ask me about dual earth theory

I'm done with this crazed baboon and his stupid theories. Every time a valid objection is posted he just adds another property to aether - or, now the properties have started producing predicted effects, taking properties away (aether is both thick enough that planes can't fly through it, like syrup, yet at the same time it's "just space").

if you tie together properties of the old model and the new, of course it's going to be more complicated. i'm not doing that.
i'm not sure when i've ever said planes can't fly through aether, unless you're talking about the idea of airplanes needing lift from non-existent air, which is actually answered far more neatly with the space model of aether. thicker space occurs higher up, which takes longer to go through: the airplanes do indeed lift, but so slowly it seems like there's nothing.
the only property of aether necessary for dual earth theory are basic deductions about space (the definition of distance), and the idea of flowing from high to low concentrations, which we observe in all things. i believe there is more to it, for personal reasons, but none of that is necessary for dual earth theory.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 31, 2015, 10:20:07 AM

Jroweskeptic-The rotation of the sky as you approach the equator appears to move as if you are crossing a tract of land as predicted by a RE. Does the low density of Æther (I think it is low, correct me if I am wrong) extend all the way to the stars or is there some sort of refraction occurring as the light encounters the change in Æther density?  Why don't humans perceive a change in Æther density?  It seems like there should be some sort of visual distortion accompanying the change. If you can provide a mathematical unit for Æther then it should be possible to predict.

the aether forms a kind of dome over the earth, it's hard to put into words why. light, wind, anything that moves through space will be moved across the equator.
there is no way to tell the thickness of the space you're in, from within the space. you need an external perspective to see the difference, then you'd be able to see something unusual in the speed things take to happen.
don't make it any more special than it is. aetheric transmission is simply a matter of moving through space, which we do all the time. all that changes is the thickness of the space, but that change only makes sense when you have something to compare it to. from within, it might as well be the same.

Have you got something more than assertion?

Quote from: Rama Set on March 31, 2015, 10:20:07 AM

Jroweskeptic-The rotation of the sky as you approach the equator appears to move as if you are crossing a tract of land as predicted by a RE. Does the low density of Æther (I think it is low, correct me if I am wrong) extend all the way to the stars or is there some sort of refraction occurring as the light encounters the change in Æther density?  Why don't humans perceive a change in Æther density?  It seems like there should be some sort of visual distortion accompanying the change. If you can provide a mathematical unit for Æther then it should be possible to predict.

the aether forms a kind of dome over the earth, it's hard to put into words why.

Can you provide evidence for this?  It is pretty important for anyone to reasonably accept your theory.

light, wind, anything that moves through space will be moved across the equator.

So you say.

there is no way to tell the thickness of the space you're in, from within the space. you need an external perspective to see the difference, then you'd be able to see something unusual in the speed things take to happen.

So something unusual should have been observed near the equator then. You would have an external perspective on that region of low density Æther.

don't make it any more special than it is.

I'm not. I am following the logical conclusions presented by your ideas.

aetheric transmission is simply a matter of moving through space, which we do all the time. all that changes is the thickness of the space, but that change only makes sense when you have something to compare it to. from within, it might as well be the same.

But we do. If the density of the Æther within 2 miles of the Equator is 1 (keep it dimensionless for now) and it's density is 2, at 5 miles from the equator, then you should see some sort of change in velocity as something enters the lower density area.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 12:12:18 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 31, 2015, 10:20:07 AM

Jroweskeptic-The rotation of the sky as you approach the equator appears to move as if you are crossing a tract of land as predicted by a RE. Does the low density of Æther (I think it is low, correct me if I am wrong) extend all the way to the stars or is there some sort of refraction occurring as the light encounters the change in Æther density?  Why don't humans perceive a change in Æther density?  It seems like there should be some sort of visual distortion accompanying the change. If you can provide a mathematical unit for Æther then it should be possible to predict.

the aether forms a kind of dome over the earth, it's hard to put into words why.

Can you provide evidence for this?  It is pretty important for anyone to reasonably accept your theory.

Quote

light, wind, anything that moves through space will be moved across the equator.

So you say.

Quote

there is no way to tell the thickness of the space you're in, from within the space. you need an external perspective to see the difference, then you'd be able to see something unusual in the speed things take to happen.

