My Flat Earth Model

  • 110 Replies
  • 48222 Views
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
My Flat Earth Model
« on: March 06, 2015, 01:12:25 PM »
EDIT: the purpose of this thread has changed. i am using it as a place to write down my increasing refinements and alterations to the models. as i consider more, many possibilities present themselves. the most recent posts will describe my thoughts.

Here, I will outline my thoughts, and my beliefs and evidence for the state of the world. There will be outlines, justifications, and an faq. For those who insist on derailing and talking about my typing style, this was written in word so there are some automatic fixes.
I doubt this will convince round earthers set in their ways. It is not meant to. Instead, I hope to make it clear what I think, and why, and undo the need to keep repeating myself.
I am not interested in debating here. start a thread if you must, but if you think I’ve missed an obvious query, or something needs clarification, then let me know so I can add it. I think the evidence I have is sufficient, but if you disagree, it doesn’t matter right now: for this post, I will bring up evidence only when it is a natural consequence, and a not interested in doing so elsewhere. Consider this post an attempt to gain a working, internally consistent model at the very least. On those grounds, if anything needs explanation, let me know.
The post will be written in order:

  • Crucial first steps
  • My sole assumption
  • Basic facts
  • Air
  • Faq

I will also link to this post in my sig. if you’re here because of that, please go to the relevant section, and read. Assume I agree with the site faq unless stated otherwise.

First steps
The thing we need to remember is that the earth is flat: this will not be a popular starting point, I admit, but evidence is there. From this, everything else falls into place. There is evidence for this. The simplest is to look out your window: if, as round earthers say, this is a sphere, and yet no flat surfaces exist on a sphere. This is the classic proof, though some responses have been found.
We also acknowledge the fact that all matter is accelerating. Even round earthers admit the evidence for this is overwhelming, we move away from the source of the universe, the center, the site of the big bang as round earthers call it. If you have matter accelerating, however, it cannot form a sphere. It forms a flat surface, a disk: this is because the matter that is further ahead touches, there’s friction, and it slows: the further back mattor pushes into it, and ultimately everything flats out to become a disk. This is a natural consequence of any accelerating force.
You can test this yourself: go to your kitchen, pour flour out onto your desk, and push. the experiment is not perfect as we have to deal with gravity, but that only acts in one direction. The fact you get no kind of curve pushing back against your hand, and get a perfectly flat line in every direction, is enough.
From this, we draw conclusions.

Lone Assumption
Aether. We deduce that something must accelerate the flat earth upwards. The term I give to this is aether. I have personal experience of it, but I do not expect anyone other than myself to take that as evidence.
This is an entirely reasonable assumption to make, as it supported by observational evidence. It is simple to see that, as the earth is flat, something must accelerate it. This is unless we assume an infinite earth, but I fail to see any reasonable way this could come about.
We can deduce more, however. The aether is a universal substance: it exists everywhere, and moves constantly. A discussion could be had on what this means for the shape of space, but that doesn't matter right now. Aether is what caused the acceleration that flattened the matter that became the earth, and the flow would clearly be parted with a disk in the way. As such, the aether will split upon contact into a flow on each side, and when it meets again, it meets in what we can call a whirlpool: a perpetual circular motion. This I call the aetheric whirlpool.
Further, there are many such whirlpools. This is my one assumption, for which my primary evidence is observational, and personal. If you don’t believe in it, it’s your loss, but I think observational evidence, the fact something must maintain the earth's acceleration, is justified.
These multiple whirlpools come from the fact that there are various densities of aether, usually all combined in the one flow, but when it’s split by the earth, each density clearly recombines at a different rate, and each creates a new whirlpool.
The lightest are closest to the earth. These have such low density, such thinness the whirlpool effect is minimal. (they’re covered more fully later). The further away you get, the thicker they become, able to move objects along. We can deduce this from the simple observation that the thicker flows will take longer to turn and move inwards.
Another fact is that the aether wishes to be whole, due to what can be thought of as an attractive force. The densities are attracted to one another: as the thinner densities have less of a pull, it is all attracted up to the thickest (which explains why the flows around the earth are drawn together). The importance of this will also be explained later.
The traits of aether are as I have said. It affects matter, able to transmit and impart force, but is not made of molecules. It refracts light, as light does as it goes through a new medium. It has negligible mass at lower densities (and perhaps also at higher, though there is no way to be certain). It is like fire, in that it is neither solid (as it is not solid), liquid (as there are no molecules), gas (as it does not expand) or energy (as it is limited, and depends on matter): it is one of the things which falls into the cracks between definitions. Human definitions do not cover everything. The easiest way to think of it is as tangible energy.
It is also able to affect minds. Throughout human history people have claimed to have spoken to gods, and ideas like this, and an all-pervasive energy, and the need for something new are recurrent. The world is not complete. This is the aether’s work: it wants to be whole, and many who open their minds sense this. It is also behind many experiences of god.

