90% of RE beliefs

They don't understand the difference between no space and nothing.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 26, 2014, 09:53:16 AM

Again, you've just demonstrated that you don't understand basic math. Do you know what a "greater than" symbol is? 

So then tell me, are you a programmer? Because as far as I know, even in programming it's ">=". What you wrote "= >" really makes no sense and I thought you, for some bizzare reason, meant it as some sort of limit or whatever... It would have been tons more comprehensible just having ">" 

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 26, 2014, 09:53:16 AM

Your "rough approximations" are just not. An "approximation" is supposed to mean getting as close to the answer as you possibly can (if you're unable to get the correct answer for whatever reason). You can justify yourself being wrong any way you'd like, it doesn't change the fact that you were. The correct value for "age of the Earth in seconds" would be 1.43271504E+17. You've hardly approximated that. Again, jroa has asked you to stop with the facepalms, and you're just making yourself look stupid.

They got the point across (at least to the people that actually understood the problem with the speed). I think your case is one of understanding the error in your thought, but not wanting to admit the fault, you cling on a mistake that does not influence in any way the outcome...

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 26, 2014, 09:53:16 AM

Space is expanding - which means that there is room for it to expand. As per the multiverse theory, the universe is moving. I've heard variations of the theory that say that the "layers" of "universes" are all moving about, and actually bump into each other every once in a while. This is one theory of how the big bang happened. Don't assume my lack of intelligence, when all throughout this thread you've demonstrated your incompetence.

Once again you fail to understand that space doesn't need something to expand into, it just expands itself. It's like saying that a rubber band can't stretch because there's no rubber band for it to stretch into...  See the logical failure?
Also just watch the video I've shared a few times now, he's much better at explaining it.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 26, 2014, 09:53:16 AM

The universe moving implies that there is space for it to move about, and there could exist a theoretical FoR in this space. Then again, I'm sure you're a few multitudes more adept than the theoretical physicists who come up with this stuff.

No, there is no space for it to move since all the space is within the universe. If there are indeed other universes, they too have their own space, but outside of them there is no space. Is it really that hard to understand?
*FACEPALM*

Are you saying >130 is not a valid expression for the answer to that problem?
Again, justify it any way you'd like, you used years when you should have obviously used seconds, and your mistake definitely effected the outcome of the answer. It made it wrong. If anything, you should be facepalming yourself for that one. Your simple inability to admit you were wrong on this basic level makes me question what you say.

As for the rest of your post, the rubber band can't stretch without something to stretch into. I didn't say that thing was another rubber band. Are you honestly suggesting that I would, physically, be able to travel to "nowhere"?

And Starman, "nothing" doesn't exist.

And Starman, "nothing" doesn't exist.

Underneath the flat earth is nothing right?

And Starman, "nothing" doesn't exist.

Underneath the flat earth is nothing right?

No. "Nothing" isn't a real thing.

The part you bolded from my explanation makes perfect sense if you actually take the time to think it over instead of assuming it's wrong.  Nothing on the surface of the earth is directly acted upon by the UA, only indirectly through the acceleration of the earth.  Therefore once you break contact with the earth surface, you are no longer being influenced by the UA at all.

This is contradictory to th3rm0m3t3r0's position.  He seems to be claiming that the entire universe is accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s.  Relative to what, I don't know.

However you seem say it is more akin to a wind blowing through the universe, pushing stuff it comes into contact with, and not effecting bodies in the slipstream of other bodies?  I'm unsure how this wind effect would cause a continuous acceleration, rather than everything just travelling the same speed as the "wind"?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on April 25, 2014, 01:07:07 PM

The part you bolded from my explanation makes perfect sense if you actually take the time to think it over instead of assuming it's wrong.  Nothing on the surface of the earth is directly acted upon by the UA, only indirectly through the acceleration of the earth.  Therefore once you break contact with the earth surface, you are no longer being influenced by the UA at all.

This is contradictory to th3rm0m3t3r0's position.  He seems to be claiming that the entire universe is accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s.  Relative to what, I don't know.

However you seem say it is more akin to a wind blowing through the universe, pushing stuff it comes into contact with, and not effecting bodies in the slipstream of other bodies?  I'm unsure how this wind effect would cause a continuous acceleration, rather than everything just travelling the same speed as the "wind"?

Read my other posts on this thread, I've been explaining.

