Which theory explains more?

Vauxhall says:

I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.

However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?

Vauxhall says:

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:00:19 AM

I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.

However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?

Aetheric Wind theroy does explain the motion the stars. I'm sorry that you haven't been paying attention.

This might help you in the future.

You missed the neutrino part.

You missed the neutrino part.

I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 06, 2015, 11:47:13 AM

You missed the neutrino part.

I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.

Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 06, 2015, 11:40:43 AM

Vauxhall says:

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:00:19 AM

I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.

However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?

Aetheric Wind theroy does explain the motion the stars. I'm sorry that you haven't been paying attention.

Well not really, Vaux.  You need to include the conspiracy that they are hiding the fact that Anarctica isn't really there.  A whirlpool will not explain southern circumpolar stars viewed from the southern hemisphere or the entire southern hemisphere celestial view for that matter.  If it was a whirlpool and you center it over somewhere in the southern hemisphere then other places in the southern hemisphere would not be able to see the same thing.  (Example South Africa, Argentina, and New Zealand would not have the same stars that look to be rotating around a point to their south.  The aetheric wind could however be used as the placeholder for whatever is accelerating a flat disc to simulate gravitational effects.  The flat model isn't superior to the round model.  The amount of evidence vastly outfavors round over flat, with most of the flat evidence easily explained in the round model.  It doesn't work the other way around, hence the conspiracy theory angle. 

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:44:41 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 06, 2015, 11:40:43 AM

Vauxhall says:

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:00:19 AM

I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.

However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?

Aetheric Wind theroy does explain the motion the stars. I'm sorry that you haven't been paying attention.

Well not really, Vaux.  You need to include the conspiracy that they are hiding the fact that Anarctica isn't really there.  A whirlpool will not explain southern circumpolar stars viewed from the southern hemisphere or the entire southern hemisphere celestial view for that matter.  If it was a whirlpool and you center it over somewhere in the southern hemisphere then other places in the southern hemisphere would not be able to see the same thing.  (Example South Africa, Argentina, and New Zealand would not have the same stars that look to be rotating around a point to their south.  The aetheric wind could however be used as the placeholder for whatever is accelerating a flat disc to simulate gravitational effects.  The flat model isn't superior to the round model.  The amount of evidence vastly outfavors round over flat, with most of the flat evidence easily explained in the round model.  It doesn't work the other way around, hence the conspiracy theory angle.

There are multiple whirlpools. This is where the bit about reading comprehension comes in. My theory accounts for Antarctica, and makes no claims that it doesn't exist. It also does not rely on an easily discredited ice wall to work.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:48:09 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 06, 2015, 11:47:13 AM

You missed the neutrino part.

I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.

Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.

I will have to seriously consider this before posting my response. It is very interesting, to say the least.

Vauxhall says:

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:00:19 AM

I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.

However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?

Quality is better than quantity.  We are less concerned with a theory that "explains" more than one that is true.

I think "better" was an unfortunate phrase to use. It's an alternative model, certainly, but to describe it as better implies that you can do better than Newton several other greats. Newton single-handedly described the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and invented calculus with nothing more than a pen and paper. Nobody is "better" than that.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:48:09 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 06, 2015, 11:47:13 AM

You missed the neutrino part.

I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.

Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.

There are neutrinos all around us.  How would you know if any that are detected are the same as the ones fired? 

I think "better" was an unfortunate phrase to use. It's an alternative model, certainly, but to describe it as better implies that you can do better than Newton several other greats. Newton single-handedly described the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and invented calculus with nothing more than a pen and paper. Nobody is "better" than that.

Newton is like science's Jesus. People give him far too much credit, and there's some doubt about whether or not he even existed at all.

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 06, 2015, 11:55:55 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:44:41 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 06, 2015, 11:40:43 AM

Vauxhall says:

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:00:19 AM

I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.

However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?

Aetheric Wind theroy does explain the motion the stars. I'm sorry that you haven't been paying attention.