Basic Facts
So far, we’ve covered why the world is flat, and why we are kept to its surface.
Above the earth are stars, suns, the moon and planets. All of these are the same kind of entity. The sun is a star closer to us, and planets look the same as stars when seen with the naked eye (absurd if they are just rock or unlit gas). The moon glows too brightly to be just a rock. despite repeated assertion, it is truly absurd to believe a rock can reflect as much light as we see, much less be bright white. It may not be as bright or as hot as the sun, but this is more to do with concentration: the sun's rays are always facing downward, so their effect is cumulative, while the moon turns.
Stars are made by dust caught in the aetheric whirlpool. When the disk of the earth is formed, more matter collides above in the aether of suitable density. It becomes metal with enough force on it, while it is surrounded by rock. This creates a spotlight effect, as the metal is heated white-hot by the flow of aether. These are caught in the whirlpool, causing circular motion.
There are too many details to go into with so-called orbits, but the moon provides an example. It is unstable, alternating between several whirlpools (as the closer objects, like planets, do: as they go in front of and behind each other), and spinning. When the sides and back face us, we see no light. The phases of the moon are when it rotates, and we see the light at an angle. The texture of the metal provides the craters we see: which can be seen at any angle. The idea that we see the same face is a clear optical illusion. There are many differences, and the only highlighted features which we observe appear closer when the moon is at an angle.
Observations are not entirely trustworthy. The aether interferes with what we can see with the naked eye, as well as processes such as spectroscopy which do not account for increasing thickness of aether.
This is the solar system. The aetheric whirlpools near the earth are also responsible for a number of illusions (such as flight times, where they function similarly to supposed jet streams. Pilots simply alter their altitude to reach the correct one).
As aether is universal, to remove the need for further assumptions, it seems a fair conclusion that it also the source of matter. Think of  it as the cause for a big bang analogue. The details are unknown, so all I can offer is speculation. Perhaps matter is a change of state, or aether with far increased density from an unknown cause.
Around the earth is an ice wall. This was formed long in the past, when the earth first began accelerating, pushed along by aether. Debris that went over the edge was, of course, pushed up. As time passed, and the earth accelerated to similar speeds, the upwards push was smaller, and water froze at the distance from the sun, while maintaining an upwards curve. this is the source of the ice wall, which keeps water in now that the speed of the aether is closer to ours, and it cannot act as a functional wall (as it once did).

Air
This is one of the most controversial things I’ve said, but based entirely on simple logic and observation. It does not need to be true for the earth to be flat, but it can only be true with the aetheric model: as such, as it is true, this is further evidence for the flat earth.
There is no such thing as air. Air resistance is the low-density aether on air, breathing is harder as we ascend as aether becomes thicker (gravity decreasing at those heights because the whirlpools are pulled upwards by the thick density of the higher aether, disrupting instruments), and we do not need air to breathe: we require motion. However, many substances are poisonous. For example, water, when it reaches the lungs, is too heavy to keep them moving.
Movement is required as it imparts heat. This keeps our bodies going. There is a reason the dead are cold: they no longer breathe, despite the fact the normal model should have them at room temperature, and only certain organs are imparting heat. That is not to say oxygen does not help: it does. Increased amounts of oxygen in poison or otherwise dangerous materials renders them less harmful, as oxygen is an aid in conducting heat. Liquid breathing is a good example of this, as we can breathe liquids with increased amount of oxygen in. While the liquid dampens the motion, oxygen still manages to encourage enough heat. Gases themselves, when they are not harmful (most of the time) are useful as they are perpetually in motion.
Scuba tanks, balloons, plastic bags, and other enclosed spaces are dangerous for the simple reason that they have loose particles on the edge. Repeatedly inhaling and exhaling draws loose particles into your lungs, which is clearly dangerous. Fluid prevents motion, metal takes in heat, and many other substances poison.
These are the simplest explanations. The three things to remember are that the body requires motion to exist, and that the lungs are sensitive: improper contents proves dangerous, if not fatal. It takes cleaner gulps to flush the poisons form your lungs, and that does not always work. Third, aether carries force: it imparts force (such as when you blow up a balloon, and the force makes it expand).
There are two fundamental pieces of evidence for this. The first is logic: if you open your eyes, you do not feel the thousands of molecules people say must be striking them. Think how much a mere grain of sand hurts: the combined masses of the oxygen molecules would be at least that size, yet we only feel anything when force is imparted. Second, examine a kettle. You boil water, you get steam, and steam goes up: and yet steam is h2o. one oxygen is heavier than nitrogen, the supposed primary ingredient in air. Yet, even with two hydrogens to make it heavier, it somehow floats: clearly this can’t be the case if air is real.
(In fact, it is attracted upwards because the lightest elements, hydrogen and helium, have more of the aether to them than many things as all matter comes from aether, and so are drawn up by the usual attractive force).