I've read them all, and I'm just pointing out your model is different to DuckDodgers (and many other flat earthers).

UA is pretty flakey, it's almost like people are making it up as they go along.  Which, of course, can't be true....

Do you really expect all flat Earthers to hold the exact same beliefs?  We can't be onto something because our beliefs differ slightly?  You seem to be nitpicking at the slightest thing.   

Are you saying >130 is not a valid expression for the answer to that problem?

Yes, that is, however putting an equal ("=") sign too just causes confusion, especially with a space in between them ("= >")

Again, justify it any way you'd like, you used years when you should have obviously used seconds, and your mistake definitely effected the outcome of the answer. It made it wrong.

No, it wasn't a mistake. No, it didn't change the outcome. The outcome was, as I said earlier, that this would go above the speed of light, which apart from being impossible, we would expect to have infinite mass, which we obviously don't.

*FACEPALM*

If anything, you should be facepalming yourself for that one. Your simple inability to admit you were wrong on this basic level makes me question what you say.

I wasn't wrong, I think you should check up on the colloquial use of the word "generous" 

As for the rest of your post, the rubber band can't stretch without something to stretch into. I didn't say that thing was another rubber band. Are you honestly suggesting that I would, physically, be able to travel to "nowhere"?

Saying that the universe needs to expand into space is like saying that a rubber band needs to expand into more rubber. I just pointed out the flaw in that logic. As I said, the universe doesn't expand into space, space itself expands.
Here, for a comprehensive understanding (again  ):
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Do you really expect all flat Earthers to hold the exact same beliefs?  We can't be onto something because our beliefs differ slightly?  You seem to be nitpicking at the slightest thing.   

Key word here: belief. It's what differentiates you from real mainstream science.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 26, 2014, 07:11:04 PM

Are you saying >130 is not a valid expression for the answer to that problem?

Yes, that is, however putting an equal ("=") sign too just causes confusion, especially with a space in between them ("= >")

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 26, 2014, 07:11:04 PM

Again, justify it any way you'd like, you used years when you should have obviously used seconds, and your mistake definitely effected the outcome of the answer. It made it wrong.

No, it wasn't a mistake. No, it didn't change the outcome. The outcome was, as I said earlier, that this would go above the speed of light, which apart from being impossible, we would expect to have infinite mass, which we obviously don't.

*FACEPALM*

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 26, 2014, 07:11:04 PM

If anything, you should be facepalming yourself for that one. Your simple inability to admit you were wrong on this basic level makes me question what you say.

I wasn't wrong, I think you should check up on the colloquial use of the word "generous" 

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 26, 2014, 07:11:04 PM

As for the rest of your post, the rubber band can't stretch without something to stretch into. I didn't say that thing was another rubber band. Are you honestly suggesting that I would, physically, be able to travel to "nowhere"?

Saying that the universe needs to expand into space is like saying that a rubber band needs to expand into more rubber. I just pointed out the flaw in that logic. As I said, the universe doesn't expand into space, space itself expands.
Here, for a comprehensive understanding (again  ):
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: jroa on April 27, 2014, 09:21:45 AM

Do you really expect all flat Earthers to hold the exact same beliefs?  We can't be onto something because our beliefs differ slightly?  You seem to be nitpicking at the slightest thing.   

Key word here: belief. It's what differentiates you from real mainstream science.

Unfortunately for you, my choice of syntax did not effect the result.
Seriously, why can't you just admit that you have made a mistake?

I understand what "generous" means, but I would peg the meaning (based on the context, in this case) to mean a value greater than what should be used. Really, you should have just used the correct values.

All of that aside, again, I ask you, would I be able to physically travel to "nowhere"? I want you to think about this.

Indeed, your syntax did not change the result, it changed the comprehension of your statement.

Also, I didn't make a mistake since it couldn't possibly affect the outcome  . Here's an example:
I have to derive the constant 100, but I instead derive the constant 101. I get the value 0. Did I make a mistake? No, because any constant derived is 0. Such is the case with your dilemma here, the speed exceeds the speed of light. It doesn't matter by how much, it's still impossible. The outcome wasn't affected.

All of that aside, again, I ask you, would I be able to physically travel to "nowhere"? I want you to think about this.

Think about it, traveling implies movement through space, and what with there being no space outside the universe, you can't travel outside of it (if that's what you meant by traveling to "nowhere").
If it's just another weird analogy to the universe "expanding into space", just watch the video I shared already, it's very comprehensible even if you don't even have the basics of physics 

Indeed, your syntax did not change the result, it changed the comprehension of your statement.

