Instantaneous Aetheric Transmission Question

When crossing the aether wall, why do you see the side you're going to? Shouldn't you be unable to see the other edge? You would just see the ice wall

This is because light and whatnot is also transmitted via the aetheric wall.

Could you explain this phenomena?

When crossing the aether wall, why do you see the side you're going to? Shouldn't you be unable to see the other edge? You would just see the ice wall

there is no ice wall, the aether transmits matter and light from one side to the other.
the aether, in my model, is simply the substance that composes space. clearly if you walk into thinner areas of space, you will cross it instantly: and the same will happen with light.

There is no ice wall, the aether transmits matter and light from one side to the other.
The aether, in my model, is simply the substance that composes space. Clearly if you walk into thinner areas of space, you will cross it instantly: and the same will happen with light.

LOL... this has to be one of the most far-fetched, ludicrous comments I've read on these forums for a long time.  Since sceptimatic's forced sabbatical that is.  Although legion, iWitness, Saros, tappet, bloomington, Vauxhall et al come close.

I'm thinking poor old JRoweSceptimatic must've watched one too many 'Star Trek' episodes.

—Beam us up, Scotty.     

This is because light and whatnot is also transmitted via the aetheric wall.

Which is why if you were standing at the equator you'd see two suns, which you don't, so the theory drops dead right there.

Are photons made of aether as well?

Are photons made of aether as well?

in my model (i cannot speak for vauxhall's) aether is the ultimate cause and root of all things, so technically yes, in the same way steam is made of ice.

Quote from: SpheresForLife on March 28, 2015, 03:36:24 PM

Are photons made of aether as well?

In my model (I cannot speak for vauxhall's) aether is the ultimate cause and root of all things, so technically yes, in the same way steam is made of ice.

LOL... this guy never ceases to give me a good belly laugh with his totally harebrained notions.  Now his non-existent "aether" is responsible for everything?  And here's me always thinking that it was God.  What a fool I've been all these years!

And how's about this for absolutely Looney Tunes stuff... "steam is made of ice".  Maybe that's why it takes him 90 minutes to boil a kettle for his morning tea.

           

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 06:48:00 PM

This is because light and whatnot is also transmitted via the aetheric wall.

Which is why if you were standing at the equator you'd see two suns, which you don't, so the theory drops dead right there.

Maybe you should make a thread about this topic, because it seems like they don't have much of an answer for this.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 06:48:00 PM

This is because light and whatnot is also transmitted via the aetheric wall.

Which is why if you were standing at the equator you'd see two suns, which you don't, so the theory drops dead right there.

i suggest you read the model itself. you see only one sun, because their movements are mirrored. strictly speaking the two are overlaid, but they are identical so it's impossible to see any difference.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 28, 2015, 11:36:04 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 06:48:00 PM

This is because light and whatnot is also transmitted via the aetheric wall.

Which is why if you were standing at the equator you'd see two suns, which you don't, so the theory drops dead right there.

i suggest you read the model itself. you see only one sun, because their movements are mirrored. strictly speaking the two are overlaid, but they are identical so it's impossible to see any difference.

Disproved because the amount of light at the equator is not double the amount of light received a little bit away from it. Disproved because the stars would also need to be overlaid. Disproved because the solar features change chaotically and so two suns would not remain identical. I'm sure if I stopped to think about it for more than the half-second it took me to come up with those ideas I could think of even more disproofs.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 03:21:15 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 28, 2015, 11:36:04 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 06:48:00 PM

This is because light and whatnot is also transmitted via the aetheric wall.

Which is why if you were standing at the equator you'd see two suns, which you don't, so the theory drops dead right there.

i suggest you read the model itself. you see only one sun, because their movements are mirrored. strictly speaking the two are overlaid, but they are identical so it's impossible to see any difference.