FAQ

Spectroscopy shows what you’re saying is wrong.
Spectroscopy doesn’t take into account the effect aether has on light, so it is unreliable. At ground level, all this shows is that the refractive index of aether is similar to air. The traits we have deduced of aether so far mean that, unless it is taken into account, off-earth measurements are unreliable.

How does fire burn with no air? why does it go out when air is burnt up?
Fire does not require oxygen. We see this from the basic chemistry oxygen test: when fire is in oxygen, it looks completely different to fire in air. Fire requires motion, like all heat (with no movement, matter reaches absolute zero; this is common knowledge): when you, for example, throw a blanket over a fire, or put a glass over a candle, the motion is limited, and soon cancels itself out. Heat cannot exist without movement, whether this is large scale, or atomic (in the case of chemical reactions). Many substances have an autoignition temperature, where the heat alone (that is, the movement of the molecules, as heat is defined) is enough to start a fire with no spark.

What about sound, and bell jars?
Sound is vibrations: force, transmitted via aether, (as previously mentioned, aether transmits and imparts force and energy). In a bell jar, the pump puts force into the aether, and disrupts the sound by keeping it moving. Said movement is also what keeps the jar in place: it’s like climbing a chute by bracing your arms against the wall. Strong enough horizontal force prevents movement up or down.

Why do planes struggle to get lift with no air?
They run into a thicker whirlpool. They cannot pierce through it, without a direct application of force, and so fall.

Can you define the aether better, such as with math?
No. Science takes time, and I have minimized the number of assumptions I've made. All I've said comes from observational evidence, and I do not have the resources to mount the kinds of experiments needed to find accurate equations for the densities of aether.

What about the Cavendish experiment?
There are many things that could have been measured, such as an aetheric current colliding with one mass and moving toward the other on the rebound, assuming gravity does not mean it was actually present.

Why do so many things poison humans, even things like helium which encourage heat conduction?
There are many causes. The lungs are connected to the blood stream, as they aid movement to it, and there could be chemical reactions, or a thickening of the vessels. Substances like water prevent the movement of the lungs, and metal takes in heat rather than imparting it. Harder substances also create perforations in the lungs which drastically reduce the motion they can give. It would be impossible to list every possible cause of death, but two things to remember are: one, we do not breathe gases in atmosphere. Two, something can be safe to ingest, but harmful to inhale, as the two processes are different.

Where do commercially available gases come from?
Gases do exist, and have many sources. There are oxides, nitrates, and natural deposits (such as natural gas). Clearly no factory spends time picking molecule after molecule, examining it, and putting it in the right bucket. They all rely on processes reliant on supposing there is air. So-called compressed air, for example, is simple contained force.

What of the conspiracy?
Very little of the conspiracy is intentional. Much of it stems from the normal human drives. Flat earth theory is laughed at, so no scientist will seriously propose it no matter what they find: in addition, a desire for money ensures space travel companies will continue to take the cheaper route of faking it. If any real flights are attempted, they will run into a problem with refusing to take aether into account, there will be a crash, and they will put it down to bad calculations and continue as they did before with cheaper faking.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2015, 07:03:17 AM by JRoweSkeptic »
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2015, 01:36:31 PM »
You shouldnt call the beginning of your universe the big bang, as this name is already in use and you are proposing an alternative. The established big bang theory states that it's site us everywhere. There is no single point of source. You are imaging a big explosion in space. For this to be the case there would have to space, and so a universe, already in existence. The established BBT describes the expansion of space itself.

It's fine if you are proposing an alternative, but you should give it different name to avoid confusion.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2015, 01:41:19 PM »
You shouldnt call the beginning of your universe the big bang, as this name is already in use and you are proposing an alternative. The established big bang theory states that it's site us everywhere. There is no single point of source. You are imaging a big explosion in space. For this to be the case there would have to space, and so a universe, already in existence. The established BBT describes the expansion of space itself.

It's fine if you are proposing an alternative, but you should give it different name to avoid confusion.
clarification added.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2015, 05:48:42 PM »
And here I will try to peer review this writing, which actually seems coherent (yet wrong at many points) I will use this writing style for my annotations, as to distinguish from your own writing.

Here, I will outline my thoughts, and my beliefs and evidence for the state of the world. There will be outlines, justifications, and an faq. For those who insist on derailing and talking about my typing style, this was written in word so there are some automatic fixes.
I doubt this will convince round earthers set in their ways. It is not meant to. Instead, I hope to make it clear what I think, and why, and undo the need to keep repeating myself.
I am not interested in debating here. [dont worry, this wont be a debate, just a peer review.start a thread if you must, but if you think I’ve missed an obvious query, or something needs clarification, then let me know so I can add it. I think the evidence I have is sufficient, but if you disagree, it doesn’t matter right now. Consider this post an attempt to gain a working, internally consistent model at the very least. I appraise such an effort. Not very common of a FEer to do such a thing. Bravo.On those grounds, if anything needs explanation, let me know.
The post will be written in order:

  • Crucial first steps
  • My sole assumption
  • Basic facts
  • Air
  • Faq

I will also link to this post in my sig. if you’re here because of that, please go to the relevant section, and read. Assume I agree with the site faq unless stated otherwise.