Well not really, Vaux.  You need to include the conspiracy that they are hiding the fact that Anarctica isn't really there.  A whirlpool will not explain southern circumpolar stars viewed from the southern hemisphere or the entire southern hemisphere celestial view for that matter.  If it was a whirlpool and you center it over somewhere in the southern hemisphere then other places in the southern hemisphere would not be able to see the same thing.  (Example South Africa, Argentina, and New Zealand would not have the same stars that look to be rotating around a point to their south.  The aetheric wind could however be used as the placeholder for whatever is accelerating a flat disc to simulate gravitational effects.  The flat model isn't superior to the round model.  The amount of evidence vastly outfavors round over flat, with most of the flat evidence easily explained in the round model.  It doesn't work the other way around, hence the conspiracy theory angle.

There are multiple whirlpools. This is where the bit about reading comprehension comes in. My theory accounts for Antarctica, and makes no claims that it doesn't exist. It also does not rely on an easily discredited ice wall to work.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 06, 2015, 11:52:29 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:48:09 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 06, 2015, 11:47:13 AM

You missed the neutrino part.

I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.

Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.

I will have to seriously consider this before posting my response. It is very interesting, to say the least.

The aether "theory" (it's really more of an assumption) does not explain anything until it can make predictions, and that can't happen without math, and the only times I have seen "Aetger" and "math" in the same sentence is in my many unanswered posts asking for a flat earther to nathematicaly discribe the aether.  RET on the other hand can predict the positions and phases of everything in the sky with insane accuracy.

Now can anyone provide a mathematical description of the aether?

Now can anyone provide a mathematical description of the aether?

Aether pushes the Earth upward at 9.8m/s^2. This is verifiable.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 06, 2015, 11:52:29 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:48:09 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 06, 2015, 11:47:13 AM

You missed the neutrino part.

I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.

Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.

There are neutrinos all around us.  How would you know if any that are detected are the same as the ones fired?

Because if you fire neutrinos at a detector then it will detect more neutrinos then it otherwise would.  How is that not obvious?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 12:12:30 PM

Now can anyone provide a mathematical description of the aether?

Aether pushes the Earth upward at 9.8m/s^2. This is verifiable.

But Gravity creates the illusion that the Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s².  Thst is verifiable.  Gravity also can predict gravitational strength differences on different parts of the Earth, that is verifyable too.

Now are you going to show me some aether math?

Quote from: jroa on March 06, 2015, 12:11:01 PM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 06, 2015, 11:52:29 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:48:09 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 06, 2015, 11:47:13 AM

You missed the neutrino part.

I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.

Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.

There are neutrinos all around us.  How would you know if any that are detected are the same as the ones fired?

Because if you fire neutrinos at a detector then it will detect more neutrinos then it otherwise would.  How is that not obvious?

That still would not mean that they were the same neutrinos that you fired.  You would simply be making an assumption, like most of the other "proofs" that you people free throw around these forums.  But, it is just a thought experiment anyway. 

Gravity also can predict gravitational strength differences on different parts of the Earth, that is verifyable too.

Not really. Actually, this isn't true at all. Gravity cannot predict the gravitational strength of different planets without relying on dark matter (which has absolutely no evidence supporting its existence).

Please please please stop posting blatantly false information. You are not contributing.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 12:17:26 PM

Gravity also can predict gravitational strength differences on different parts of the Earth, that is verifyable too.

Not really. Actually, this isn't true at all. Gravity cannot predict the gravitational strength of different planets without relying on dark matter (which has absolutely no evidence supporting its existence).

Please please please stop posting blatantly false information. You are not contributing.

He said gravitational differences on Earth.

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 06, 2015, 11:55:55 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:44:41 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 06, 2015, 11:40:43 AM

Vauxhall says:

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 11:00:19 AM

I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.

However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?

Aetheric Wind theroy does explain the motion the stars. I'm sorry that you haven't been paying attention.

