Auroras Prove Air exists

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:52:31 AM

Quote from: Dog on March 30, 2015, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:13:12 PM

Quote from: Misero on March 30, 2015, 01:08:22 PM

My point is that I cannot test any of your claims of aether attracting to itself, as nothing can simulate it. It's impossible to test/simulate.

it's not attracted to itself, that's the old model: it's the universal fact that space flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low. terrestrial aether, within the earth, is very thin, so space flows down into it. we can measure that flow on the earth's surface, and the resulting force. you can extrapolate from there, presumably.
if you want to simulate, i suggest a proof by contradiction. find what 'viscosity' of space would work to maintain the movements of the sun and planets, and how it compares to that of earth. it should be substantially thicker.

Again, you're treating "space" as if it's made of particles. If it's really not made of particles as you say, then it can't "flow". It doesn't work that way.

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

If space is just space then how can it have a concentration?

think of it as a spring. the length of the spring, along its matter, is not going to change. you can compress the spring, or stretch it out: make it thicker, or thinner, and the distance within it remains the same, even when the compressed spring can fit into a smaller gap than the larger.
distance is the important thing. that is why i prefer to call it aether, as 'space' has to be used in multiple ways, referring to objective distance (what is actually the case) and subjective distance (what we see).

Quote from: Mainframes on March 31, 2015, 04:53:27 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:52:31 AM

Quote from: Dog on March 30, 2015, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:13:12 PM

Quote from: Misero on March 30, 2015, 01:08:22 PM

My point is that I cannot test any of your claims of aether attracting to itself, as nothing can simulate it. It's impossible to test/simulate.

it's not attracted to itself, that's the old model: it's the universal fact that space flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low. terrestrial aether, within the earth, is very thin, so space flows down into it. we can measure that flow on the earth's surface, and the resulting force. you can extrapolate from there, presumably.
if you want to simulate, i suggest a proof by contradiction. find what 'viscosity' of space would work to maintain the movements of the sun and planets, and how it compares to that of earth. it should be substantially thicker.

Again, you're treating "space" as if it's made of particles. If it's really not made of particles as you say, then it can't "flow". It doesn't work that way.

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

If space is just space then how can it have a concentration?

think of it as a spring. the length of the spring, along its matter, is not going to change. you can compress the spring, or stretch it out: make it thicker, or thinner, and the distance within it remains the same, even when the compressed spring can fit into a smaller gap than the larger.
distance is the important thing. that is why i prefer to call it aether, as 'space' has to be used in multiple ways, referring to objective distance (what is actually the case) and subjective distance (what we see).

Spring is a matter, space isn't, the end.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:21:37 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on March 31, 2015, 04:53:27 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:52:31 AM

Quote from: Dog on March 30, 2015, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:13:12 PM

Quote from: Misero on March 30, 2015, 01:08:22 PM

My point is that I cannot test any of your claims of aether attracting to itself, as nothing can simulate it. It's impossible to test/simulate.

it's not attracted to itself, that's the old model: it's the universal fact that space flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low. terrestrial aether, within the earth, is very thin, so space flows down into it. we can measure that flow on the earth's surface, and the resulting force. you can extrapolate from there, presumably.
if you want to simulate, i suggest a proof by contradiction. find what 'viscosity' of space would work to maintain the movements of the sun and planets, and how it compares to that of earth. it should be substantially thicker.

Again, you're treating "space" as if it's made of particles. If it's really not made of particles as you say, then it can't "flow". It doesn't work that way.

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

If space is just space then how can it have a concentration?

think of it as a spring. the length of the spring, along its matter, is not going to change. you can compress the spring, or stretch it out: make it thicker, or thinner, and the distance within it remains the same, even when the compressed spring can fit into a smaller gap than the larger.
distance is the important thing. that is why i prefer to call it aether, as 'space' has to be used in multiple ways, referring to objective distance (what is actually the case) and subjective distance (what we see).