First steps
The thing we need to remember*prove is that the earth is flat. From this, everything else falls apart. There is evidence for this. The simplest is to look out your window: if, as round earthers say, this is a sphere, and yet no flat surfaces exist on a sphere. Incorrect. An infinitelly large sphere is flat (defined as a surface in which the tangents of all points are paralel). In a finite sphere, such as the Earth's ideal surface, the tangents of two points that are, for example, 1 meter apart are almost the same. The rate of curvature of an idealized Earth (defined as the lenght between a point in the tangent of the surface and its projection on the surface itself, also known as shadow), is usually quoted around 8 inches per mile, or 0.1 meters per kilometer. Its a very small rate of courvature, which is why, at a low level of detail, it looks almost like the rate is 0 (or that the Earth is flat)
We also acknowledge the fact that everything is accelerating. All known !!matter!! seems to. Even round earthers admit the evidence for this is overwhelming, we move away from the source of the universe, the center, the site of the big bang as round earthers call it. If you have matter accelerating, however, it cannot form a sphere.The acceleration from the Big Bang is small enough to cause near zero influence on a planetary level. Also, a sphere of matter must actually have some form of cohesion to keep its shape under forces such as the centrifugal force and tidal efects from all other bodies in the solar system. Gravity is the generally accepted reason for this cohesion It forms a flat surface, a disk: this is because the matter that is further ahead touches, there’s friction, and it slows: the further back motor pushes into it, and ultimately everything flats out to become a disk. I suppose you mean this is a very slow process, since conservation of momentum would mean that neither particle decelerates or accelerates, except for friction loss.
You can test this yourself: go to your kitchen, pour flour out onto your desk, and push. the experiment is not perfect as we have to deal with gravity, but that only acts in one direction. The fact you get no kind of curve pushing back against your hand, and get a perfectly flat line in every direction, is enough.
From this, we draw conclusions.

Lone Assumption
Aether. We deduce that something must accelerate the flat earth upwards. I will ignore my own points from now on to keep spotting flaws, but they should be tackled from the first to the last (first one's, at first steps, debunk the entirety of the hypothesis, if correct)The term I give to this is aether. I have personal experience of it, but I do not expect anyone other than myself to take that as evidence.
This is an entirely reasonable assumption to make, as it supported by observational evidence. It is simple to see that, as the earth is flat, something must accelerate it. Not necesarilly. The Earth might be infinitelly large, causing the perpendicular gravitatorial force we observe. For data on Gauss' infinite Earth, [1]

We can deduce more, however. The aether is a universal substance: it exists everywhere.That would contradict the statement that its accelerating, unless you are proposing a constant stream of aether? This might need clarification
 It is what caused the acceleration that flattened the matter that became the earth, and the flow would clearly be parted with a disk in the way. As such, the aether will split upon contact into a flow on each side, and when it meets again, it meets in a whirlpool: a perpetual circular motion. whirlpools might be a poor example, but I understand the point you try to get across. Keep in mind whirlpools are complex turbulent flows, though.[2]
This I call the aetheric whirlpool.
Further, there are many such whirlpools. This is my one assumption, for which my primary evidence is observational, and personal. If you don’t believe in it, it’s your loss, but I think observational evidence is justified. Actual proof, whether observational or personal, is required. Citing the existance of such proof does ot equate its existance
These multiple whirlpools come from the fact that there are various densities of aetherAether must be first defined in a way that its falsafiable, then proven to exist, before making such wild assumptions as of the existance of diferent densities of aether. , usually all combined in the one flow, but when it’s split by the earth, each density clearly recombines at a different rate, and each creates a new whirlpool.
The lightest are closest to the earth. proof neededThese have such low density, such thinness the whirlpool effect is minimal. (they’re covered more fully later). The further away you get, the thicker they become, able to move objects along.
Another factthis assertion is nowhere near to be taken as an hypothesis, much less fact is that the aether wishes to be whole.proof needed, and a weird way of expression. If you want to be taken seriously, I would surround that phrase in quotation marks, and explain that there is some kind of atractive force between them. The densities are attracted to one another: as the thinner densities have less of a pull, it is all attracted up to the thickest (which explains why the flows around the earth are drawn together). The importance of this will also be explained later.
The traits of aether are as I have said. It affects matter, able to impart force this would imply, then, that it contains charged particles, affects electromagnetic fields, or is extremelly dense, but is not made of moleculesthis ressembles to me a neutron star. It refracts light, as light does as it goes through a new medium. It has negligible mass negligible, or zero?, especially at lower densities. It is like fire, in that it is neither solid, liquid, gas fire is known to be hot gas. You also missed plasma and Bose-Einstein condensates as states of matter.or energy: it is one of the things which falls into the cracks between definitions. The easiest way to think of it is as tangible energyI would assume that you mean photons by energy. Those only are carriers of electromagnetic force, one of the fundamental forces of the universe but certainly not the only one. Heavy clarification and expansion is required on this section..
It is also able to affect minds. Throughout human history people have claimed to have spoken to gods, and ideas like this, and an all-pervasive energy, and the need for something new are recurrent. The world is not complete. This is the aether’s work: it wants to be whole, and many who open their minds sense this. It is also behind many experiences of god. proof of consciousness needed