Also, I didn't make a mistake since it couldn't possibly affect the outcome  . Here's an example:
I have to derive the constant 100, but I instead derive the constant 101. I get the value 0. Did I make a mistake? No, because any constant derived is 0. Such is the case with your dilemma here, the speed exceeds the speed of light. It doesn't matter by how much, it's still impossible. The outcome wasn't affected.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 27, 2014, 07:27:29 PM

All of that aside, again, I ask you, would I be able to physically travel to "nowhere"? I want you to think about this.

Think about it, traveling implies movement through space, and what with there being no space outside the universe, you can't travel outside of it (if that's what you meant by traveling to "nowhere").
If it's just another weird analogy to the universe "expanding into space", just watch the video I shared already, it's very comprehensible even if you don't even have the basics of physics 

You got the simple linear math problem wrong, just admit it.
I don't know anyone else who would have been confused about my syntax choice.
You're at fault here. You. Everyone reading this can see it, and you are making yourself look like an arrogant fool by not being able to admit you were wrong. To say "the outcome wasn't effected" is just entirely false.

Here:

I say there are 56 apples to hand out to the 17 children.
So, (Number of Apples) / (Number of Children) = Apples per Child.
Then you come along. Keep in mind that I've already listed the absolute values of these variables.

You say:

5 / 17 = 0.2941176470588235 Apples per Child.
The children cry. You throw the other 51 apples, because they don't matter.

See where you went wrong? I realize that you still won't be able to admit it, but it's okay. Let's move on from that.

I've watched the video, but it's wrong.
It's as wrong as general relativity.
It's as wrong as saying that something can effect nothing.

The simple error in comprehension you're having is that you don't understand that expansion cannot exist without some space.
If space-time is expanding seemingly infinitely, that means that there's a seemingly infinite amount of [ether-less, matter-less, energy-less] space.

I like how you completely knocked off the idea that there are variants of the multiverse theory that support my viewpoints, after you told me I wouldn't understand anything having to do with any multiverse theory. This just makes me believe that you're trying to belittle me because you have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't think about things. You simply type "tell me how th3rm0m3t3r0 is wrong" in Google, and start copying and pasting videos and Wikipedia articles that support your viewpoint. That's called being bias.

I'd suggest you look at all the information I've presented in this thread. Read the lecture about ether by Einstein.
Maybe Google something along the lines of "is there space outside the universe" instead of "there is no space outside the universe".

Just an idea.

Beside all that, you need to define universe. Like I've said, if you would like to define the universe as "all space and all of existence", then simply imagine the "container" as part of the universe.

You got the simple linear math problem wrong, just admit it.
I don't know anyone else who would have been confused about my syntax choice.
You're at fault here. You. Everyone reading this can see it, and you are making yourself look like an arrogant fool by not being able to admit you were wrong. To say "the outcome wasn't effected" is just entirely false.

So basically you can't comprehend the fact that 100 * c is just as wrong as 100000 * c, right? They're both impossible speeds to achieve.

I've watched the video, but it's wrong.
It's as wrong as general relativity.
It's as wrong as saying that something can effect nothing.

Of course it's wrong, just like gravity, because it disagrees with your fantasy 

*FACEPALM*

The simple error in comprehension you're having is that you don't understand that expansion cannot exist without some space.
If space-time is expanding seemingly infinitely, that means that there's a seemingly infinite amount of [ether-less, matter-less, energy-less] space.

What YOU don't understand is that the space itself expands within the universe, NOT the universe expands into space. Rubber band analogy, you still failed comprehending it.

I like how you completely knocked off the idea that there are variants of the multiverse theory that support my viewpoints, after you told me I wouldn't understand anything having to do with any multiverse theory. This just makes me believe that you're trying to belittle me because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh? So tell me exactly which multiverse theory actually says that there's space between the universes?

You don't think about things. You simply type "tell me how th3rm0m3t3r0 is wrong" in Google, and start copying and pasting videos and Wikipedia articles that support your viewpoint. That's called being bias.

Says the person that already denied two (not one) of the most substantiated theories in physics (just because they don't conform to their fantasy): gravity and relativity.
Such hypocrisy! What's next, quantum mechanics? 

I'd suggest you look at all the information I've presented in this thread. Read the lecture about ether by Einstein.