Well not really, Vaux.  You need to include the conspiracy that they are hiding the fact that Anarctica isn't really there.  A whirlpool will not explain southern circumpolar stars viewed from the southern hemisphere or the entire southern hemisphere celestial view for that matter.  If it was a whirlpool and you center it over somewhere in the southern hemisphere then other places in the southern hemisphere would not be able to see the same thing.  (Example South Africa, Argentina, and New Zealand would not have the same stars that look to be rotating around a point to their south.  The aetheric wind could however be used as the placeholder for whatever is accelerating a flat disc to simulate gravitational effects.  The flat model isn't superior to the round model.  The amount of evidence vastly outfavors round over flat, with most of the flat evidence easily explained in the round model.  It doesn't work the other way around, hence the conspiracy theory angle.

There are multiple whirlpools. This is where the bit about reading comprehension comes in. My theory accounts for Antarctica, and makes no claims that it doesn't exist. It also does not rely on an easily discredited ice wall to work.

Well multiple whirlpools can not explain why the same stars are visible to rotate around the same point.  Unless the light from the stars bend perfectly to match all these whirlpools in the exact same configuration.  The angular distance between these stars are also another issue with the whirlpool argument too.  If you have multiple circles, or whirlpools if we need to name them that, rotating the correct way to match what we see in the Southern hemisphere then as they are rotating the outer stars of each will get closer and farther away from each other. 
I have a question, is it a central whirlpool that makes the Northern hemisphere stars rotate also or is the disc spinning, I don't remember if that was clarified, probably was and I didn't read it.  Just wondering, trying to visualize the model better.

He said gravitational differences on Earth.

Which we've already explained countless times.

Well multiple whirlpools can not explain why the same stars are visible to rotate around the same point.  Unless the light from the stars bend perfectly to match all these whirlpools in the exact same configuration.  The angular distance between these stars are also another issue with the whirlpool argument too.  If you have multiple circles, or whirlpools if we need to name them that, rotating the correct way to match what we see in the Southern hemisphere then as they are rotating the outer stars of each will get closer and farther away from each other. 
I have a question, is it a central whirlpool that makes the Northern hemisphere stars rotate also or is the disc spinning, I don't remember if that was clarified, probably was and I didn't read it.  Just wondering, trying to visualize the model better.

It's great that you are so interested in this theory. I would suggest reading into "bendy light" theory, as it explains most of (all) the discrepancies with light, size/shape of stars, etc.

And no, the disc is not spinning. The aether pulls into itself after spilling from the bottom of the Earth disc (this is called Aetheric Spillage), which creates multiple whirlpools above the Earth. By definition, whirlpools are spinning phenomenon. This is what causes the movement of the stars.

I will go back to reading up on it a bit more, TY.

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 06, 2015, 12:08:31 PM

I think "better" was an unfortunate phrase to use. It's an alternative model, certainly, but to describe it as better implies that you can do better than Newton several other greats. Newton single-handedly described the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and invented calculus with nothing more than a pen and paper. Nobody is "better" than that.

Newton is like science's Jesus. People give him far too much credit, and there's some doubt about whether or not he even existed at all.

Newton was a religious figure in his own right too.  Have you seen the volumes of religious garbage credited to him?

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 12:11:35 PM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 06, 2015, 12:08:31 PM

I think "better" was an unfortunate phrase to use. It's an alternative model, certainly, but to describe it as better implies that you can do better than Newton several other greats. Newton single-handedly described the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and invented calculus with nothing more than a pen and paper. Nobody is "better" than that.

Newton is like science's Jesus. People give him far too much credit, and there's some doubt about whether or not he even existed at all.

Newton was a religious figure in his own right too.  Have you seen the volumes of religious garbage credited to him?

I haven't. I try to stay away from messiah-like figures.

Do you have any links I can check out for further reading?

There's some doubt that Newton existed?