Basic Facts
So far, we’ve covered why the world is flat, and why we are kept to its surface.
Above the earth are stars, suns, the moon and planets. All of these are the same kind of entity. The sun is a star closer to us, and planets look the same as stars when seen with the naked eye (absurd if they are just rock or unlit gas).Planet light is just reflected light by the sun, as determined by countless spectrometric analysis done both by scientists and hobbyists [2], and by the fact that celestial bodies can eclipse parts of each other (we can, for example, observe Jupiter's surface to be eclipsed by its moons on ocasions [3]
The moon glows too brightly to be just a rock. despite repeated assertion, it is truly absurd to believe a rock can reflect as much light as we see, much less be bright white. As anyone who has seen the moon dawn with the sun already rosen up, the moon only looks bright because the night is very dark. Moonlight is several degrees of magnitude less potent than the Sun's, which is what we would expect from a rock with the aproximate reflectivity of charcoal to reflect.
Stars are made by dust caught in the aetheric whirlpool. When the disk of the earth is formed, more matter collides above in the aether of suitable density. It becomes metal with enough force on it, while it is surrounded by rock. This creates a spotlight effect, as the metal is heated white-hot by the flow of aetherSpectral analysis of stars prove them to be composed mostly of H2 and He in fusion, not dust or metal.[4] and [5]. These are caught in the whirlpool, causing circular motion.
There are too many details to go into with so-called orbits, but the moon provides an example. It is unstable, alternating between several whirlpools, and spinning.Detailing is needed to be done in this section. Mechanical analysis of the orbit should be done, but, of course, that would require aetheric forces to be defined and bounded When the sides and back face us, we see no light. The phases of the moon are when it rotates, and we see the light at an angle. The texture of the metal provides the craters we see: which can be seen at any angle. The idea that we see the same face is a clear optical illusion. There are many differences, and the only highlighted features which we observe appear closer when the moon is at an angle. This is clearly and demostrably wrong. Craters in the surface are clearly unique, and can be recognized at night or at day, in any phase of the moon, even when in darkness. Furthermore, the existance of permalight zones(parts of the moon that are always or almost always under the sunshine) disproves that idea.
This is one possible. I’ve been considering the idea that the moon is transparent, and lets light through, but I do not know the details. This line probably either deserves more expansion, or must be dropped totally
This is the solar system. The aetheric whirlpools near the earth are also responsible for a number of illusions (such as flight times, where they function similarly to supposed jet streams. Pilots simply alter their altitude to reach the correct one).

Air
This is one of the most controversial things I’ve said, but based entirely on simple logic and observation. It does not need to be true for the earth to be flat, but it can only be true with the aetheric model: as such, as it is true, this is further evidence for the flat earth.
There is no such thing as air. Air resistance is the low-density aether on air, breathing is harder as we ascend as aether becomes thicker (gravity decreasing at those heights because the whirlpools are pulled upwards by the thick density of the higher aether, disrupting instruments)[this suggests that, in this model, gravitatorial force does not exist. If so, the Cavendish experiment must be accounted for], and we do not need air to breathe: we require motion. Liquid breathing has been tested to very limited success [6], but the fact that liquid breathing can be kept for hours goes against this idea, specially since failure reasons are mostly due to the change in lung mechanics, and worse gas exchange [7]
However, many substances are poisonous. For example, water, when it reaches the lungs, is too heavy to keep them moving. A list of all poisonous substances and the reasons why are they poisonous is required
Movement is required as it imparts heat. This keeps our bodies going. There is a reason the dead are cold: they no longer breathe. This is incorrect, as mechanical heating while in rest is minimal(except for the heart), most heat comes instead from chemical reactions in the liver and the brain[8]That is not to say oxygen does not help: it does. Increased amounts of oxygen in poison or otherwise dangerous materials renders them less harmful, as oxygen is an aid in conducting heat. Helium has better thermal conductivity than Oxygen, and its not a poison, yet it causes drowning too. [9]
Scuba tanks, balloons, plastic bags, and other enclosed spaces are dangerous for the simple reason that they have loose particles on the edge. Repeatedly inhaling and exhaling draws loose particles into your lungs, which is clearly dangerous. Fluid prevents motion, metal takes in heat, and many other substances poison. Why is there no evidence of silicosis in air-deprivated deceaseds? Expand upon the mechanism of purification of poisons by metal
These are the simplest explanations. The three things to remember are that the body requires motion to exist, and that the lungs are sensitive: improper contents proves dangerous, if not fatal. It takes cleaner gulps to flush the poisons form your lungs, and that does not always work. Third, aether carries force: it imparts force (such as when you blow up a balloon, and the force makes it expand).
There are two fundamental pieces of evidence for this. The first is logic: if you open your eyes, you do not feel the thousands of molecules people say must be striking them. Neither do I feel brownian motion in water, yet a microscope will show it to me. The nanoscopical levels of force imparted by the molecules of air is impossible to feel (if it is i mechanical rest, of course). However, we do feel the strike of particles on us when we scale it up a bit: its called scorching.Think how much a mere grain of sand hurts.A grain of sand is about 1/4 mm in diameter. Oxygen has a Van-Der-Waals radius of 152 picometers. That means it is aproximatelly 6100000 times smaller. Second, examine a kettle. You boil water, you get steam, and steam goes up: and yet steam is h2o. one oxygen is heavier than nitrogen, the supposed primary ingredient in air. Yet, even with two hydrogens to make it heavier, it somehow floats: clearly this can’t be the case if air is real. Steam is still mostly air, mixed with water particles, and water vapour (gasseous H2O). The reason why it rises to the top is because of the convection current caused by the hot steam and the cold air above. In an enclosed oven at exactly 100C, steam shouldn't rise to the top.
(In fact, it is attracted upwards because the lightest elements, hydrogen and helium, have more of the aether to them than many things, and so are drawn up). Proof needed