Good idea, I'll do that as soon as you present any of his peer reviewed publications on it.

Maybe Google something along the lines of "is there space outside the universe" instead of "there is no space outside the universe".

Okay, just for you, I actually did. And what do you guess, most of the answers were exactly the same one I gave you... 
I also found this other guy that also explains your dilemma particularly:
#t=260" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1953922405&feature=iv&src_vid=Kj0TwTonG_8&v=_k3_B9Eq7eM

Beside all that, you need to define universe. Like I've said, if you would like to define the universe as "all space and all of existence", then simply imagine the "container" as part of the universe.

Well if you want the container inside the universe, then, first of all you have to prove it, and then you have to prove that this "aether" isn't found outside of it. So I (and probably everybody else that isn't as flat earth biased as you) will go with Occam's razor on this one.

It's also funny that you didn't even bother addressing the issue with the flaw of the UA, you know, the "shielding" flaw, which effectively gets you a frame of reference inside your theoretical container so it can't be traveling even at speeds close to the speed of light. The "shielding" would also make the sun fall on the earth, so I'm really looking forward to what bullshit you will make up for it to fit, maybe deny quantum mechanics too, or deny optics or even deny your peer's "universal acceleration" or "shielding" xD

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 28, 2014, 10:13:00 AM

You got the simple linear math problem wrong, just admit it.
I don't know anyone else who would have been confused about my syntax choice.
You're at fault here. You. Everyone reading this can see it, and you are making yourself look like an arrogant fool by not being able to admit you were wrong. To say "the outcome wasn't effected" is just entirely false.

So basically you can't comprehend the fact that 100 * c is just as wrong as 100000 * c, right? They're both impossible speeds to achieve.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 28, 2014, 10:13:00 AM

I've watched the video, but it's wrong.
It's as wrong as general relativity.
It's as wrong as saying that something can effect nothing.

Of course it's wrong, just like gravity, because it disagrees with your fantasy 

*FACEPALM*

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 28, 2014, 10:13:00 AM

The simple error in comprehension you're having is that you don't understand that expansion cannot exist without some space.
If space-time is expanding seemingly infinitely, that means that there's a seemingly infinite amount of [ether-less, matter-less, energy-less] space.

What YOU don't understand is that the space itself expands within the universe, NOT the universe expands into space. Rubber band analogy, you still failed comprehending it.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 28, 2014, 10:13:00 AM

I like how you completely knocked off the idea that there are variants of the multiverse theory that support my viewpoints, after you told me I wouldn't understand anything having to do with any multiverse theory. This just makes me believe that you're trying to belittle me because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh? So tell me exactly which multiverse theory actually says that there's space between the universes?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 28, 2014, 10:13:00 AM

You don't think about things. You simply type "tell me how th3rm0m3t3r0 is wrong" in Google, and start copying and pasting videos and Wikipedia articles that support your viewpoint. That's called being bias.

Says the person that already denied two (not one) of the most substantiated theories in physics (just because they don't conform to their fantasy): gravity and relativity.
Such hypocrisy! What's next, quantum mechanics? 

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 28, 2014, 10:13:00 AM

I'd suggest you look at all the information I've presented in this thread. Read the lecture about ether by Einstein.

Good idea, I'll do that as soon as you present any of his peer reviewed publications on it.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 28, 2014, 10:13:00 AM

Maybe Google something along the lines of "is there space outside the universe" instead of "there is no space outside the universe".

Okay, just for you, I actually did. And what do you guess, most of the answers were exactly the same one I gave you... 
I also found this other guy that also explains your dilemma particularly:
#t=260" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1953922405&feature=iv&src_vid=Kj0TwTonG_8&v=_k3_B9Eq7eM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 28, 2014, 10:13:00 AM

Beside all that, you need to define universe. Like I've said, if you would like to define the universe as "all space and all of existence", then simply imagine the "container" as part of the universe.

Well if you want the container inside the universe, then, first of all you have to prove it, and then you have to prove that this "aether" isn't found outside of it. So I (and probably everybody else that isn't as flat earth biased as you) will go with Occam's razor on this one.