Disproved because the amount of light at the equator is not double the amount of light received a little bit away from it. Disproved because the stars would also need to be overlaid. Disproved because the solar features change chaotically and so two suns would not remain identical. I'm sure if I stopped to think about it for more than the half-second it took me to come up with those ideas I could think of even more disproofs.

the majority of that post is utter nonsense. i refer you to my model thread, one of the most recent additions contains a diagram demonstrating what i'm talking about.
why wouldn't the two suns remain identical? all that would change one, would change the other. this is what mirrored means.

i have seen you complain that i refer you to other threads often, but if i do so, i promise it is because the answers are there, i just don't want to spend more time than i already have on issues that are already dealt with.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 03:45:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 03:21:15 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 28, 2015, 11:36:04 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 06:48:00 PM

This is because light and whatnot is also transmitted via the aetheric wall.

Which is why if you were standing at the equator you'd see two suns, which you don't, so the theory drops dead right there.

i suggest you read the model itself. you see only one sun, because their movements are mirrored. strictly speaking the two are overlaid, but they are identical so it's impossible to see any difference.

Disproved because the amount of light at the equator is not double the amount of light received a little bit away from it. Disproved because the stars would also need to be overlaid. Disproved because the solar features change chaotically and so two suns would not remain identical. I'm sure if I stopped to think about it for more than the half-second it took me to come up with those ideas I could think of even more disproofs.

the majority of that post is utter nonsense. i refer you to my model thread, one of the most recent additions contains a diagram demonstrating what i'm talking about.
why wouldn't the two suns remain identical? all that would change one, would change the other. this is what mirrored means.

i have seen you complain that i refer you to other threads often, but if i do so, i promise it is because the answers are there, i just don't want to spend more time than i already have on issues that are already dealt with.

Why wouldn't the suns remain identical? It's obvious.
You claim they are surrounded by aether, they travel through aether, they're influenced by aether. You also claim aether is attracted to different densities of itself and that its density varies with altitude above thwe earth's surface. Which means the aether itself would be full of eddies and currents formed by the variation in its surroundings.
Therefore, even if the two suns had identical starting conditions, they are both subject to different environmental forces over the millions of years they've been around. The possibility of them happening to look absolutely identical after all that time with different aetheric forces acting on each of them is so ridiculous as to be impossible. Are you not familiar with chaos theory? Even a tiny difference in conditions can build to a huge effect.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but if your aether theory is correct, one of the few predictions that can be made from it is that the suns would cease to be identical rather quickly.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:40:45 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 03:45:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 03:21:15 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 28, 2015, 11:36:04 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 06:48:00 PM

This is because light and whatnot is also transmitted via the aetheric wall.

Which is why if you were standing at the equator you'd see two suns, which you don't, so the theory drops dead right there.

i suggest you read the model itself. you see only one sun, because their movements are mirrored. strictly speaking the two are overlaid, but they are identical so it's impossible to see any difference.

Disproved because the amount of light at the equator is not double the amount of light received a little bit away from it. Disproved because the stars would also need to be overlaid. Disproved because the solar features change chaotically and so two suns would not remain identical. I'm sure if I stopped to think about it for more than the half-second it took me to come up with those ideas I could think of even more disproofs.

the majority of that post is utter nonsense. i refer you to my model thread, one of the most recent additions contains a diagram demonstrating what i'm talking about.
why wouldn't the two suns remain identical? all that would change one, would change the other. this is what mirrored means.

i have seen you complain that i refer you to other threads often, but if i do so, i promise it is because the answers are there, i just don't want to spend more time than i already have on issues that are already dealt with.

Why wouldn't the suns remain identical? It's obvious.
You claim they are surrounded by aether, they travel through aether, they're influenced by aether. You also claim aether is attracted to different densities of itself and that its density varies with altitude above thwe earth's surface. Which means the aether itself would be full of eddies and currents formed by the variation in its surroundings.
Therefore, even if the two suns had identical starting conditions, they are both subject to different environmental forces over the millions of years they've been around. The possibility of them happening to look absolutely identical after all that time with different aetheric forces acting on each of them is so ridiculous as to be impossible. Are you not familiar with chaos theory? Even a tiny difference in conditions can build to a huge effect.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but if your aether theory is correct, one of the few predictions that can be made from it is that the suns would cease to be identical rather quickly.

the reason they look the same is because of aether, however. its force mirrors that which occurs on the far side of the earth. the eddies and currents will be the same.
(it is possible that there is more to it, but i don't want to put forward an undeveloped theory yet).