So something unusual should have been observed near the equator then. You would have an external perspective on that region of low density Æther.

Quote

don't make it any more special than it is.

I'm not. I am following the logical conclusions presented by your ideas.

Quote

aetheric transmission is simply a matter of moving through space, which we do all the time. all that changes is the thickness of the space, but that change only makes sense when you have something to compare it to. from within, it might as well be the same.

But we do. If the density of the Æther within 2 miles of the Equator is 1 (keep it dimensionless for now) and it's density is 2, at 5 miles from the equator, then you should see some sort of change in velocity as something enters the lower density area.

the dome-effect is a result of the aetheric whirlpools, where the flow of aether rejoins from the interruption caused by the earth.

what do you mean 'so i say'? aether is space, in my model, why would it suddenly lose those traits?

there's no external perspective on space, as we see thanks to the light which is carried by space.

the dome-effect is a result of the aetheric whirlpools

Prove it, because I see you don't have any evidences, only assertions and assumptions.

the dome-effect is a result of the aetheric whirlpools, where the flow of aether rejoins from the interruption caused by the earth.

Not sure how this relates to the observation of density change in the Æther. Can you explain and the provide your evidence?

what do you mean 'so i say'?

In the absence of evidence or a working mathematical model, there is no way to scrutinize your assertions. You are asking us to take your word for it.

aether is space, in my model, why would it suddenly lose those traits?

I never said anything would lose properties. Do you need me to clarify anything I said?

there's no external perspective on space, as we see thanks to the light which is carried by space.

Why can't we see that at different places light is being carried across dense or less dense patches of Aether?

How will you explain this?

logical killer, you are officially blocked again, i'm not wasting any more time on you. if you had read anything about my theory (for example, the basic fact that aether is space, that aetheric transmission is movement through space which we do all the time) you would see how pathetic everything you say is. you offer nothing except a waste of time, stop talking to me.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 01, 2015, 01:39:37 AM

the dome-effect is a result of the aetheric whirlpools, where the flow of aether rejoins from the interruption caused by the earth.

Not sure how this relates to the observation of density change in the Æther. Can you explain and the provide your evidence?

Quote

what do you mean 'so i say'?

In the absence of evidence or a working mathematical model, there is no way to scrutinize your assertions. You are asking us to take your word for it.

Quote

aether is space, in my model, why would it suddenly lose those traits?

I never said anything would lose properties. Do you need me to clarify anything I said?

Quote

there's no external perspective on space, as we see thanks to the light which is carried by space.

Why can't we see that at different places light is being carried across dense or less dense patches of Aether?

the evidence is logical. when things rejoin, they're not going to immediately smash together, movement takes time, so they'll continue in their initial direction, slowly turn, then reconnect. it's behavior we observe everywhere, and the end result would be what is like a dome shape. the aetheric whirlpools are formed about this motion.

there's a working model, it doesn't have detailed equations because it takes resources which i do not have to find those numbers (as i have repeatedly said. until you can give me the budget and the time to take measurements, stop asking for things which are beyond anyone's ability. that's like me asking you to build a rocket, and see if space travel is possible, yourself).

you are proposing that space will behave differently at the equator. i don't see why that would be the case, unless you're over complicating and adding in more properties. at the equator, the distance between two points is essentially made zero. if you knew the real length of that distance (as i do), then you would be able to see the effects. if you don't know what that distance is meant to be, how can you judge how it looks?
you're asking after theoretical elements which do not exist in my model. at the equator, the distance between two points is made zero, allowing for instantaneous transmission. they go a huge distance at once, but you don't know what that distance is just from standing there. from our perspective, it might as well just be regular space. why wouldn't it look like that?

logical killer, you are officially blocked again, i'm not wasting any more time on you. if you had read anything about my theory (for example, the basic fact that aether is space, that aetheric transmission is movement through space which we do all the time) you would see how pathetic everything you say is. you offer nothing except a waste of time, stop talking to me.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 01, 2015, 04:37:52 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 01, 2015, 01:39:37 AM

the dome-effect is a result of the aetheric whirlpools, where the flow of aether rejoins from the interruption caused by the earth.

Not sure how this relates to the observation of density change in the Æther. Can you explain and the provide your evidence?

Quote

what do you mean 'so i say'?