It's also funny that you didn't even bother addressing the issue with the flaw of the UA, you know, the "shielding" flaw, which effectively gets you a frame of reference inside your theoretical container so it can't be traveling even at speeds close to the speed of light. The "shielding" would also make the sun fall on the earth, so I'm really looking forward to what bullshit you will make up for it to fit, maybe deny quantum mechanics too, or deny optics or even deny your peer's "universal acceleration" or "shielding" xD

As far as math is concerned, I just don't understand how you can't see that your answer was incorrect.
You got it wrong AFTER I told you to treat it like a linear equation.
Again, that's beside the point.

General relativity isn't wrong because the Earth is flat. It's wrong because it says that something can effect nothing. It even goes a step further to say that something effecting nothing is the cause of a universally observed force.

What you are failing to comprehend, actually, is that this outside space can be a part of the universe, depending on how you look at the term "universe".

Refer to my post where I explained why certain variations of multiverse theory could support my view.

I didn't deny gravity, I denied the definition of gravity.

I'm sure you can find a "peer reviewed" paper on the lecture if you look. I'm personally not hung up about that.

I watched 10 seconds of the first video, and the guy is talking about the universe outside of the universe. It's a "nonsense question" because as I told you, you must define universe.
If you take "universe" to mean all of existence - then the container, though ether-less, is part of the universe.
If anything, you're misunderstanding this yourself.
I could only assume that this is the only argument you can make against what I'm saying.

The fact that the UA is accelerating uniformly and indefinitely means that there is no ether in the container.

As for the concern about "shielding", I can't really say that I've ever heard of "shielding".

means that there is no ether in the container.

Are you sure you two aren't sniffing it?

What you are failing to comprehend, actually, is that this outside space can be a part of the universe, depending on how you look at the term "universe".

Okay so help me understand the logic here: This outside space into which our universe expands, is inside the universe? Because that's the whole deal with this "outside space" of yours.

Refer to my post where I explained why certain variations of multiverse theory could support my view.

I can't find it. Can you re-post it?

I'm sure you can find a "peer reviewed" paper on the lecture if you look. I'm personally not hung up about that.

That's just the thing, I didn't. Maybe you can?

I watched 10 seconds of the first video, and the guy is talking about the universe outside of the universe. It's a "nonsense question" because as I told you, you must define universe.

The first 10 sec don't even address the issue... It's just an introduction. Watch all of it, is 5 min too much of your time? 

If you take "universe" to mean all of existence - then the container, though ether-less, is part of the universe.

This goes against what you said earlier:
"I suppose a point in the ether-less "universe container" could be used as a hypothetical FoR, if that helps you sleep at night."
"It is a hypothesis. If there is no "space" outside the universe, how is it expanding? One could speculate that there is no ether out there, because there is no light."
One thing I didn't originally address: it's not a hypothesis it's a baseless assumption, but that's beside the point 

So then if the whole universe (If you take "universe" to mean all of existence - then the container, though ether-less, is part of the universe.) is affected by this acceleration universally, there is no acceleration because there is no frame of reference. That's the point.
So again, if you want it to work, you should rename it to "convenient acceleration" xD

The fact that the UA is accelerating uniformly and indefinitely means that there is no ether in the container.

I don't see how "no aether in the container" logically follows "uniform indefinate UA", especially since you're claiming that the UA is also uniform and indefinate inside the supposed container with has the supposed aether.

As for the concern about "shielding", I can't really say that I've ever heard of "shielding".

Well, you didn't refer to it as "shielding", but you did allude to it:
"Think about the entire universe as a rock, being accelerated upwards at 9.81 m/s^2.
You are an ant on the top of the rock.
You jump, the rock catches up to you."
Also DuckDodger's:
"The UA accelerates everything it is in direct contact with, but it is not in direct contact with everything due to shielding."

This "shielding" would crash your whole UA.

Please explain how the shielding would crash the UA.

Well first of all, it's not universal anymore.
Second of all, since in your model the sun is only a few kilometers wide, it is effectively "shielded" by the earth, but somehow it's not falling down.

So yeah, you either have to rethink it altogether (taking my advice and naming it the "convenient acceleration" after that) or make up more bullshit to fit this discrepancy 

Quote

What you are failing to comprehend, actually, is that this outside space can be a part of the universe, depending on how you look at the term "universe".

Okay so help me understand the logic here: This outside space into which our universe expands, is inside the universe? Because that's the whole deal with this "outside space" of yours.

Quote

Refer to my post where I explained why certain variations of multiverse theory could support my view.

I can't find it. Can you re-post it?

Quote

I'm sure you can find a "peer reviewed" paper on the lecture if you look. I'm personally not hung up about that.

