Aetheric wind / southern celestial pole

A little thought I've been noodling with.   Using the aetheric wind model, I have placed the cosmos all around the earth-disc, rather than only above.  Sigma Octanis, the southern celestial pole, is directly below the disc while Polaris, the northern celestial pole, is above.

In this model, aetheric wind brings the light up and around the edges of the disc, revealing the southern sky and Sigma Octanis to anyone in the southern hemidisc, regardless of their location.  Light from above, such as from the sun and moon, travel very much as otherwise descibed in FET. 



Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Your model is based on necessity rather than evidence.

If the light travelled according to your diagram, it would not produce the visual effect which is observed.

If the light travelled according to your diagram, it would not produce the visual effect which is observed.

Unless the light fell back to earth after passing the rim.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 07, 2013, 03:24:59 PM

If the light travelled according to your diagram, it would not produce the visual effect which is observed.

Unless the light fell back to earth after passing the rim.

The diagram does not depict that, therefore there is no reason to assume Tintagel includes that in his theory.

I applaud you for this theory. You are a true Zetetic.
One question, the UA is the most powerful force in the Universe.
What keeps it from destroying the very minuscule stars?

I applaud you for this theory. You are a true Zetetic.
One question, the UA is the most powerful force in the Universe.
What keeps it from destroying the very minuscule stars?

Reasons you're not a true zetetic though: You assume the UA is the most powerful force (non-zetetic assumption). You assume the size of the stars (non-zetetic assumption... you have no way of estimating their distance.)

Quote from: Pongo on January 07, 2013, 03:34:57 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 07, 2013, 03:24:59 PM

If the light travelled according to your diagram, it would not produce the visual effect which is observed.

Unless the light fell back to earth after passing the rim.

The diagram does not depict that, therefore there is no reason to assume Tintagel includes that in his theory.

It's a work in progress.

Quote from: Pongo on January 07, 2013, 03:34:57 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 07, 2013, 03:24:59 PM

If the light travelled according to your diagram, it would not produce the visual effect which is observed.

Unless the light fell back to earth after passing the rim.

The diagram does not depict that, therefore there is no reason to assume Tintagel includes that in his theory.

...her theory

And honestly more a hypothesis, hence the reason I wanted to post it here for some feedback.  But yes, the idea is that once the light passes the rim, as the aetheric wind rushes inward to fill the void above the earth-disc, creating the aetheric whirlpool, this light is pushed into our atmosphere at its outer (as in southern) edges.  The lighter area surrounding the earth-disc in the diagram is the area where the aether and light are bent around the earth, my working name for the idea is the aetheric lens.  Sorry I wasn't more clear.

An interesting theory. Perhaps it could be caused by Daniel's Aetheric Eddification (refraction due to the changing speeds and density of the UA as well as the difference between UA and atmosphere)

An interesting theory. Perhaps it could be caused by Daniel's Aetheric Eddification (refraction due to the changing speeds and density of the UA as well as the difference between UA and atmosphere)

A good point.  Feel free to expand upon it in that regard.  I can even make a new diagram when we're done, it'll look nice on the wiki.

Perhaps, when any sort of independent evidence of aether's existence is provided, then someone might take this thread seriously.
As it is, Tausami has failed to comment that Tintagel's theory conflicts with his own (he has aether rushing to fill a void behind the earth, she has it rushing to fill a void in front of the earth). I have asked twice, and still not received a definite reply, as to whether the aether is a stationary medium the earth is propelled through, like a car moving through air, or whether the aether itself is propelled along with the earth, like an object floating down a stream. Of course there's no info on this, because it will change depending on what you want to use aether as an excuse for.

Perhaps, when any sort of independent evidence of aether's existence is provided, then someone might take this thread seriously.
As it is, Tausami has failed to comment that Tintagel's theory conflicts with his own (he has aether rushing to fill a void behind the earth, she has it rushing to fill a void in front of the earth). I have asked twice, and still not received a definite reply, as to whether the aether is a stationary medium the earth is propelled through, like a car moving through air, or whether the aether itself is propelled along with the earth, like an object floating down a stream. Of course there's no info on this, because it will change depending on what you want to use aether as an excuse for.

Yes, this hypothesis is specifically for the aetheric wind model which states that aether is flowing around us and rushing together into a whirlpool above the earth.  Some prefer the classic definition of aether as an unmoving medium through which the earth and celestial bodies are accelerating, which would leave the void in our wake below us.  I'm not committing to a particular Flat Earth model just yet, rather I'm doing a lot of thinking about all of them, and trying to find ways to further the movement as a whole. 

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of gravitons.

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of gravitons.

Great example for the difference between hypothesis and imagination here.

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of gravitons.

Bottles already contain gravitons.

Perhaps, when any sort of independent evidence of aether's existence is provided, then someone might take this thread seriously.
As it is, Tausami has failed to comment that Tintagel's theory conflicts with his own (he has aether rushing to fill a void behind the earth, she has it rushing to fill a void in front of the earth). I have asked twice, and still not received a definite reply, as to whether the aether is a stationary medium the earth is propelled through, like a car moving through air, or whether the aether itself is propelled along with the earth, like an object floating down a stream. Of course there's no info on this, because it will change depending on what you want to use aether as an excuse for.

I think you're misunderstanding something I said. I'm actually adding that image into the wiki article on the Aetheric Whirlpool

Quote from: jroa on January 08, 2013, 10:00:57 AM

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of gravitons.

Bottles already contain gravitons.

Would you care to elaborate or share links to support this?

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.

Get back to the rest of us when someone approaches you in the first place. Do you see your username in the subject title?


Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 08, 2013, 09:52:47 AM

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.