Spring is a matter, space isn't, the end.

do you understand the concept of analogy?
this is a way to think of the concentration of space. space exists: true. if something exists, it can exist in concentrations. all of this is basic.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 08:29:04 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:21:37 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on March 31, 2015, 04:53:27 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:52:31 AM

Quote from: Dog on March 30, 2015, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:13:12 PM

Quote from: Misero on March 30, 2015, 01:08:22 PM

My point is that I cannot test any of your claims of aether attracting to itself, as nothing can simulate it. It's impossible to test/simulate.

it's not attracted to itself, that's the old model: it's the universal fact that space flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low. terrestrial aether, within the earth, is very thin, so space flows down into it. we can measure that flow on the earth's surface, and the resulting force. you can extrapolate from there, presumably.
if you want to simulate, i suggest a proof by contradiction. find what 'viscosity' of space would work to maintain the movements of the sun and planets, and how it compares to that of earth. it should be substantially thicker.

Again, you're treating "space" as if it's made of particles. If it's really not made of particles as you say, then it can't "flow". It doesn't work that way.

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

If space is just space then how can it have a concentration?

think of it as a spring. the length of the spring, along its matter, is not going to change. you can compress the spring, or stretch it out: make it thicker, or thinner, and the distance within it remains the same, even when the compressed spring can fit into a smaller gap than the larger.
distance is the important thing. that is why i prefer to call it aether, as 'space' has to be used in multiple ways, referring to objective distance (what is actually the case) and subjective distance (what we see).

Spring is a matter, space isn't, the end.

do you understand the concept of analogy?
this is a way to think of the concentration of space. space exists: true. if something exists, it can exist in concentrations. all of this is basic.

"Stones exist. If something exist, then it can crap out of itself. All of this is basic."
Wrong.
Your sentence is correct if you take in mind that something can exist in concentrations only if it's material. GET IT!

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:31:20 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 08:29:04 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:21:37 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on March 31, 2015, 04:53:27 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:52:31 AM

Quote from: Dog on March 30, 2015, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:13:12 PM

Quote from: Misero on March 30, 2015, 01:08:22 PM

My point is that I cannot test any of your claims of aether attracting to itself, as nothing can simulate it. It's impossible to test/simulate.

it's not attracted to itself, that's the old model: it's the universal fact that space flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low. terrestrial aether, within the earth, is very thin, so space flows down into it. we can measure that flow on the earth's surface, and the resulting force. you can extrapolate from there, presumably.
if you want to simulate, i suggest a proof by contradiction. find what 'viscosity' of space would work to maintain the movements of the sun and planets, and how it compares to that of earth. it should be substantially thicker.

Again, you're treating "space" as if it's made of particles. If it's really not made of particles as you say, then it can't "flow". It doesn't work that way.

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

If space is just space then how can it have a concentration?

think of it as a spring. the length of the spring, along its matter, is not going to change. you can compress the spring, or stretch it out: make it thicker, or thinner, and the distance within it remains the same, even when the compressed spring can fit into a smaller gap than the larger.
distance is the important thing. that is why i prefer to call it aether, as 'space' has to be used in multiple ways, referring to objective distance (what is actually the case) and subjective distance (what we see).

Spring is a matter, space isn't, the end.

do you understand the concept of analogy?
this is a way to think of the concentration of space. space exists: true. if something exists, it can exist in concentrations. all of this is basic.

"Stones exist. If something exist, then it can crap out of itself. All of this is basic."
Wrong.
Your sentence is correct if you take in mind that something can exist in concentrations only if it's material. GET IT!

if you have nothing but crudity to add, with no evidence, there is no point in talking to you. please stop poking your head into conversations you are clearly not qualified or even willing to have.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 08:38:47 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:31:20 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 08:29:04 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:21:37 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on March 31, 2015, 04:53:27 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:52:31 AM

Quote from: Dog on March 30, 2015, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:13:12 PM

Quote from: Misero on March 30, 2015, 01:08:22 PM

My point is that I cannot test any of your claims of aether attracting to itself, as nothing can simulate it. It's impossible to test/simulate.

it's not attracted to itself, that's the old model: it's the universal fact that space flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low. terrestrial aether, within the earth, is very thin, so space flows down into it. we can measure that flow on the earth's surface, and the resulting force. you can extrapolate from there, presumably.
if you want to simulate, i suggest a proof by contradiction. find what 'viscosity' of space would work to maintain the movements of the sun and planets, and how it compares to that of earth. it should be substantially thicker.