You need to take a break JRowe. I think you might be starting to actually believe this shit.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 12:39:47 PM

Why wouldn't the suns remain identical? It's obvious.
You claim they are surrounded by aether, they travel through aether, they're influenced by aether. You also claim aether is attracted to different densities of itself and that its density varies with altitude above thwe earth's surface. Which means the aether itself would be full of eddies and currents formed by the variation in its surroundings.
Therefore, even if the two suns had identical starting conditions, they are both subject to different environmental forces over the millions of years they've been around. The possibility of them happening to look absolutely identical after all that time with different aetheric forces acting on each of them is so ridiculous as to be impossible. Are you not familiar with chaos theory? Even a tiny difference in conditions can build to a huge effect.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but if your aether theory is correct, one of the few predictions that can be made from it is that the suns would cease to be identical rather quickly.

the reason they look the same is because of aether,

That is the most pathetic answer ever. "Because of aether." Why not just say "God did it"?

however. its force mirrors that which occurs on the far side of the earth. the eddies and currents will be the same.

No, they can't be, because you claim it has variant density with altitude, that it is attracted to its own high density areas, and the patterns of altitude are completely different on the north side of the world to the south side. This means the constituency of aether also has to be different on both sides. Your theory predicts that to be so.

(it is possible that there is more to it, but i don't want to put forward an undeveloped theory yet).

In other words, you haven't managed to think of an excuse for this, because it escaped your attention that your claims about aether have now led to some predicted effects.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:43:31 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 12:39:47 PM

Why wouldn't the suns remain identical? It's obvious.
You claim they are surrounded by aether, they travel through aether, they're influenced by aether. You also claim aether is attracted to different densities of itself and that its density varies with altitude above thwe earth's surface. Which means the aether itself would be full of eddies and currents formed by the variation in its surroundings.
Therefore, even if the two suns had identical starting conditions, they are both subject to different environmental forces over the millions of years they've been around. The possibility of them happening to look absolutely identical after all that time with different aetheric forces acting on each of them is so ridiculous as to be impossible. Are you not familiar with chaos theory? Even a tiny difference in conditions can build to a huge effect.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but if your aether theory is correct, one of the few predictions that can be made from it is that the suns would cease to be identical rather quickly.

the reason they look the same is because of aether,

That is the most pathetic answer ever. "Because of aether." Why not just say "God did it"?

Quote

however. its force mirrors that which occurs on the far side of the earth. the eddies and currents will be the same.

No, they can't be, because you claim it has variant density with altitude, that it is attracted to its own high density areas, and the patterns of altitude are completely different on the north side of the world to the south side. This means the constituency of aether also has to be different on both sides. Your theory predicts that to be so.

Quote

(it is possible that there is more to it, but i don't want to put forward an undeveloped theory yet).

In other words, you haven't managed to think of an excuse for this, because it escaped your attention that your claims about aether have now led to some predicted effects.

aether is well-defined. i am assuming no new traits, and all the traits it possesses are fairly basic deductions. it is an entirely reasonable response. the only thing of relevant you've said is "the patterns of altitude are completely different on the north side of the world to the south side." and that seems to be utter nonsense. would you care to elaborate?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 12:55:26 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:43:31 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 12:39:47 PM

Why wouldn't the suns remain identical? It's obvious.
You claim they are surrounded by aether, they travel through aether, they're influenced by aether. You also claim aether is attracted to different densities of itself and that its density varies with altitude above thwe earth's surface. Which means the aether itself would be full of eddies and currents formed by the variation in its surroundings.
Therefore, even if the two suns had identical starting conditions, they are both subject to different environmental forces over the millions of years they've been around. The possibility of them happening to look absolutely identical after all that time with different aetheric forces acting on each of them is so ridiculous as to be impossible. Are you not familiar with chaos theory? Even a tiny difference in conditions can build to a huge effect.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but if your aether theory is correct, one of the few predictions that can be made from it is that the suns would cease to be identical rather quickly.

the reason they look the same is because of aether,

That is the most pathetic answer ever. "Because of aether." Why not just say "God did it"?

Quote

however. its force mirrors that which occurs on the far side of the earth. the eddies and currents will be the same.