In the absence of evidence or a working mathematical model, there is no way to scrutinize your assertions. You are asking us to take your word for it.

Quote

aether is space, in my model, why would it suddenly lose those traits?

I never said anything would lose properties. Do you need me to clarify anything I said?

Quote

there's no external perspective on space, as we see thanks to the light which is carried by space.

Why can't we see that at different places light is being carried across dense or less dense patches of Aether?

the evidence is logical. when things rejoin, they're not going to immediately smash together, movement takes time, so they'll continue in their initial direction, slowly turn, then reconnect. it's behavior we observe everywhere, and the end result would be what is like a dome shape. the aetheric whirlpools are formed about this motion.

there's a working model, it doesn't have detailed equations because it takes resources which i do not have to find those numbers (as i have repeatedly said. until you can give me the budget and the time to take measurements, stop asking for things which are beyond anyone's ability. that's like me asking you to build a rocket, and see if space travel is possible, yourself).

you are proposing that space will behave differently at the equator. i don't see why that would be the case, unless you're over complicating and adding in more properties. at the equator, the distance between two points is essentially made zero. if you knew the real length of that distance (as i do), then you would be able to see the effects. if you don't know what that distance is meant to be, how can you judge how it looks?
you're asking after theoretical elements which do not exist in my model. at the equator, the distance between two points is made zero, allowing for instantaneous transmission. they go a huge distance at once, but you don't know what that distance is just from standing there. from our perspective, it might as well just be regular space. why wouldn't it look like that?

Fuck yeah, something is crushing my theory so I'm just ignoring it, how lovely.

the evidence is logical.

Logic is not empirical evidence, it is a way to critically appraise empirical evidence. Just because a notion is logically sound, does not mean it is true; this is the difference between metaphysics and reality.  For something to be metaphysically true, it has to be logically sound.  For something to be a part of reality, it has to be empirically observable, directly or indirectly (although many people here like their empiricism to be solely direct).

when things rejoin, they're not going to immediately smash together, movement takes time, so they'll continue in their initial direction, slowly turn, then reconnect. it's behavior we observe everywhere, and the end result would be what is like a dome shape. the aetheric whirlpools are formed about this motion.

I don't really see how this is relevant, can you explain further?

there's a working model, it doesn't have detailed equations

In what sense is it a working model if it cannot do anything useful like make a prediction?

because it takes resources which i do not have to find those numbers (as i have repeatedly said.

No offense, but this is lazy.  Einstein wrote the Field Equations of GR in a notebook in his apartment.  Educate yourself through the public library system and get to work!

until you can give me the budget and the time to take measurements, stop asking for things which are beyond anyone's ability.

Why is creating a working model of Aether "beyond anyone's ability"?  I am sure there are plenty of theoretical physicists more than equipped to deal with your issues.

that's like me asking you to build a rocket, and see if space travel is possible, yourself).

Not really, because as I said, you can do your work in a notebook.  If it is promising, experimental physicists with actual resources can set about testing the theory.  If you devise a consistent, viable theory to rival quantum foam, then people would be interested.

you are proposing that space will behave differently at the equator. i don't see why that would be the case, unless you're over complicating and adding in more properties.

I am proposing that there is a difference between higher and lower density regions of Aether, which you do as well, so I am not sure why you are opposing it.

at the equator, the distance between two points is essentially made zero. if you knew the real length of that distance (as i do), then you would be able to see the effects.

Are you special?  Why can only you, or someone in touch with the Aether, like you, perceive this? I don't understand.  If this is a real effect then it should be observable by anyone.

if you don't know what that distance is meant to be, how can you judge how it looks?

It seems logical that as something propagates from one medium to another, in this case higher density Aether to lower density Aether, that there should be a difference in how it travels, and that this difference should be observable.

you're asking after theoretical elements which do not exist in my model.

Sounds like a problem with your theory then.

at the equator, the distance between two points is made zero, allowing for instantaneous transmission. they go a huge distance at once, but you don't know what that distance is just from standing there. from our perspective, it might as well just be regular space. why wouldn't it look like that?

I don't know.  Apparently neither do you.  Why does it appear and behave exactly like the RE model and why do all observations support the RE model?

I will finish with a story:  When I was in grade 3 I came up with a theory of physiology.  My thought was that we are entirely composed of pencils, sharpened HB pencils.  However, whenever someone tried to directly observe our physiology, it appeared exactly like we think it does: blood vessels, heart, muscle, etc...