Again, you're treating "space" as if it's made of particles. If it's really not made of particles as you say, then it can't "flow". It doesn't work that way.

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

If space is just space then how can it have a concentration?

think of it as a spring. the length of the spring, along its matter, is not going to change. you can compress the spring, or stretch it out: make it thicker, or thinner, and the distance within it remains the same, even when the compressed spring can fit into a smaller gap than the larger.
distance is the important thing. that is why i prefer to call it aether, as 'space' has to be used in multiple ways, referring to objective distance (what is actually the case) and subjective distance (what we see).

Spring is a matter, space isn't, the end.

do you understand the concept of analogy?
this is a way to think of the concentration of space. space exists: true. if something exists, it can exist in concentrations. all of this is basic.

"Stones exist. If something exist, then it can crap out of itself. All of this is basic."
Wrong.
Your sentence is correct if you take in mind that something can exist in concentrations only if it's material. GET IT!

if you have nothing but crudity to add, with no evidence, there is no point in talking to you. please stop poking your head into conversations you are clearly not qualified or even willing to have. btw. i know logicalkiller is right but because of this i'm trying to don't answer him simply by saying he isn't qualified.

Your sentence is correct if you take in mind that something can exist in concentrations only if it's material. GET IT!

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:40:42 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 08:38:47 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:31:20 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 08:29:04 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:21:37 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on March 31, 2015, 04:53:27 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:52:31 AM

Quote from: Dog on March 30, 2015, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:13:12 PM

Quote from: Misero on March 30, 2015, 01:08:22 PM

My point is that I cannot test any of your claims of aether attracting to itself, as nothing can simulate it. It's impossible to test/simulate.

it's not attracted to itself, that's the old model: it's the universal fact that space flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low. terrestrial aether, within the earth, is very thin, so space flows down into it. we can measure that flow on the earth's surface, and the resulting force. you can extrapolate from there, presumably.
if you want to simulate, i suggest a proof by contradiction. find what 'viscosity' of space would work to maintain the movements of the sun and planets, and how it compares to that of earth. it should be substantially thicker.

Again, you're treating "space" as if it's made of particles. If it's really not made of particles as you say, then it can't "flow". It doesn't work that way.

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

If space is just space then how can it have a concentration?

think of it as a spring. the length of the spring, along its matter, is not going to change. you can compress the spring, or stretch it out: make it thicker, or thinner, and the distance within it remains the same, even when the compressed spring can fit into a smaller gap than the larger.
distance is the important thing. that is why i prefer to call it aether, as 'space' has to be used in multiple ways, referring to objective distance (what is actually the case) and subjective distance (what we see).

Spring is a matter, space isn't, the end.

do you understand the concept of analogy?
this is a way to think of the concentration of space. space exists: true. if something exists, it can exist in concentrations. all of this is basic.

"Stones exist. If something exist, then it can crap out of itself. All of this is basic."
Wrong.
Your sentence is correct if you take in mind that something can exist in concentrations only if it's material. GET IT!

if you have nothing but crudity to add, with no evidence, there is no point in talking to you. please stop poking your head into conversations you are clearly not qualified or even willing to have. btw. i know logicalkiller is right but because of this i'm trying to don't answer him simply by saying he isn't qualified.

Your sentence is correct if you take in mind that something can exist in concentrations only if it's material. GET IT!

evidence. i suggest you familiarize yourself with that word, it's a very important one. you constantly demand it from me, now i'm asking for the same. please back up your assertion with something.
otherwise it seems clear to anyone with a brain that if something exists, more of it can exist, whether or not it's made of matter.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 08:42:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:40:42 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 08:38:47 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:31:20 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 08:29:04 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 08:21:37 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on March 31, 2015, 04:53:27 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:52:31 AM

Quote from: Dog on March 30, 2015, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 01:13:12 PM

Quote from: Misero on March 30, 2015, 01:08:22 PM

My point is that I cannot test any of your claims of aether attracting to itself, as nothing can simulate it. It's impossible to test/simulate.

it's not attracted to itself, that's the old model: it's the universal fact that space flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low. terrestrial aether, within the earth, is very thin, so space flows down into it. we can measure that flow on the earth's surface, and the resulting force. you can extrapolate from there, presumably.
if you want to simulate, i suggest a proof by contradiction. find what 'viscosity' of space would work to maintain the movements of the sun and planets, and how it compares to that of earth. it should be substantially thicker.