No, they can't be, because you claim it has variant density with altitude, that it is attracted to its own high density areas, and the patterns of altitude are completely different on the north side of the world to the south side. This means the constituency of aether also has to be different on both sides. Your theory predicts that to be so.

Quote

(it is possible that there is more to it, but i don't want to put forward an undeveloped theory yet).

In other words, you haven't managed to think of an excuse for this, because it escaped your attention that your claims about aether have now led to some predicted effects.

aether is well-defined. i am assuming no new traits, and all the traits it possesses are fairly basic deductions. it is an entirely reasonable response. the only thing of relevant you've said is "the patterns of altitude are completely different on the north side of the world to the south side." and that seems to be utter nonsense. would you care to elaborate?

Yes, it means the north side has different mountains, seas, and terrain to the south side. The north has more landmasses and less ocean than the south. I don't know why you can't understand that.

I'd imagine that the extreme light of the Sun is so harsh that the aether wall actually reflects it back at the Sun, making it look like there is only one Sun instead of two at the equator.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:57:34 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 12:55:26 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:43:31 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 12:39:47 PM

Why wouldn't the suns remain identical? It's obvious.
You claim they are surrounded by aether, they travel through aether, they're influenced by aether. You also claim aether is attracted to different densities of itself and that its density varies with altitude above thwe earth's surface. Which means the aether itself would be full of eddies and currents formed by the variation in its surroundings.
Therefore, even if the two suns had identical starting conditions, they are both subject to different environmental forces over the millions of years they've been around. The possibility of them happening to look absolutely identical after all that time with different aetheric forces acting on each of them is so ridiculous as to be impossible. Are you not familiar with chaos theory? Even a tiny difference in conditions can build to a huge effect.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but if your aether theory is correct, one of the few predictions that can be made from it is that the suns would cease to be identical rather quickly.

the reason they look the same is because of aether,

That is the most pathetic answer ever. "Because of aether." Why not just say "God did it"?

Quote

however. its force mirrors that which occurs on the far side of the earth. the eddies and currents will be the same.

No, they can't be, because you claim it has variant density with altitude, that it is attracted to its own high density areas, and the patterns of altitude are completely different on the north side of the world to the south side. This means the constituency of aether also has to be different on both sides. Your theory predicts that to be so.

Quote

(it is possible that there is more to it, but i don't want to put forward an undeveloped theory yet).

In other words, you haven't managed to think of an excuse for this, because it escaped your attention that your claims about aether have now led to some predicted effects.

aether is well-defined. i am assuming no new traits, and all the traits it possesses are fairly basic deductions. it is an entirely reasonable response. the only thing of relevant you've said is "the patterns of altitude are completely different on the north side of the world to the south side." and that seems to be utter nonsense. would you care to elaborate?

Yes, it means the north side has different mountains, seas, and terrain to the south side. The north has more landmasses and less ocean than the south. I don't know why you can't understand that.

how would that have any effect on the altitude at which the sun is? if i put a pea under your mattress you're not going to notice.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 01:17:23 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:57:34 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 12:55:26 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:43:31 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 12:39:47 PM

Why wouldn't the suns remain identical? It's obvious.
You claim they are surrounded by aether, they travel through aether, they're influenced by aether. You also claim aether is attracted to different densities of itself and that its density varies with altitude above thwe earth's surface. Which means the aether itself would be full of eddies and currents formed by the variation in its surroundings.
Therefore, even if the two suns had identical starting conditions, they are both subject to different environmental forces over the millions of years they've been around. The possibility of them happening to look absolutely identical after all that time with different aetheric forces acting on each of them is so ridiculous as to be impossible. Are you not familiar with chaos theory? Even a tiny difference in conditions can build to a huge effect.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but if your aether theory is correct, one of the few predictions that can be made from it is that the suns would cease to be identical rather quickly.

the reason they look the same is because of aether,

That is the most pathetic answer ever. "Because of aether." Why not just say "God did it"?

Quote

however. its force mirrors that which occurs on the far side of the earth. the eddies and currents will be the same.

No, they can't be, because you claim it has variant density with altitude, that it is attracted to its own high density areas, and the patterns of altitude are completely different on the north side of the world to the south side. This means the constituency of aether also has to be different on both sides. Your theory predicts that to be so.