Get back to the rest of us when someone approaches you in the first place. Do you see your username in the subject title?


Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.

If your views conflict, I'd be interested to hear them.  I posted this here to subject it to a bit of scrutiny from the society, as I'm eager to learn and improve.

'Aether' belongs in the rubbish bin along with 'Gravity' 'Dark Matter/Energy' and other theorethical claptrap.

The Zetetic process involves simple experimentation to arrive at the demonstrable cause of phenomena, not falling victim to guesswork and speculation, the twin demons of globularist science.

OP - Re-read Chapter 1 of Earth, not a Globe then feel bad about engaging in the very thing this society stands against.

'Aether' belongs in the rubbish bin along with 'Gravity' 'Dark Matter/Energy' and other theorethical claptrap.

The Zetetic process involves simple experimentation to arrive at the demonstrable cause of phenomena, not falling victim to guesswork and speculation, the twin demons of globularist science.

OP - Re-read Chapter 1 of Earth, not a Globe then feel bad about engaging in the very thing this society stands against.

With all due respect, Earth Not a Globe is not a religious document, so there's no need for me to have some sort of pseudo-dogmatic guilt over the supposed sin of speculation.

Quote from: Kendrick on January 09, 2013, 09:02:34 AM

'Aether' belongs in the rubbish bin along with 'Gravity' 'Dark Matter/Energy' and other theorethical claptrap.

The Zetetic process involves simple experimentation to arrive at the demonstrable cause of phenomena, not falling victim to guesswork and speculation, the twin demons of globularist science.

OP - Re-read Chapter 1 of Earth, not a Globe then feel bad about engaging in the very thing this society stands against.

With all due respect, Earth Not a Globe is not a religious document, so there's no need for me to have some sort of pseudo-dogmatic guilt over the supposed sin of speculation.

Not everyone has the mental discipline to adhere to the Zetetic method, its hard for everyone to admit they are unable to explain the universe around them and simply confess ignorance.

Think about what it is about yourself that requires you to take the wonders of creation and define them into your narrow terrestrial perspective.

Not everyone has the mental discipline to adhere to the Zetetic method...

That's alright, not everyone agrees on what the "zetetic method" really means or involves either.

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of gravitons.

Poor analogy: whether gravitons exist or not, the effect of the force they would produce if they did is observable independently of what holds us to earth, quantifiable, predictable and measurable.
Whether aether exists or not, the force it would produce if it did is neither observable independently of what holds us to earth, nor quantifiable, predictable or measurable.

Quote from: Tintagel on January 09, 2013, 09:17:53 AM

Quote from: Kendrick on January 09, 2013, 09:02:34 AM

'Aether' belongs in the rubbish bin along with 'Gravity' 'Dark Matter/Energy' and other theorethical claptrap.

The Zetetic process involves simple experimentation to arrive at the demonstrable cause of phenomena, not falling victim to guesswork and speculation, the twin demons of globularist science.

OP - Re-read Chapter 1 of Earth, not a Globe then feel bad about engaging in the very thing this society stands against.

With all due respect, Earth Not a Globe is not a religious document, so there's no need for me to have some sort of pseudo-dogmatic guilt over the supposed sin of speculation.

Not everyone has the mental discipline to adhere to the Zetetic method, its hard for everyone to admit they are unable to explain the universe around them and simply confess ignorance.

Think about what it is about yourself that requires you to take the wonders of creation and define them into your narrow terrestrial perspective.

Yes, yes, and lo our immortal souls are unworthy to enter the kingdom of god or something.  Replace "Zetetic method" in your post with "Holy Scriptures" and I would swear I stumbled onto the BibleTalk.com debate forum.  I have no interest in exclusionary dogma, even if wrapped in the trappings of scientific study.   Thanks but no thanks.

Now that the thread is well and truly de-railed, allow me to try to get us back on track.  I've been doing some thinking about how this may work in a model where the aether is not moving, and I'll be working on a new diagram to demonstrate that possibility.

Yes, yes, and lo our immortal souls are unworthy to enter the kingdom of god or something.  Replace "Zetetic method" in your post with "Holy Scriptures" and I would swear I stumbled onto the BibleTalk.com debate forum.  I have no interest in exclusionary dogma, even if wrapped in the trappings of scientific study.   Thanks but no thanks.

Now that the thread is well and truly de-railed, allow me to try to get us back on track.  I've been doing some thinking about how this may work in a model where the aether is not moving, and I'll be working on a new diagram to demonstrate that possibility.

Why do you keep invoking religion in a clearly secular exchange of ideas

This is not a religious forum, this is a Zetetic forum.  You shouldnt be suprised when you start spewing theoretical bullshit if someone calls you on it.

Perform simple experiments, arrive at the truth of the matter.

Any pre-disposed opinion you carry with you into the process will only taint the outcome.  Do not venture down the path of speculation and theory that has ensnared so many.

This is not a religious forum, this is a Zetetic forum.  You shouldnt be suprised when you start spewing theoretical bullshit if someone calls you on it.

Ahem. 

Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.

One of these is a reasonable and productive response.  The other is useless vitriol.  See if you can guess which user I've chosen to no longer respond to.

ProTip:  It isn't the FES VP.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 08, 2013, 05:59:39 PM

Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.

One of these is a reasonable and productive response.  The other is useless vitriol.  See if you can guess which user I've chosen to no longer respond to.

ProTip:  It isn't the FES VP.

The bolded emphasis helps arrive at the point i'm making - what exactly has your OP and his reply produced?

ProTip:  Nothing.

Now you see the strength of the Zetetic method as defined in Chapter 1 of 'Earth, not a Globe' by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.