Your theory of Aether reminds of exactly this.  I hope you can come up with some meaningful way to observe and model your theory, but right now, you are missing too many pieces.

empirical evidence means nothing until you apply logic to it. knowing something happens is useless until you work out facts about it. logical evidence is entirely reasonable.
i explained how the dome-like effect came about, as you asked. what more do you want?
the model explains the truth about the world, and it makes predictions even though we already know what those results would be. without more resources i can't do better. i don't care what einstein could do, i'm not einstein. i have given a working model which makes sense, you're asking for more detail than any one person with no resources could ever give. even you could not give that level of depth for your round earth theory without relying on other resources.
if you give me an experiment that i could do to gain those numbers, please let me know.

you are proposing something that makes no sense. there are difference between higher and low densities of space. the distance within the space will, when compared with other space, cover a different distance. the problem is, we observe because of light. light moves at the same speed, it just covers a different distance. why would the speed of light alter?
you're asking for things i have never proposed. how is that a flaw with my theory and not your questions?

the round earth model explains most things because it has had longer to explain the dual earth model. there are many unexplained things, such as the details of gravity: dual earth model needs only space (which is known), and obvious deductions.

empirical evidence means nothing until you apply logic to it. knowing something happens is useless until you work out facts about it. logical evidence is entirely reasonable.

If you think your three sentences constituted a valid syllogism, then you are sadly mistaken.  I pretty much said exactly what you said in your first premise.  I agree with your second, and your conclusion does not follow the premises.  Why does applying logic to empirical evidence mean that logical conclusions must necessarily exist?

i explained how the dome-like effect came about, as you asked. what more do you want?

What I asked for in the first place: how does it relate to the observation of light proprogating through different densities of Aether and where is your evidence.

the model explains the truth about the world,

ehhhh, it kind of does, but not in a useful or meaningful way.

and it makes predictions even though we already know what those results would be.

Yes, this is called an Ad Hoc theory, which is how many begin, I grant you.  The key is to be able to arrive at the same theory taking a completely different route.  Like Newton relating falling objects to Keplerian orbits through mathematics.

without more resources i can't do better.

Not with that attitude you can't.

i don't care what einstein could do, i'm not einstein.

Not with that attitude you aren't.

i have given a working model which makes sense,

It kind of makes sense, and I actually mean that as a compliment, but it still has holes and is not rigorous enough to be worthy of consideration.  You can blame that on the world, or you can choose to do something about it; I don't care either way.

you're asking for more detail than any one person with no resources could ever give.

You have access to many free resources, it sounds like you don't avail them.  You can access pretty much every book ever written, and there are amateur astronomy resources that are available.  It sounds like two tools you need, and they are free or cheap.  Get out there and do it!

even you could not give that level of depth for your round earth theory without relying on other resources.

Simply not true.  You would be astounded at the resources actually required to do basic scientific work.  It is less than you think.

if you give me an experiment that i could do to gain those numbers, please let me know.

I can't do that because you have no model that makes testable predictions.  Once you provide a prediction that I have some way of measuring then I could think up an experiment.  I was already working on that by proposing observable visual phenomena as light propagates from a higher to lower area of Aether.

you are proposing something that makes no sense. there are difference between higher and low densities of space. the distance within the space will, when compared with other space, cover a different distance. the problem is, we observe because of light. light moves at the same speed, it just covers a different distance. why would the speed of light alter?

There must be a time warp then.  If the speed is changing, but the distance is different, there will be a change in the amount of time it takes for light to cross it, but visually we do not perceive this distance change and so our perception of time must compress to maintain the frame of reference.

you're asking for things i have never proposed. how is that a flaw with my theory and not your questions?

Is your theory only made up of ideas you propose?  What is the problem with my questions other than you did not think of them?

the round earth model explains most things because it has had longer to explain the dual earth model. there are many unexplained things, such as the details of gravity: dual earth model needs only space (which is known), and obvious deductions.