FAQ

Spectroscopy shows what you’re saying is wrong.
Spectroscopy doesn’t take into account the effect aether has on light, so it is unreliable. At ground level, all this shows is that the refractive index of aether is similar to air. Mass spectrometry does not depend on light, but on mass-to-charge ratio.Analytical chemistry can be used as well. Also, aether must be defined first before using it as a shield against Spectroscopy.

How does fire burn with no air? why does it go out when air is burnt up?
Fire does not require oxygen. No one claims that. Fire, though, requires a fuel, and an oxidant. Proof of fires without fire and comburent must be provided (Autoigniting substances like hydrazine fuel have mechanisms as to act as both as fuel and oxidant via catalysts, and as such, dont count for this)We see this from the basic chemistry oxygen test: when fire is in oxygen, it looks completely different to fire in air. Spectal lines of fire change depending of the substacnes that are being heated to light-emission levels. The spectral lines of oxygen are still apreciated in air firesFire requires motionModern science mostly agrees with you, since thermodynamical temperature is considered to be the average degree of freedom of movement in a substance. I doubt you mean that, though., like all heat: when you, for example, through a blanket over a fire, or put a glass over a candle, the motion is limited, and soon cancels itself out. Lasers cause heat without moving parts. So do exothermical reactions

What about sound, and bell jars?
Sound is vibrations: force, transmitted via aether.This contradicts your statement that the aether itself is inmaterial In a bell jar, the pump puts force into the aether, and disrupts the sound by keeping it moving. Said movement is also what keeps the jar in place: it’s like climbing a chute by bracing your arms against the wall. Strong enough horizontal force prevents movement up or down.

This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2015, 05:49:59 PM »
Why do planes struggle to get lift with no air?
They run into a thicker whirlpool. They cannot pierce through it, without a direct application of force, and so fall.
Vacuum chambers exist, and tests of flight can be made for different air pressures. The results are the ones you might expect [10]


[1]: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.0393.pdf, An exercise on Gauss’ law for gravitation: The Flat Earth model
[2]: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1921LowOB...3...85S WARNING: boring.
[3]: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/jupec.html
[4]: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_Vega
[5]: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990ApJ...348..712A Warning: slightly less boring than [2]
[6]: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> Warning: turn down the volume, and take anything the narrator says with a pinch of salt.
[7]: http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/1/143.full
[8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoregulation#In_humans Yeah, I know. Wikipedia. Its getting late.
[9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen
[10]: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
All credit to any reference is given to its author/s, and is subject to it's author's will.

Feel free to add, comment, and reproduce (what I made) of this work, however, if adding comments, please use a different font, in order to diferentiate between different peer reviewers.

Well that took me a while. I eagerly await for the completion of your hypothesis. Feel free to ask for help in gathering experimental data, I have too much free time and a hackerspace's lab pass. Try not to make it overboard, though, the internet is not serious business, neither am I a scientist.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2015, 07:10:27 PM »
This is a repository for information, not a debate forum.  Take your arguments somewhere else. 

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2015, 07:16:38 PM »
This is a repository for information, not a debate forum.  Take your arguments somewhere else.

Now, we are obviously not aloud to argue with moderators, but in my humble opinion, Conker seems to be genuinely attempting to give Jrowescepti constructive criticism, not debate him.
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2015, 07:50:05 PM »
This is a repository for information, not a debate forum.  Take your arguments somewhere else.