Again, you're treating "space" as if it's made of particles. If it's really not made of particles as you say, then it can't "flow". It doesn't work that way.

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

If space is just space then how can it have a concentration?

think of it as a spring. the length of the spring, along its matter, is not going to change. you can compress the spring, or stretch it out: make it thicker, or thinner, and the distance within it remains the same, even when the compressed spring can fit into a smaller gap than the larger.
distance is the important thing. that is why i prefer to call it aether, as 'space' has to be used in multiple ways, referring to objective distance (what is actually the case) and subjective distance (what we see).

Spring is a matter, space isn't, the end.

do you understand the concept of analogy?
this is a way to think of the concentration of space. space exists: true. if something exists, it can exist in concentrations. all of this is basic.

"Stones exist. If something exist, then it can crap out of itself. All of this is basic."
Wrong.
Your sentence is correct if you take in mind that something can exist in concentrations only if it's material. GET IT!

if you have nothing but crudity to add, with no evidence, there is no point in talking to you. please stop poking your head into conversations you are clearly not qualified or even willing to have. btw. i know logicalkiller is right but because of this i'm trying to don't answer him simply by saying he isn't qualified.

Your sentence is correct if you take in mind that something can exist in concentrations only if it's material. GET IT!

evidence. i suggest you familiarize yourself with that word, it's a very important one. you constantly demand it from me, now i'm asking for the same. please back up your assertion with something.
otherwise it seems clear to anyone with a brain that if something exists, more of it can exist, whether or not it's made of matter.

Actually you have shown no evidence at all. We have said to you - "prove the aetheric teleportation exists". You said - "it's because space is thinner". Is that an evidence? Obviously not. And now listen - density is an amount of particles in a cube of some measure. Of particles, you see? Of particles. That's the deep definition of a phrase "density". Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

You have said that the water takes up more space as there is more aether in it, though I may be remembering wrong.

You have said that the water takes up more space as there is more aether in it, though I may be remembering wrong.

objectivity against subjectivity. this is why i prefer to talk about aether. when we say 'space' we can mean the fundamental substance, or we can refer to distances within set parameters.
for example, to use aetheric transmission, the diameter of the earth is set. that distance is something huge, call it d. however, that distance is also essentially zero, if you cross it at the equator, because the space there is thinner: the distance of near-zero is stretched out. space is the fabric, and is also the distance, but it seems absurd to say 'space occupies more space'. it doesn't matter whether you take my theory as truth, so long as you understand that principle.
something can look like it takes up more room (subjectively) when objectively it takes up the same amount of space, it is just the space itself that swells.

a bubble might be a good analogy here. the amount of water stays constant, but it looks like it grows when you blow on it.

Quote from: Misero on March 31, 2015, 08:56:53 AM

Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:04:02 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 31, 2015, 08:56:53 AM

Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

density is a word. you are criticizing word choice because you have nothing to go on. just because one human is unable to do something, you cannot immediately conclude that it is impossible. if you disagree, please create a sun in your living room.
get a life.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:13:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:04:02 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 31, 2015, 08:56:53 AM

Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

density is a word. you are criticizing word choice because you have nothing to go on. just because one human is unable to do something, you cannot immediately conclude that it is impossible. if you disagree, please create a sun in your living room.
get a life.

Why is aether thin at the edges of the world and thicker everywhere else?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:20:35 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:13:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:04:02 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 31, 2015, 08:56:53 AM

Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

density is a word. you are criticizing word choice because you have nothing to go on. just because one human is unable to do something, you cannot immediately conclude that it is impossible. if you disagree, please create a sun in your living room.
get a life.