How do you know if your theory needs more?  It is extremely vague, and the devil is always in the details.  Newton could have declared the same, but then the perihelion of mercury was observed and it was known that the theory is not complete.  You should avoid declarations of your theories completeness until it has withstood far more scrutiny than from a bunch of internet hoodlums.

i have explained how light propagates several times, and i have given evidence deduced logically from what would be the case if my theory was true, and observation. if you have any specific questions as to how light works, please ask them.

oh, i didn't realize attitude could take the place of scientific instruments. really? i can't use data that assumes a round earth obviously, and there's very little else available.

there is no time warp, you're forgetting that observation depends on light. the ratio of the speed of light to the distance covered is going to remain the same. think of the behavior at the equator: this is the simplest case. when someone crosses, you watch them cover the distance to the far side of the earth, however, the light that comes back from them covers the same distance at the same speed. how could any strangeness be noted?
and this is the only accessible place my model predicts any majority activity in terms of density of space.

my theory is based on making the fewest assumptions possible. i'm not going to needlessly include special case scenarios. i am open to improving my theory based on suggestions (as i have done several times), but only when these refinements are genuine improvements and simplifications.

i did not say my theory was complete. no theory is, it is just a better one. certainly, it refines classical flat earth theory. no new holes arise, once the simple fact that distance relies on space is understood, and multiple aspects are explained neatly with one entity. by your example of newton and gravity and orbits, this is a strength: 'gravity', aetheric transmission (and as far as personal theories go, air) are all explained with the far more clearly defined aether of space. in addition, queries posed before (such as circumpolar stars) are answered cleanly.
i can assume your main objection is that it does not improve upon round earth theory. it will not, from your perspective, because to do that would necessitate centuries worth of time and resources which your model has had to develop.
it does, however, clearly improve in terms of simplicity. rather than the non-understood gravity, we have known space and logically deduced, explicable properties. they are explained, not rigorously with numbers due to a lack of resources, but in general times the answers are clearly there.

Question:

As the moon can be seen at the same time in both hemispheres, there must be two moons in your model yes?

Question:

As the moon can be seen at the same time in both hemispheres, there must be two moons in your model yes?

most likely correct. i came to that conclusion through eclipses, but that would make sense too.

however, i am working on refining the theory further. i may have been too hasty in disregarding the original single-sun model. aetheric transmission could, with a cursory thought, render the second obsolete. it may also provide a better explanation for sunsets, which have been a minor complaint of round earthers from what i have seen.
the main reason i rejected the one-sun model was to allow the sun to shine from over points on the earth. however, a change in angle might also accomplish that.

at present however, yes, my model contains two moons.

Well quite a lot if detail can be seen on the moon with even a cheap telescope, so the two moons would have to identical, with exactly the same side always facing the earth. This seems a bit unlikely, to say the least.

Well quite a lot if detail can be seen on the moon with even a cheap telescope, so the two moons would have to identical, with exactly the same side always facing the earth. This seems a bit unlikely, to say the least.

it's not that unlikely. the effects of the aether would be mirrored on each side of the earth, their result would be the same.

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 01, 2015, 12:48:05 PM

Question:

As the moon can be seen at the same time in both hemispheres, there must be two moons in your model yes?

most likely correct. i came to that conclusion through eclipses, but that would make sense too.

however, i am working on refining the theory further. i may have been too hasty in disregarding the original single-sun model. aetheric transmission could, with a cursory thought, render the second obsolete. it may also provide a better explanation for sunsets, which have been a minor complaint of round earthers from what i have seen.
the main reason i rejected the one-sun model was to allow the sun to shine from over points on the earth. however, a change in angle might also accomplish that.

at present however, yes, my model contains two moons.

You know how dumb it sounds?
Occam's razor - objective is simplicity, and in your DFE model simplicity isn't existing. Also - 2 suns on both hemispheres showing off at the same distance should collapse in some time and as we see that doesn't happen. And also - if there were 2 suns, then there would be day all day, bud!

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 01, 2015, 12:59:41 PM

Well quite a lot if detail can be seen on the moon with even a cheap telescope, so the two moons would have to identical, with exactly the same side always facing the earth. This seems a bit unlikely, to say the least.

it's not that unlikely. the effects of the aether would be mirrored on each side of the earth, their result would be the same.

It's astronomically unlikely. There has to be some element of chaos.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 01, 2015, 01:00:35 PM

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 01, 2015, 12:59:41 PM

Well quite a lot if detail can be seen on the moon with even a cheap telescope, so the two moons would have to identical, with exactly the same side always facing the earth. This seems a bit unlikely, to say the least.

it's not that unlikely. the effects of the aether would be mirrored on each side of the earth, their result would be the same.