That's just the thing, I didn't. Maybe you can?

Quote

I watched 10 seconds of the first video, and the guy is talking about the universe outside of the universe. It's a "nonsense question" because as I told you, you must define universe.

The first 10 sec don't even address the issue... It's just an introduction. Watch all of it, is 5 min too much of your time? 

Quote

If you take "universe" to mean all of existence - then the container, though ether-less, is part of the universe.

This goes against what you said earlier:
"I suppose a point in the ether-less "universe container" could be used as a hypothetical FoR, if that helps you sleep at night."
"It is a hypothesis. If there is no "space" outside the universe, how is it expanding? One could speculate that there is no ether out there, because there is no light."
One thing I didn't originally address: it's not a hypothesis it's a baseless assumption, but that's beside the point 

So then if the whole universe (If you take "universe" to mean all of existence - then the container, though ether-less, is part of the universe.) is affected by this acceleration universally, there is no acceleration because there is no frame of reference. That's the point.
So again, if you want it to work, you should rename it to "convenient acceleration" xD

Quote

The fact that the UA is accelerating uniformly and indefinitely means that there is no ether in the container.

I don't see how "no aether in the container" logically follows "uniform indefinate UA", especially since you're claiming that the UA is also uniform and indefinate inside the supposed container with has the supposed aether.

Quote

As for the concern about "shielding", I can't really say that I've ever heard of "shielding".

Well, you didn't refer to it as "shielding", but you did allude to it:
"Think about the entire universe as a rock, being accelerated upwards at 9.81 m/s^2.
You are an ant on the top of the rock.
You jump, the rock catches up to you."
Also DuckDodger's:
"The UA accelerates everything it is in direct contact with, but it is not in direct contact with everything due to shielding."

This "shielding" would crash your whole UA.

Well then, our ether-bubble is moving through the ether-less environment, which can be part of the universe.
I guess I should revise the name of my theory to "the ether-bubble accelerator".
This isn't really any different than anything I've said, but again, if it helps you sleep at night...
Why are you hung up on peer review of this lecture? I'm sure Einstein had a greater understanding of most of the things he postulated than any of his peers.

Well then, our ether-bubble is moving through the ether-less environment, which can be part of the universe.
I guess I should revise the name of my theory to "the ether-bubble accelerator".
This isn't really any different than anything I've said, but again, if it helps you sleep at night...
Why are you hung up on peer review of this lecture? I'm sure Einstein had a greater understanding of most of the things he postulated than any of his peers.

The same reason we're hung up on ANY peer review: It's part of the scientific process. Maybe it was part of a gag, and he wasn't being serious about it, and so had no one review it.

Yes, it is very different, because now it's not about "outside the universe" (which can't be proven), now you're talking inside of it, which you should be able to prove. So bring forth your proof.

Also, now that you're talking inside the universe, having x point from within the "bubble" (lol), where you claim that relativistic limits apply (i.e. the speed of light), then you've got a pretty good reason why the whole bubble can't be going faster than the speed of light. The objects inside of it will eventually move at close to and faster than the speed of light, in reference to objects outside of the bubble, which gets to the same problem: we should expect to have infinite mass now.

By the way, if you don't understand the importance of the peer review process, I really don't understand why you think you're even qualified to argue about science  ...

Although I'm not a scientist as such, even I recognise the need for the peer review process. Anyone who doesn't can't be trusted in their studies & conclusions.

Yes, it is very different, because now it's not about "outside the universe" (which can't be proven), now you're talking inside of it, which you should be able to prove. So bring forth your proof.

Also, now that you're talking inside the universe, having x point from within the "bubble" (lol), where you claim that relativistic limits apply (i.e. the speed of light), then you've got a pretty good reason why the whole bubble can't be going faster than the speed of light. The objects inside of it will eventually move at close to and faster than the speed of light, in reference to objects outside of the bubble, which gets to the same problem: we should expect to have infinite mass now.

By the way, if you don't understand the importance of the peer review process, I really don't understand why you think you're even qualified to argue about science  ...

I understand the importance of peer review.
I'm not sure if anyone is capable of peer-reviewing Einstein. I mean, the guy's name is used as a turn of phrase (usually sarcastically) to describe someone extremely intelligent. He's like the epitome of physicists. Well, that's how he's regarded. The fact that any of that relativity nonsense got out and was accepted after being peer-reviewed makes me question the process, however.

