i have more evidence of aether than you have of gravity. aether answers the questions of why things work.
i cannot describe the properties with detailed mathematics as i do not have enough information or the resources to acquire this information.
See the problem?
There is detailed math that accurately describes what gravity does. This mathematical model has been verified in countless experiments and is used to successfully predict the motions of masses in the presence of gravity with great accuracy. So, I have to disagree with your statement in the first quote above. You do not have more evidence of aether than we have of gravity. You have untested ideas. Nothing more.
i have outlined how its properties would work. sciences takes time, equipment, and manpower to do completely, and i have none of those things. i have shown how it works.
You've described in vague terms what you think it does.
making up an equation doesn't mean what it's said to apply to exists.
"Making up" an equation doesn't do squat. If you create a mathematical model (in the simplest form, an equation) that accurately describes what is known to happen and can reliably predict what will happen, then there's an excellent chance that the model has physical meaning (that is, it realistically describes what is happening).
aether explains the downwards force. coming up with figures doesn't mean there isn't another explanation.
No it doesn't, and there is another explanation. Gravity. It explains the downward force, and explains, in detail, why it varies from place to place on and off earth. It explains orbits. Your aether explanation can do none of this beyond "it makes stuff go down, but we don't know why it changes from place to place".
i have described what it does. i have described the effects from which we conclude it exists. you do not need detailed math to know something is there. i know the proposed explanations for many things are not true (explained many other places), so aether is the simple conclusion. my personal evidence and experience also makes me certain.
Your descriptions are of effects that are better described using other phenomena like gravity and the rotating, orbiting earth. These explanations are better because they can be used to make predictions that actually prove correct. Change in acceleration of gravity due to elevation change corresponds to the distance from the center of the Earth changing. With aether it's apparently "whirlpools or something like that". Change in acceleration of gravity with latitude is a combination of changing distance from the center of the ellipsoidal Earth and centrifugal acceleration. With aether it's . So why would aether-based downward force change with latitude, being weakest at the equator, midway from center to edge? More whirlpools? Not a lot of predictability there.
So follow up on the personal evidence. Can you demonstrate your evidence is real and not explained better by another model?
how exactly do you think equations are found? they're not handed down by angels, scientists take numbers and make up relationships until it works for their sample size. sounds like making up to me.
I'd say "uncover" relationships is a better description. To "Make up" a relationship means inventing one without a basis in fact.
aether explains orbits (the whirlpool above the earth).
What whirlpool? You just speculate, without evidence, that one, in something with unknown properties, might exist. That's not much of an explanation.
if we have mapped the location of the whirlpools nearer to the earth, and their degree of tilt, then it would be perfect for predicting behavior. this isn't done, because no scientist respects the idea of aether. it's that simple.
If you're not sure what aether is and what effect it has on matter, then what behavior is it going to predict? No scientist respects the idea of aether because it hasn't been detected and simply isn't necessary to explain what we see.
i suspect the force is weakest at the equator because the sun's path goes there, weakening the pull of the denser aether above. (aether wants to be whole and combine its various densities again).
That's actually pretty good! Gravity is weakest at the equator, so "weakening the pull of the denser aether above" would seem to have the opposite effect, but I think I see what you're trying to say. Still, why wouldn't this effect change with the seasons? Stronger further north in June and further south in December? The real effect doesn't actually do that.
you don't understand the concept of personal evidence do you? of course i can't demonstrate it to someone else, it's personal. you can't prove one of your conversations takes place beyond "take our word for it."
I understand the concept, but if it's personal revelations, like "talking with God"? No, I don't believe these things actually happen. Many people honestly do believe
The amount of time you spend on this forum shows that you have plenty of time, there are plenty of members of this forum that can help you, and between everyone here I am sure someone has the right equipment. Stop making excuses. If you understand the properties of the Aetger as well as you claim tgen you should have no trouble making an equasion that describes it. You tell everyone to use logic, and math is just logic in a written form. What are you waiting for?
when you meet someone who has a hot air balloon and the ability to measure vertical refraction, for example, at various set altitudes, as well as being able to reliably know the altitude they're at, let me know. there are some, they're not going to want to help. i know, i've asked.
that is one possible experiment, that would help to gauge some properties of aether.
i have described the properties as much as can reasonably be expected, and answered every question posed. that is all that needs to be done. moving the goalposts is a dishonest tactic.
Can you describe the experiment rigorously enough to determine if a balloon ride is really necessary? What is it you're trying to show?
How do you propose to measure vertical refraction? How do you plan to discriminate between what you're trying to measure and confounding effects like as atmospheric refraction? If you're simply trying to measure atmospheric refraction and applying what's already known to an aether-based model instead of a N2-O2-CO2 air-based model, then there's a lot of data already collected.
Maybe you could start simple and, if the results are encouraging, expand. That should let you flesh out your rudimentary model and may give insights on how to improve on techniques and instrumentation. You're starting with nothing. Baby steps. It was a long way from Rutherford's model of the atom to the LHC. It does take time.
there is no atmospheric refraction. don't appeal to round earth fantasies as an excuse. this isn't going to be a proof, it is just an example of how the aether refracts light. the further we go up, the more whirlpools we'll pass (i suspect there is at least one) giving a irregularity, possibly a jump. it is only to get data to deduce more about the aether. i can't say what to expect until i see the results, that is the zetetic method, not the obstinate nature of your science method.
i don't know how to measure refraction, but if there is no way, my point is made. you ask absurdities.
What do you mean, there's no atmospheric refraction? Bullshit! Sorry, honey, but it's been measured, and you can even see its effects yourself. Simply denying it exists is meaningless unless you can back up your claim with data.
And, no, there's never going to be proof. Science doesn't deal in proof, just data that supports and refutes models. So in what way do you expect these postulated whirlpools to affect the passage of light? [That's your hypothesis.] If you don't know what to expect, how are you going to tell if the effect is there?
If you don't know how to measure refraction, then what's the point in going up in a balloon (other than it being a fun thing to do!) in an attempt to measure it? I was going to suggest taking measurements driving up a tall mountain like Pikes Peak (if you're in the US) as an alternative, but if you don't have any measurements to make, there's no point.
This all sounds very poorly thought out. Fun thought exercise, but not science. Not even Zetetic "science".
appealing to a fictional atmosphere to explain aetheric refraction is dishonest. aether refracts light (by observation of the contradiction between common sense and observation, and the spectroscopic analysis of the sun, as well as what you blame on some fantasy atmosphere). an increased density of aether, which forms the whirlpools, is going to therefore further refract. it's very simple.
i could find out how to measure refraction if i had a reason to, i suspect. what is the point in learning the details for half an experiment when i am never going to have the money or equipment to do the other half?
think.
them, but I suspect they're hallucinations, dreams, an overactive imagination, or just plain wishful thinking. If it's some personal insight into a physical phenomenon because you observed it, then if there were no other observers and it can't be replicated, then it goes into the category of "unconfirmed" at best, often depending on the improbability of what is reported (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof: "I just saw five bright meteors in two minutes!" "Wow, that's really cool!" "I was abducted by an alien spacecraft and Elvis was on it!" "Um... OK?? See 'ya!") and the reliability of the reporter.
It's not difficult to "prove" a conversation takes place if there are witnesses, recordings, or a written record. What's your point?