Now, we are obviously not aloud to argue with moderators, but in my humble opinion, Conker seems to be genuinely attempting to give Jrowescepti constructive criticism, not debate him.

Then, he should take it to the proper forum, correct? 

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2015, 09:17:27 PM »
JRowe, I still don't agree with you but this is a good start to get you where you want to go.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2015, 02:01:58 AM »
i did ask for what constructive criticism could be given, to refine the information i can supply. 

for this thread, i'm not interested in providing too much evidence, past that which is naturally brought up, because then we get into too long of a debate. i'm just interested in outlining what i know, to phrase it well, and improve the details. as such, requests for that will be less observed.

however, thank you conker, i will work on improving and clarifying my post.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2015, 02:18:36 AM »
Well done for all the work you have put in, both Jrowe and Conker.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2015, 02:36:48 AM »
changes made, beyond points that i did not wish to debate here, or that had little relevance.

i will also say that the post is written as a build up. accepting earlier principles means you can safely deduce the later via observational evidence.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2015, 02:42:58 AM »
So what next for for your proposal?
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2015, 02:46:42 AM »
So what next for for your proposal?

i want to further refine it here, first. there are several possible experiments to perform to verify it, all that i've thought of beyond my abilities and resources (and beyond most peoples'). when the theory feels complete, i'll do what i can.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2015, 06:36:26 AM »
This is a repository for information, not a debate forum.  Take your arguments somewhere else.

It's a repository for bullshit opinions, not information.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2015, 09:17:31 AM »
This is a repository for information, not a debate forum.  Take your arguments somewhere else.

It's a repository for bullshit opinions, not information.

it is information about the flat earth worldview, and a compilation and reference. if you disagree, take it to the boards designed for that purpose.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2015, 10:29:12 AM »
I think it would be wise to expand on the tachyon particle angle. Aether could be made from these particles, as it would explain many of its mysterious properties.
Read the FAQS.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #17 on: March 07, 2015, 11:15:04 AM »
I think it would be wise to expand on the tachyon particle angle. Aether could be made from these particles, as it would explain many of its mysterious properties.

thank you for the suggestion. ideally i'd like the main post to be based on that which we have firm observational evidence of, and tachyons are speculation more than anything. however, they are a good inclusion, so i'll make a new post soon which i'll use to contain speculated traits.
i saw your theory of instantaneous aetheric transmission also, and i think tachyons offer a good example of how that could work.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2015, 11:20:01 AM »
So what next for for your proposal?

i want to further refine it here, first. there are several possible experiments to perform to verify it, all that i've thought of beyond my abilities and resources (and beyond most peoples'). when the theory feels complete, i'll do what i can.

Like I said before, I am not here to offer counterpoints, only to assist you in getting to a workable theory so we can then debate its merits.  For one I know you stated aether could be comprised of tachyon particles, study this very intently as that is something that interests me also.  And Vaux agree's I see (started typing this earlier since I'm at work I have to leave the computer several times).
Also try to see if there is a better way to describe some of the proposed effects of aether, as it is really used for too much.  Not sure how to proceed here without making up another tachyon type particle.
Study intently the accepted theories of gravity, atmosphere, spherical Earth geometry, stars, etc.  Take down what you think is going to be counter arguments to your theory and study those very intently.  This will be helpful in rebuttals. 
Also, just as a warning as to what I will hit you with, try to remove as much of the conspiracy from your theories as possible, try to get a working knowledge of possible mathematical solutions that support your claims, and understand accepted the accepted chemistry. 
Keep working on it, I await future debates.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2015, 11:26:48 AM »
Speculation
The points I make here are not based on any more than speculation. While my previous points are grounded in observational evidence, the suggestions I make here are no more than possible explanations. They may be true, I favor some over others, but I do not yet know for certain.

Tachyons
The aether is composed of tachyons. Physicists describe these as particles which move faster than the speed of light, and because of this essentially exist backwards in time. This is important for several reasons.
Firstly, it ensures the aether constantly moves much faster than the earth. This would negate the need for an ice wall, as the aether moves fast enough to create an aetheric wall. I do not see why this is necessary as an ice wall would naturally develop, but it is a valid alternative.
Secondly, much of the origin and continued speed of aether makes sense. One common question is why the aether isn’t decelerating: if it is composed of tachyons, then it will be, but from our perspective, it would seem to be accelerating. In addition, this means our initial state is where the aether is aiming. This is the situation of perfect balance, where the aether is perfectly smooth and combined, as it wishes to be.
Thirdly, I have recently seen the theory of instantaneous aetheric transmission: the phenomenon where someone reaches the edge of the world, and are essentially teleported to the far side. A tachyonic aetheric wall would impart many odd effects. Clearly, when you cross, the force of aether would force a person up, and across the earth (this is the best way to think of it): we would not reach a higher whirlpool, but we would move across in a lower one. The tachyons would make this movement seemingly instantaneous, however. In addition, the effect faster-than-light particles have on time would also affect space, meaning the sudden movement would not even be felt. Any sense of motion or possible harm would be cushioned.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2015, 12:36:28 PM »
Valid arguments, I will continue to study into tachyon theory to give you a better rebuttal.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2015, 12:52:15 PM »
Drop the tachyon stuff, it's silly. For one there's no evidence that such particles exist outside of Star Trek. And if they did exist, they would by definition have no mass, so could not be used to explain any wind or whirlpool effects.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2015, 12:57:00 PM »
Drop the tachyon stuff, it's silly. For one there's no evidence that such particles exist outside of Star Trek. And if they did exist, they would by definition have no mass, so could not be used to explain any wind or whirlpool effects.