Why is aether thin at the edges of the world and thicker everywhere else?

it's especially thin in the center of the world because that low pressure area was what caused aether to rush in and (ultimately) form the matter of the world. at the edges is where this thinness is exposed.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:41:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:20:35 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:13:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:04:02 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 31, 2015, 08:56:53 AM

Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

density is a word. you are criticizing word choice because you have nothing to go on. just because one human is unable to do something, you cannot immediately conclude that it is impossible. if you disagree, please create a sun in your living room.
get a life.

Why is aether thin at the edges of the world and thicker everywhere else?

it's especially thin in the center of the world because that low pressure area was what caused aether to rush in and (ultimately) form the matter of the world. at the edges is where this thinness is exposed.

Why is low pressure area in the center of the world and not anywhere else?
BTW: I found something bad in your idea, I'll show a picture tomorrow.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 12:36:40 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:41:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:20:35 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:13:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:04:02 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 31, 2015, 08:56:53 AM

Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

density is a word. you are criticizing word choice because you have nothing to go on. just because one human is unable to do something, you cannot immediately conclude that it is impossible. if you disagree, please create a sun in your living room.
get a life.

Why is aether thin at the edges of the world and thicker everywhere else?

it's especially thin in the center of the world because that low pressure area was what caused aether to rush in and (ultimately) form the matter of the world. at the edges is where this thinness is exposed.

Why is low pressure area in the center of the world and not anywhere else?
BTW: I found something bad in your idea, I'll show a picture tomorrow.

i answered that, the low pressure is what causes the world. it's the cause.

i very much doubt that, given how little understanding you seem to have. please educate yourself before you make a post, and make sure it is actually relevant (and has more substance than your "i talk to gravity, and am parodying an argument that was never actually made!" insanity).

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 12:55:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 12:36:40 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:41:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:20:35 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:13:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:04:02 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 31, 2015, 08:56:53 AM

Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

density is a word. you are criticizing word choice because you have nothing to go on. just because one human is unable to do something, you cannot immediately conclude that it is impossible. if you disagree, please create a sun in your living room.
get a life.

Why is aether thin at the edges of the world and thicker everywhere else?

it's especially thin in the center of the world because that low pressure area was what caused aether to rush in and (ultimately) form the matter of the world. at the edges is where this thinness is exposed.

Why is low pressure area in the center of the world and not anywhere else?
BTW: I found something bad in your idea, I'll show a picture tomorrow.

i answered that, the low pressure is what causes the world. it's the cause.

i very much doubt that, given how little understanding you seem to have. please educate yourself before you make a post, and make sure it is actually relevant (and has more substance than your "i talk to gravity, and am parodying an argument that was never actually made!" insanity).

I clearly asked - why is the low pressure area at the equators? Cause of something and a position of something - I see no coincidence.
And I communicated with gravity, learn to read you moron. I refer you to this topic - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63275.0#.VRvNBI4XFco

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 01:54:17 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 12:55:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 12:36:40 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:41:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:20:35 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:13:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:04:02 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 31, 2015, 08:56:53 AM

Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

density is a word. you are criticizing word choice because you have nothing to go on. just because one human is unable to do something, you cannot immediately conclude that it is impossible. if you disagree, please create a sun in your living room.
get a life.

Why is aether thin at the edges of the world and thicker everywhere else?

it's especially thin in the center of the world because that low pressure area was what caused aether to rush in and (ultimately) form the matter of the world. at the edges is where this thinness is exposed.

Why is low pressure area in the center of the world and not anywhere else?
BTW: I found something bad in your idea, I'll show a picture tomorrow.

i answered that, the low pressure is what causes the world. it's the cause.

i very much doubt that, given how little understanding you seem to have. please educate yourself before you make a post, and make sure it is actually relevant (and has more substance than your "i talk to gravity, and am parodying an argument that was never actually made!" insanity).

