the inverse square law.
And no "because it's a force" does not count, and we already showed you why.

Why do different masses move with the same acceleration?
why wouldn't they? if the space they're moving in moves at the same rate...
don't expect the words i use to be a perfect description: there are no perfect descriptions, this is complex science. this is why i am asking you to actually think about my model rather than going for stock responses that, more often than not, are unrelated.

Because you called it a force before you had to abandon that idea. A force will accelerate masses differently. What you say aether does now is quite close to the currently accepted gravitation theory of bend space-time. Congrats on getting destroyed so much you had to copy.