What's the reason the ether bubble can't travel through the container at the speed of light or faster?
Light speed is defined by ether. We are moving relative to the container, through the container.
The container is ether-less, and so special relativity is obsolete on the scale of the ether bubble as a whole.

What's the reason the ether bubble can't travel through the container at the speed of light or faster?
Light speed is defined by ether. We are moving relative to the container, through the container.
The container is ether-less, and so special relativity is obsolete on the scale of the ether bubble as a whole.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. 

Sign me up!

Quote from: Donk3y on April 29, 2014, 05:17:20 AM

Yes, it is very different, because now it's not about "outside the universe" (which can't be proven), now you're talking inside of it, which you should be able to prove. So bring forth your proof.

Also, now that you're talking inside the universe, having x point from within the "bubble" (lol), where you claim that relativistic limits apply (i.e. the speed of light), then you've got a pretty good reason why the whole bubble can't be going faster than the speed of light. The objects inside of it will eventually move at close to and faster than the speed of light, in reference to objects outside of the bubble, which gets to the same problem: we should expect to have infinite mass now.

By the way, if you don't understand the importance of the peer review process, I really don't understand why you think you're even qualified to argue about science  ...

I understand the importance of peer review.
I'm not sure if anyone is capable of peer-reviewing Einstein. I mean, the guy's name is used as a turn of phrase (usually sarcastically) to describe someone extremely intelligent. He's like the epitome of physicists. Well, that's how he's regarded. The fact that any of that relativity nonsense got out and was accepted after being peer-reviewed makes me question the process, however.

What's the reason the ether bubble can't travel through the container at the speed of light or faster?
Light speed is defined by ether. We are moving relative to the container, through the container.
The container is ether-less, and so special relativity is obsolete on the scale of the ether bubble as a whole.

There are too many unfounded claims here, but I already explained why it can't go faster than the speed of light (the points in space outside the bubble relative to those within the bubble would make the matter inside the bubble reach the speed of light -> impossible).

Would be nice to have some proof once in awhile though.

@therm - it is aether, not ether.  Don't get them mixed up - you could do yourself an injury.

@therm - it is aether, not ether.  Don't get them mixed up - you could do yourself an injury.

LOL! That reminds of an incident I had in my freshman year, I accidentally burnt some of a colleague's hair after igniting some etilic ether xD

Better than setting fire to the aether, that could destroy the entire universe.   

@therm - it is aether, not ether.  Don't get them mixed up - you could do yourself an injury.

It's either. I think it's more preference than anything. I think context should tell you I'm not talking about the diethyl ether.
http://www.ethertheory.org/en/

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 29, 2014, 07:01:04 AM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 29, 2014, 05:17:20 AM

Yes, it is very different, because now it's not about "outside the universe" (which can't be proven), now you're talking inside of it, which you should be able to prove. So bring forth your proof.

Also, now that you're talking inside the universe, having x point from within the "bubble" (lol), where you claim that relativistic limits apply (i.e. the speed of light), then you've got a pretty good reason why the whole bubble can't be going faster than the speed of light. The objects inside of it will eventually move at close to and faster than the speed of light, in reference to objects outside of the bubble, which gets to the same problem: we should expect to have infinite mass now.

By the way, if you don't understand the importance of the peer review process, I really don't understand why you think you're even qualified to argue about science  ...

I understand the importance of peer review.
I'm not sure if anyone is capable of peer-reviewing Einstein. I mean, the guy's name is used as a turn of phrase (usually sarcastically) to describe someone extremely intelligent. He's like the epitome of physicists. Well, that's how he's regarded. The fact that any of that relativity nonsense got out and was accepted after being peer-reviewed makes me question the process, however.

What's the reason the ether bubble can't travel through the container at the speed of light or faster?
Light speed is defined by ether. We are moving relative to the container, through the container.
The container is ether-less, and so special relativity is obsolete on the scale of the ether bubble as a whole.

There are too many unfounded claims here, but I already explained why it can't go faster than the speed of light (the points in space outside the bubble relative to those within the bubble would make the matter inside the bubble reach the speed of light -> impossible).

Would be nice to have some proof once in awhile though.

The speed of light remains constant in the presence of ether, but without ether the speed of light is not.
Therefore, when using an ether-less point as a frame of reference, special relativity does not apply.
Think of our ether-bubble as a single object accelerating through the ether-less environment.