It's astronomically unlikely. There has to be some element of chaos.

it gets ironed out with distance.
as i said though, the model is still being refined.

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 01, 2015, 01:06:47 PM

It's astronomically unlikely. There has to be some element of chaos.

It gets ironed out with distance.
As I said though, the model is still being refined.

LOL... this comment is so funny!  JRoweSceptimatic still seems to think he's actually developed some sort of scientifically credible "model".  Thus far we've yet to see this "model", or how it relates to the rest of the known cosmos, or even our own sun and moon.  His silly "theories" about teleportation, aether, and time and space all sound like rehashes of old 'Star Trek' episodes—and are about as believable.

I can't accept that any rational person with even a barely working knowledge of high school level science would spend so much of their time posting such a plethora of pseudo-scientific drivel. 

It's also funny that he uses blocking people (like me) who repeatedly shoot down his silly notions as some sort of threat or punishment.  I'm guessing that most round earthers here would be more than pleased to be on his ignore list, simply because we can continue to take the piss out of him and his nonsense—but without having to endure his inconsequential defences.

"Dual earth" theory is, by definition, an oxymoron... "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation".  Not one aspect of this definition can be applied to JRoweSceptimatic's ludicrous, so-called theory.

i have explained how light propagates several times, and i have given evidence deduced logically from what would be the case if my theory was true, and observation. if you have any specific questions as to how light works, please ask them.

What do you think about conservation laws?

oh, i didn't realize attitude could take the place of scientific instruments. really? i can't use data that assumes a round earth obviously, and there's very little else available.

It appears you have not really tried, yet maintain it is impossible.  This attitude of yours is interfering with your goal of having a properly fleshed out theory.  Once you have really tried, then you can say what is possible and not.

there is no time warp, you're forgetting that observation depends on light. the ratio of the speed of light to the distance covered is going to remain the same. think of the behavior at the equator: this is the simplest case. when someone crosses, you watch them cover the distance to the far side of the earth, however, the light that comes back from them covers the same distance at the same speed. how could any strangeness be noted?

Lets assume the distance at the equator is actually 10 kms, but that the Aetheric density reduces it to zero.  Light travels from a point 2,000kms N of the Equator to a point 2000kms S of the equator.  It sounds like you are saying that light will actually travel 4,010kms, but only appear to travel 4,000kms.  If the light were say, an image of something, then the image would appear to be 0.03 seconds older than our perception tells us it should be.  So whatever the distance the equator actually covers, should be present as information in the light that traverses it.

What do you think?

and this is the only accessible place my model predicts any majority activity in terms of density of space.

How does it predict it?

my theory is based on making the fewest assumptions possible. i'm not going to needlessly include special case scenarios. i am open to improving my theory based on suggestions (as i have done several times), but only when these refinements are genuine improvements and simplifications.

But you make so many assumptions already such as:

-The earth is flat disk populated on both sides
-There is a current of aether that runs through the center of the world
-All matter is ultimately aetheric in its origin
-he aether leaves the earth at the rim, at speed, and leaves in all directions
-Some curve up over either side to form the aetheric whirlpools, some are simply pushed back into the current within the earth, the terrestrial aether, maintaining its motion
-The top and bottom of the earth are mirrored, as the aether exerts the same forces on each
-aether has an almost magnetic attraction to itself, keeping things balanced
-There is a sun above and below the earth, which appear the same because of this property

And that is from the first paragraph!

i did not say my theory was complete.

Neither did I.

no theory is, it is just a better one. certainly, it refines classical flat earth theory. no new holes arise, once the simple fact that distance relies on space is understood, and multiple aspects are explained neatly with one entity. by your example of newton and gravity and orbits, this is a strength: 'gravity', aetheric transmission (and as far as personal theories go, air) are all explained with the far more clearly defined aether of space. in addition, queries posed before (such as circumpolar stars) are answered cleanly.

Minus the profound lack of mathematics able to accurately predict behavior, any empirical evidence that favors your theory over RE and the Ad Hoc construction of the theory. 

i can assume your main objection is that it does not improve upon round earth theory.