I clearly asked - why is the low pressure area at the equators? Cause of something and a position of something - I see no coincidence.
And I communicated with gravity, learn to read you moron. I refer you to this topic -

if you have nothing to offer except repeating yourself, shut up. i am not interested in your bs. i am trying to engage in a discussion, i don't want to waste my time with someone who thinks delusion is an argument. i have never once proposed by communication with aether was meant to convince everyone, you need to get a life and to grow up.
i have answered every one of your questions. if you have a problem with the answers, tell me why, stop repeating the same bs. it's pathetic.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on April 01, 2015, 03:48:45 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 01:54:17 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 12:55:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 12:36:40 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:41:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:20:35 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 31, 2015, 09:13:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 09:04:02 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 31, 2015, 08:56:53 AM

Also, the fact that you cannot create matter, only change it, is defied by aether making an object take up more space.

i'll address you as logicalkiller seems unable to pay attention.
an object doesn't take up more space: an object occupies the same amount of space. space is the variable here, as i think i've made clear.
don't treat the aether as a separate thing. i am tired of repeating that point.

Oh yeah, ignore me, because I said the truth. So I repeat - Density is an attribute owned by matter, not by space. Let's say you have a room, an empty room. It's a place. It's empty place, a place, is a space, imagine. And now - how could you make some part of a place in this room thicker?

density is a word. you are criticizing word choice because you have nothing to go on. just because one human is unable to do something, you cannot immediately conclude that it is impossible. if you disagree, please create a sun in your living room.
get a life.

Why is aether thin at the edges of the world and thicker everywhere else?

it's especially thin in the center of the world because that low pressure area was what caused aether to rush in and (ultimately) form the matter of the world. at the edges is where this thinness is exposed.

Why is low pressure area in the center of the world and not anywhere else?
BTW: I found something bad in your idea, I'll show a picture tomorrow.

i answered that, the low pressure is what causes the world. it's the cause.

i very much doubt that, given how little understanding you seem to have. please educate yourself before you make a post, and make sure it is actually relevant (and has more substance than your "i talk to gravity, and am parodying an argument that was never actually made!" insanity).

I clearly asked - why is the low pressure area at the equators? Cause of something and a position of something - I see no coincidence.
And I communicated with gravity, learn to read you moron. I refer you to this topic -

if you have nothing to offer except repeating yourself, shut up. i am not interested in your bs. i am trying to engage in a discussion, i don't want to waste my time with someone who thinks delusion is an argument. i have never once proposed by communication with aether was meant to convince everyone, you need to get a life and to grow up.
i have answered every one of your questions. if you have a problem with the answers, tell me why, stop repeating the same bs. it's pathetic.

No, you haven't yet answered to question "Why is low pressure area in the center of the world and not anywhere else?". You came up with another assertion and also doing no job for discussion.
PS: Have you got a question on what you have no answer?

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

Again, you can't talk about "space" and then use terms that only apply to matter/particles.

I'm all for hearing about your aether proposition, but it looks to be crumbling before our eyes. You must now decide, IS it space or NOT space? You can't have both.

If it is space, then it literally can't do anything. It's nothing. Therefore it can't have the properties you're describing.

IF it IS NOT space, THEN you can give it properties such as pressure, concentration, density, etc. But then this breaks other facets of your aether world, so.......

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:52:31 AM

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

Again, you can't talk about "space" and then use terms that only apply to matter/particles.

I'm all for hearing about your aether proposition, but it looks to be crumbling before our eyes. You must now decide, IS it space or NOT space? You can't have both.

If it is space, then it literally can't do anything. It's nothing. Therefore it can't have the properties you're describing.

IF it IS NOT space, THEN you can give it properties such as pressure, concentration, density, etc. But then this breaks other facets of your aether world, so.......

i am not. stop saying that, i am applying no principles that would not be universally relevant. my word choice is the same as what we used when talking about material substances, because they are the only words that exist. stop relying on semantics, try paying attention.
aether is space, and space exists, space is not nothing. until you can provide evidence for that assertion, which flies in the face of everything we know, stop saying it.

if space is nothing, please explain how, in the round earth model, it a) expands, b) warps.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:52:31 AM

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

Again, you can't talk about "space" and then use terms that only apply to matter/particles.

I'm all for hearing about your aether proposition, but it looks to be crumbling before our eyes. You must now decide, IS it space or NOT space? You can't have both.

If it is space, then it literally can't do anything. It's nothing. Therefore it can't have the properties you're describing.