as i said, at this stage it is only speculation.
tachyons cannot be understood if you insist on forcing non-tachyon effects onto them. current theory says they will have mass, and will have energy so they can impart that energy. the speed of light takes infinite energy to approach from above or below, but once you are past it, it is impossible to slow down that far.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2015, 01:19:37 PM »
Drop the tachyon stuff, it's silly. For one there's no evidence that such particles exist outside of Star Trek. And if they did exist, they would by definition have no mass, so could not be used to explain any wind or whirlpool effects.

as i said, at this stage it is only speculation.
tachyons cannot be understood if you insist on forcing non-tachyon effects onto them. current theory says they will have mass, and will have energy so they can impart that energy. the speed of light takes infinite energy to approach from above or below, but once you are past it, it is impossible to slow down that far.

No, current theory says they are unlikely to exist at all. Even mathematically they can only exist if you assign an imaginary number as mass. If they did exist they would be incredibly bizarre and would be the sort of particle that could cause a wind or a whirpool,it would result in causality paradoxes, and theory of special relativity would have to wrong.

I'm not criticising you for being inventive, as there is nothing wrong with that, but this one is too far down the rabbit-hole to have any validity in reality I'm afraid.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2015, 02:42:58 PM »
Tachyons are, as of today, an abandoned hypothesis, for various reasons: they would violate causality, they would need to have negative mass, and (IIRC) carry negative energy. Also, they would basicalyy exist on a paralell universe, unable to affect the slower-than-light universe, and even more: from the perspective of either one or the other universe, the other one would always be the faster-than-light one. You can't have your cake and eat it.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #25 on: March 08, 2015, 04:29:13 AM »
Drop the tachyon stuff, it's silly. For one there's no evidence that such particles exist outside of Star Trek. And if they did exist, they would by definition have no mass, so could not be used to explain any wind or whirlpool effects.

There is no evidence for the Higgs boson theory either, is there?  Does this mean that we should abandon every theory that we do not currently have direct evidence for?  Anyway, this is not a debate theory.  If you can not add to the information being discussed, then please do not reply to the thread.  Otherwise, I will need to clean this thread up and issue warnings for being purposely disruptive. 

Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #26 on: March 08, 2015, 06:22:39 AM »
Drop the tachyon stuff, it's silly. For one there's no evidence that such particles exist outside of Star Trek. And if they did exist, they would by definition have no mass, so could not be used to explain any wind or whirlpool effects.

There is no evidence for the Higgs boson theory either, is there?  Does this mean that we should abandon every theory that we do not currently have direct evidence for?  Anyway, this is not a debate theory.  If you can not add to the information being discussed, then please do not reply to the thread.  Otherwise, I will need to clean this thread up and issue warnings for being purposely disruptive.

You have just asked questions but then stated that this is not a debate forum. I am unsure if I am allowed to answer your question about the Higgs boson. Please clarify.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2015, 09:15:54 AM »
Drop the tachyon stuff, it's silly. For one there's no evidence that such particles exist outside of Star Trek. And if they did exist, they would by definition have no mass, so could not be used to explain any wind or whirlpool effects.

There is no evidence for the Higgs boson theory either, is there?  Does this mean that we should abandon every theory that we do not currently have direct evidence for?  Anyway, this is not a debate theory.  If you can not add to the information being discussed, then please do not reply to the thread.  Otherwise, I will need to clean this thread up and issue warnings for being purposely disruptive.

You have just asked questions but then stated that this is not a debate forum. I am unsure if I am allowed to answer your question about the Higgs boson. Please clarify.

Take it to the proper forum, Neil. 

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2015, 09:20:59 AM »
to everyone:

tachyons are only speculation. i said as much. if you're pretending your science (or any science) is complete, please leave. they are very likely to still be possible. some properties are under question, which is why, as i have said multiple times, they are at present no more than speculation.
they explain many properties, but they are not necessary.

also, thank you jroa for attempting to maintain some form of order in this thread. as much as i am interested in encouragement for further thought, this is not the place for debate.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
Re: My Flat Earth Model
« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2015, 09:42:25 AM »
I'm looking forward to the refined model.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.