No there isn't! He didn't live that long ago! Where did you get that little gem from? You're in the realm of the "air doesn't exist" now.

And yes Newton was religious. Nearly everyone was in 17th and 18th century England. What's your point?

No there isn't! He didn't live that long ago! Where did you get that little gem from? You're in the realm of the "air doesn't exist" now.

Err, not really. No one on this Earth has even met Newton, so the fact that you are so certain he existed is suspect. 

Scholars cannot even agree on his birthday, some accounts say December 25 and some say January 4. He never married and had no known children, so we cannot trace his ancestry. He looks strikingly different in almost all of his portraits, implying that the artists didn't really know what he looked like. And there's a lot more than that too, but I don't feel like going too deep into this matter.

Okay I'm not going to waste my time debating his existence, let's say he didn't exist then. Someone did the work claimed to be his, so they were the genius. It makes no difference. It's still a big claim to know better than such a giant.

Okay I'm not going to waste my time debating his existence, let's say he didn't exist then. Someone did the work claimed to be his, so they were the genius. It makes no difference. It's still a big claim to know better than such a giant.

Discovering that things fall is not that big of an achievement. It's actually a pretty obvious thing.

It's great that you are so interested in this theory. I would suggest reading into "bendy light" theory, as it explains most of (all) the discrepancies with light, size/shape of stars, etc.

No, it doesn't. You flattists rely on just trotting out the name of your theories and hoping we'll believe it does explain something. Bendy light explains absolutely nothing and its predictions don't match reality. The laws of perspective alone are enough to put bendy light in the bin.

And no, the disc is not spinning. The aether pulls into itself after spilling from the bottom of the Earth disc (this is called Aetheric Spillage), which creates multiple whirlpools above the Earth. By definition, whirlpools are spinning phenomenon. This is what causes the movement of the stars.

Movements of the stars are incompatible with the above explanation because it is impossible for any two points in two different whirlpools to maintain a constant angular distance from each other if seen from a planar surface. You also cannot tessellate circles without gaps, and there are no gaps in the night sky.

I'm sorry but just claiming that some pig-stupid excuse explains something is not the same as it actually doing so. Making up pompous terms ("aetheric spillage - lol!) doesn't add authority to your trolling.
So if you want to continue to tout your theory, you'll now need to explain (a) the constant angular distance of stars (b) why are there no gaps between the whirlpools.
Your theory doesn't fit observation. The round/torus theory does.
I expect you'll just reply with some "I don't see why I should explain it again/ Not my fault if you don't understand it/ This has already been explained" type dodging, rather than address either of (a) or (b).

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 06, 2015, 01:04:11 PM

Okay I'm not going to waste my time debating his existence, let's say he didn't exist then. Someone did the work claimed to be his, so they were the genius. It makes no difference. It's still a big claim to know better than such a giant.

Discovering that things fall is not that big of an achievement. It's actually a pretty obvious thing.

Come on, you must know that Newton (or his replacement!) did a lot more than that. Calculus. The laws of thermodynamics. One man laid the foundations of modern maths and physics. If you had the intellect to fundamentally re-write such work, you wouldn't be spending your time on a post flat-earth forum, you'd be polishing your Noble prizes.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 06, 2015, 01:07:15 PM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 06, 2015, 01:04:11 PM

Okay I'm not going to waste my time debating his existence, let's say he didn't exist then. Someone did the work claimed to be his, so they were the genius. It makes no difference. It's still a big claim to know better than such a giant.

Discovering that things fall is not that big of an achievement. It's actually a pretty obvious thing.

Come on, you must know that Newton (or his replacement!) did a lot more than that. Calculus. The laws of thermodynamics. One man laid the foundations of modern maths and physics. If you had the intellect to fundamentally re-write such work, you wouldn't be spending your time on a post flat-earth forum, you'd be polishing your Noble prizes.

The arguement from ficitional authority is strong with this one.