No you cannot assume that.  My objection is that you are declaring that your theory is mostly complete and accurate and yet, you cannot tell me how dense the Aether is at any point, only that it is dense enough to suit your purposes.

it will not, from your perspective, because to do that would necessitate centuries worth of time and resources which your model has had to develop.

Einstein developed GR in about 10 years; your excuses do nothing to further your position.

it does, however, clearly improve in terms of simplicity.

I grant you that it is a simple conception, and I really appreciate that.

rather than the non-understood gravity, we have known space

How is space "known" and gravity is "non-understood"?

and logically deduced, explicable properties.

But without any evidence to support them.

they are explained, not rigorously with numbers due to a lack of resources, but in general times the answers are clearly there.

"In general"?  This should not be sufficient to you.  I can grant that it is sufficient enough to provoke a course of investigation on your part, but not to say that you have done anything to explain how the world works.  I also should not expect scientists to follow you just yet since they can observe, directly, the existence of air, for example, and it matches their theory very well thank you.

DON'T BE STUPID!!! DON'T RESPOND TO JROWE, HE'S A TROLL AND IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO HIM, HE WILL SHUT UP!!!

DON'T BE STUPID!!! DON'T RESPOND TO JROWE, HE'S A TROLL AND IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO HIM, HE WILL SHUT UP!!!

It is actually the most interesting FE theory in a while. If you don't want to participate, please move on.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on April 02, 2015, 06:59:14 AM

DON'T BE STUPID!!! DON'T RESPOND TO JROWE, HE'S A TROLL AND IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO HIM, HE WILL SHUT UP!!!

It is actually the most interesting FE theory in a while. If you don't want to participate, please move on.

Most interesting "theory" (haha, it's not a theory, if you don't know what's a theory then check its definition) based on a freaking ad hoc aether, which gains new properties each time it gets destroyed. And also, aether doesn't exist and you still want to fight with JRowe. Everything you say, he completes with "aether done it". Just don't respond to him.

Most interesting "theory" (haha, it's not a theory, if you don't know what's a theory then check its definition) based on a freaking ad hoc aether, which gains new properties each time it gets destroyed.

This is not news.

And also, aether doesn't exist and you still want to fight with JRowe. Everything you say, he completes with "aether done it".

I am not fighting with him.  Why are you so mad?

Just don't respond to him.

Conversely, you can move on and let the people who want to be here do there thing without harassment.  I don't particularly care either way, but you appear to have strong emotions regarding the content of this thread so I think you should take care of your needs.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on April 02, 2015, 07:07:53 AM

Most interesting "theory" (haha, it's not a theory, if you don't know what's a theory then check its definition) based on a freaking ad hoc aether, which gains new properties each time it gets destroyed.

This is not news.

Quote

And also, aether doesn't exist and you still want to fight with JRowe. Everything you say, he completes with "aether done it".

I am not fighting with him.  Why are you so mad?

Quote

Just don't respond to him.

Conversely, you can move on and let the people who want to be here do there thing without harassment.  I don't particularly care either way, but you appear to have strong emotions regarding the content of this thread so I think you should take care of your needs.

Okay, if you so like to take a shit-bath I let you to do so. But remember - after having a shit-bath you will be smelly (responding to JRowe makes his topic in top and I still see his quotes).

i see logicalkiller is still whining. amazing how he can go for pages, then when i get tired of his self-righteousness, repetition and inability to debate and block him, he suddenly decides no one should talk to me. it's the toddler mindset. he wants to be the center of attention, whinges, then when he isn't he tries to break everything.
i don't care what shape you think the world is, that behavior's pathetic.

onto topic:

i accept conservation laws, why?