Quote

(it is possible that there is more to it, but i don't want to put forward an undeveloped theory yet).

In other words, you haven't managed to think of an excuse for this, because it escaped your attention that your claims about aether have now led to some predicted effects.

aether is well-defined. i am assuming no new traits, and all the traits it possesses are fairly basic deductions. it is an entirely reasonable response. the only thing of relevant you've said is "the patterns of altitude are completely different on the north side of the world to the south side." and that seems to be utter nonsense. would you care to elaborate?

Yes, it means the north side has different mountains, seas, and terrain to the south side. The north has more landmasses and less ocean than the south. I don't know why you can't understand that.

how would that have any effect on the altitude at which the sun is? if i put a pea under your mattress you're not going to notice.

We have just been talking about the differences in aetheric currents and eddies from one side to the other. I claimed they would be different, you claimed they were the same:

the eddies and currents will be the same.

Do you now acknowledge that your own theory predicts a difference? Yes or no.

I don't know why you're bringing the altitude of the sun into it, I never mentioned that. 

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 02:57:45 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 01:17:23 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:57:34 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 12:55:26 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:43:31 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 29, 2015, 12:39:47 PM

Why wouldn't the suns remain identical? It's obvious.
You claim they are surrounded by aether, they travel through aether, they're influenced by aether. You also claim aether is attracted to different densities of itself and that its density varies with altitude above thwe earth's surface. Which means the aether itself would be full of eddies and currents formed by the variation in its surroundings.
Therefore, even if the two suns had identical starting conditions, they are both subject to different environmental forces over the millions of years they've been around. The possibility of them happening to look absolutely identical after all that time with different aetheric forces acting on each of them is so ridiculous as to be impossible. Are you not familiar with chaos theory? Even a tiny difference in conditions can build to a huge effect.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but if your aether theory is correct, one of the few predictions that can be made from it is that the suns would cease to be identical rather quickly.

the reason they look the same is because of aether,

That is the most pathetic answer ever. "Because of aether." Why not just say "God did it"?

Quote

however. its force mirrors that which occurs on the far side of the earth. the eddies and currents will be the same.

No, they can't be, because you claim it has variant density with altitude, that it is attracted to its own high density areas, and the patterns of altitude are completely different on the north side of the world to the south side. This means the constituency of aether also has to be different on both sides. Your theory predicts that to be so.

Quote

(it is possible that there is more to it, but i don't want to put forward an undeveloped theory yet).

In other words, you haven't managed to think of an excuse for this, because it escaped your attention that your claims about aether have now led to some predicted effects.

aether is well-defined. i am assuming no new traits, and all the traits it possesses are fairly basic deductions. it is an entirely reasonable response. the only thing of relevant you've said is "the patterns of altitude are completely different on the north side of the world to the south side." and that seems to be utter nonsense. would you care to elaborate?

Yes, it means the north side has different mountains, seas, and terrain to the south side. The north has more landmasses and less ocean than the south. I don't know why you can't understand that.

how would that have any effect on the altitude at which the sun is? if i put a pea under your mattress you're not going to notice.

We have just been talking about the differences in aetheric currents and eddies from one side to the other. I claimed they would be different, you claimed they were the same:

Quote

the eddies and currents will be the same.

Do you now acknowledge that your own theory predicts a difference? Yes or no.

I don't know why you're bringing the altitude of the sun into it, I never mentioned that. 

we were talking about the eddies and currents because you were saying the effects on the suns should not be mirrored. you have yet to show there would be any different at the altitude at which the sun occurs.
there are very, very minor differences at the surface of the earth, which are smoothed out as you reach altitude. there's no 'now acknowledge' to it, i was never talking about the immediate vicinity of the surface.

In this thread: The pink brained idiot demonstrates his lack of understanding of chaos theory.

In this thread: The pink brained idiot demonstrates his lack of understanding of chaos theory.

chaos theory is only relevant when alterations remain. if you have a rough surface, and lie blankets over it, it will end up smooth because none of the alterations stay around. the effect matter has on aether (rather than vice versa) is minimal, in any case.