IF it IS NOT space, THEN you can give it properties such as pressure, concentration, density, etc. But then this breaks other facets of your aether world, so.......

If you press him on how parts contradict, he starts accusing you of mixing aspects of the "old model" with the "new model" and calls you an idiot. Ignoring, of course, that neither model works individually.

Quote from: Dog on April 02, 2015, 04:53:00 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:52:31 AM

no i'm not. flow is a word which is the best choice to describe this. it is well known anything will move form high concentrations, to low. you can't criticize an analogy for not being perfect when analogy is all we have to visualize this kind of concept.

Again, you can't talk about "space" and then use terms that only apply to matter/particles.

I'm all for hearing about your aether proposition, but it looks to be crumbling before our eyes. You must now decide, IS it space or NOT space? You can't have both.

If it is space, then it literally can't do anything. It's nothing. Therefore it can't have the properties you're describing.

IF it IS NOT space, THEN you can give it properties such as pressure, concentration, density, etc. But then this breaks other facets of your aether world, so.......

If you press him on how parts contradict, he starts accusing you of mixing aspects of the "old model" with the "new model" and calls you an idiot. Ignoring, of course, that neither model works individually.

well if you combine the modern, aether as space dual earth theory with things unrelated to that model, of course you're going to get an absurdity. what's hard to understand about that?
if the model does not work, please say so. you seem fond of assertions, please back it up with evidence.

Well if you combine the modern, aether as space dual earth theory with things unrelated to that model, of course you're going to get an absurdity. What's hard to understand about that?
If the model does not work, please say so. you seem fond of assertions, please back it up with evidence.

How many times do we have to tell this guy that there is NO "dual" earth "theory" and/or "model"?  It's like trying to convince a religious zealot that his imaginary friend up in the sky doesn't exist in the real world.

JRoweSceptimatic has thus far provided NO model, NO map, NO working/workable diagram, and NO viable, science-based theory.

DON'T RESPOND TO JROWE, HE'S A TROLL!!!

i am not. stop saying that, i am applying no principles that would not be universally relevant. my word choice is the same as what we used when talking about material substances, because they are the only words that exist. stop relying on semantics, try paying attention.
aether is space, and space exists, space is not nothing. until you can provide evidence for that assertion, which flies in the face of everything we know, stop saying it.

if space is nothing, please explain how, in the round earth model, it a) expands, b) warps.

Well, you actually were. Anyways...

You're half-right. Space is not nothing. Even in the farthest reaches of space there might still be a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. But that's not relevant to what we're talking about. For our purposes, essentially space IS nothing.

a) Space doesn't expand. Our universe is expanding. Research that if you're confused.

b) Warp has nothing to do with our debate. Warping goes into mathematical spaces/dimensions, quantum mechanics, etc. That doesn't apply to the classical mechanics we are discussing.

Jrowe, you have to understand that the rule of high/low concentration only applies to things that have constituent parts. Space is not observed to have constituent parts, so it cannot aggregate in concentrations.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 03, 2015, 02:20:20 AM

i am not. stop saying that, i am applying no principles that would not be universally relevant. my word choice is the same as what we used when talking about material substances, because they are the only words that exist. stop relying on semantics, try paying attention.
aether is space, and space exists, space is not nothing. until you can provide evidence for that assertion, which flies in the face of everything we know, stop saying it.

if space is nothing, please explain how, in the round earth model, it a) expands, b) warps.

Well, you actually were. Anyways...

You're half-right. Space is not nothing. Even in the farthest reaches of space there might still be a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. But that's not relevant to what we're talking about. For our purposes, essentially space IS nothing.

a) Space doesn't expand. Our universe is expanding. Research that if you're confused.

b) Warp has nothing to do with our debate. Warping goes into mathematical spaces/dimensions, quantum mechanics, etc. That doesn't apply to the classical mechanics we are discussing.

why are you talking about hydrogen and matter that exists in space? don't change the subject. i am talking about space. this is why i said 'space'. i really don't care about hydrogen atoms.
what exactly is the universe made out of?

try not to be quite so scientifically and generally illiterate next time.