it's nothing to do with attitude. when there is nothing i can do without far more resources than i have, what do you expect? i have considered multiple experiments, proposed them on this forum, and none are in my abilities.
as it stands, the theory may not be relying on detailed equations, but there is clearly space for them, and the theory works. listing multiple details to the theory does not mean it's based on assumptions: many of those details are conclusions. for example, it is clear that the typical model of all the world being on top of one flat surface can be rejected due to circumpolar stars, and the coriolis force. the conclusion is that there are two aspects to the world: either two hemispheres, or two discs. the aetheric attraction is a logical conclusion, in the latest refinement of the model: the current inside the world is the thinnest we experience. as all things flow from high concentrations to low, then aether will flow down to this lack of concentration (explaining gravity), meanwhile the existence of thin space there, exposed at the equator (and to answer your question: only at the equator), means we cross it immediately, explaining transmission.
in the end, the theory is actually rather elegant. the only thing you could call an assumption is my definition of aether, and the properties assigned to it, but they are all basic deductions from the notion of space. you could complain that they might not be in the arrangements i have, but those arrangements explain the world completely: it's no more of an assumption than the round earth model and how matter happens to be attracted to itself, and some just happened to form a sun, some made a black hole about which the sun rotates, and then planets and moons...
all the details follow simply from the common-sense properties of aether. i suppose you could argue that the idea that matter comes from aether is an assumption, but it's not necessary to the theory. if you want to suppose matter came about from another source, it would still be caught up in aetheric currents and given much the same result, as it flows with the aether. i merely tried to simplify the theory.

gravity is not understood, by the admission of every scientist: there is no explanation offered for how it so much as works. space, however, is known to exist by everyone, and it is known to be how we define distance.

the evidence my theory has is the same as the evidence for round earth theory, as every observation made there is explained neatly by my model. you cannot give round earth theory precedence just because you'd rather hold to it.
equations, which could theoretically be found with time and resources, are present, if not known. at the very least, dual earth theory is equally as likely as round earth.

i see logicalkiller is still whining. amazing how he can go for pages, then when i get tired of his self-righteousness, repetition and inability to debate and block him, he suddenly decides no one should talk to me. it's the toddler mindset. he wants to be the center of attention, whinges, then when he isn't he tries to break everything.
i don't care what shape you think the world is, that behavior's pathetic.

onto topic:

i accept conservation laws, why?

it's nothing to do with attitude. when there is nothing i can do without far more resources than i have, what do you expect? i have considered multiple experiments, proposed them on this forum, and none are in my abilities.
as it stands, the theory may not be relying on detailed equations, but there is clearly space for them, and the theory works. listing multiple details to the theory does not mean it's based on assumptions: many of those details are conclusions. for example, it is clear that the typical model of all the world being on top of one flat surface can be rejected due to circumpolar stars, and the coriolis force. the conclusion is that there are two aspects to the world: either two hemispheres, or two discs. the aetheric attraction is a logical conclusion, in the latest refinement of the model: the current inside the world is the thinnest we experience. as all things flow from high concentrations to low, then aether will flow down to this lack of concentration (explaining gravity), meanwhile the existence of thin space there, exposed at the equator (and to answer your question: only at the equator), means we cross it immediately, explaining transmission.
in the end, the theory is actually rather elegant. the only thing you could call an assumption is my definition of aether, and the properties assigned to it, but they are all basic deductions from the notion of space. you could complain that they might not be in the arrangements i have, but those arrangements explain the world completely: it's no more of an assumption than the round earth model and how matter happens to be attracted to itself, and some just happened to form a sun, some made a black hole about which the sun rotates, and then planets and moons...
all the details follow simply from the common-sense properties of aether. i suppose you could argue that the idea that matter comes from aether is an assumption, but it's not necessary to the theory. if you want to suppose matter came about from another source, it would still be caught up in aetheric currents and given much the same result, as it flows with the aether. i merely tried to simplify the theory.

gravity is not understood, by the admission of every scientist: there is no explanation offered for how it so much as works. space, however, is known to exist by everyone, and it is known to be how we define distance.

the evidence my theory has is the same as the evidence for round earth theory, as every observation made there is explained neatly by my model. you cannot give round earth theory precedence just because you'd rather hold to it.
equations, which could theoretically be found with time and resources, are present, if not known. at the very least, dual earth theory is equally as likely as round earth.

You're the only pathetic shit who uses ad hoc aether which doesn't exist. I say to not respond to you because you are useless toy of peasants which could insert something very deeply to reach your stomach.

The topic of this thread; "Ask me about dual earth theory" is a classic non sequitur.

It presupposes that there is in existence an a actual "dual earth" model, when in actuality no such model exists.  It then seeks a discussion about something which has not been previously proved to exist.

It's identical to asking for a discussion about whether unicorns are white or brindle.

And all non sequiturs are logical fallacies;  in this case the topic is probably best described as argument by scenario.