ask me about dual earth theory

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 26, 2015, 01:47:40 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 26, 2015, 12:54:30 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 26, 2015, 05:18:09 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 25, 2015, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 23, 2015, 09:20:33 AM

A commercial jet airplane contains fuel tanks. Those tanks contain jet fuel. The jet fuel is pumped to the jet engines and the airplane goes forward. What happens to the jet fuel in the engine?

This isn't simple enough?

i yet again ask:
please specify what detail it is you are saying is impossible.

I didn't say anything was impossible, I am asking how it works.  It's just like the newer thread asking hoe combustion engines work.

if you have no question relating to my theory, do not waste my time. you can look up an explanation for jet engines anywhere. the newer thread actuallymade clear what they believe the problem was. how many times must i ask you to do the same?
if there is some detail that is actually relevant to dual earth theory, or any of my theories, then come back when you are willing to actually say it rather than wasting everyone's time.
what exactly is so hard with asking you to be clear?

if you just want to know how they work, use google. i'm not going to waste time going through details i do not care about. if you have a question about how they could work in my theory, where is the problem?

i am sick of repeating myself. give a clear, relevant question, or leave.

Ok, I understand you don't know and can't answer simple questions about your claims.

when you have actually posed a question about my claims, i will be more than willing to answer it. do you think your evasion is not obvious?
how does your question even begin to tie to my theory? I HAVE ASKED THIS MULTIPLE TIMES
come on, you always insist your theory is so reliable, why can't you do anything except evade?
WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION
HOW DOES IT TIE TO MY THEORY
answer, or stop wasting time. what is your problem with jet engines?!

if you want to know how jet engines work, that's not related to my theory, i have to desire to walk you through a wikipedia article. you apparently know already. if, instead, you believe there is some problem with the process under my model, WHAT IS IT?!
i cannot believe i am still waiting for an answer.

when you have actually posed a question about my claims, i will be more than willing to answer it. do you think your evasion is not obvious?

I simplified the question as best I could, even a 3 year old could understand it, just not you.

how does your question even begin to tie to my theory? I HAVE ASKED THIS MULTIPLE TIMES
come on, you always insist your theory is so reliable, why can't you do anything except evade?
WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION
HOW DOES IT TIE TO MY THEORY
answer, or stop wasting time. what is your problem with jet engines?!

This was an old question relating to air. You delayed it for weeks.

if you want to know how jet engines work, that's not related to my theory, i have to desire to walk you through a wikipedia article. you apparently know already. if, instead, you believe there is some problem with the process under my model, WHAT IS IT?!

You would walk me through something you don't believe in?

i cannot believe i am still waiting for an answer.

I have been waiting for weeks for an answer.

JRowe, apologise for asking you to repeat yourself, but there's just so much information to wade through! Could you please explain again where the sun is in your model?

sokarul, why do you believe jet engines will not work under dual earth theory? i suggest you read the thread, you seem to be of the opinion you've said something you have not. i am asking this explicitly. why would they not work?
if you cannot answer that question, then your question is irrelevant to dual earth theory and you're wasting my time. i am not an encyclopedia, i am only answering about dual earth theory.

itchy, the sun is contained within the earth, between each side (between the poles, causing the magnetic field).
what we see is the light of the sun carried through space/aether, by the same currents responsible for aetheric transmission allowing us to cross the equator. one of the latest posts in the model thread provides a diagram.

Alright JRowe. You asked, so I'll ask. How do we mine? If the earth is flat,surely we're going to end up tunnelling straight through? And what about the Mariana trench? How can that exist if the earth is flat. And if the earth is flat, and extremely thick, and has several layers, as has been agreed by geographers worldwide, then surely it would resemble a sphere? Just a thought

Since you invited questions...

What makes an Hypothesis a Theory,
and why is this a Theory rather than an Hypothesis?

What Falsifiable Predictions does your Theory make?

Alright JRowe. You asked, so I'll ask. How do we mine? If the earth is flat,surely we're going to end up tunnelling straight through? And what about the Mariana trench? How can that exist if the earth is flat. And if the earth is flat, and extremely thick, and has several layers, as has been agreed by geographers worldwide, then surely it would resemble a sphere? Just a thought

if the earth is round, surely we're going to end up tunnelling all the way through?
who cares? we haven't gotten that deep, end of.
it is not extremely thick. it is far wider than it is thick. i fail to see why two thick flat surfaces would even begin to resemble a sphere, in any case.

Since you invited questions...

What makes an Hypothesis a Theory,
and why is this a Theory rather than an Hypothesis?

What Falsifiable Predictions does your Theory make?

a hypothesis does not have observational evidence. dual earth theory does match observations. (it also requires fewer assumptions than round earth theory).

the falsifiable predictions include: there will be sudden jumps in vertical refraction, caused by aetheric whirlpools. space travel is impossible as rockets will need to cross an extended distance and would seem to have stopped. there are many more, but it's rather absurd to ask someone to list everything that coudl contradict their theory.

What assumptions does round earth require?

What assumptions does dual earth require?

Humour me, so we can objectively compare.

Quote from: Why-Am-I-Here? on May 02, 2015, 12:18:38 AM

Alright JRowe. You asked, so I'll ask. How do we mine? If the earth is flat,surely we're going to end up tunnelling straight through? And what about the Mariana trench? How can that exist if the earth is flat. And if the earth is flat, and extremely thick, and has several layers, as has been agreed by geographers worldwide, then surely it would resemble a sphere? Just a thought

if the earth is round, surely we're going to end up tunnelling all the way through?
who cares? we haven't gotten that deep, end of.
it is not extremely thick. it is far wider than it is thick. i fail to see why two thick flat surfaces would even begin to resemble a sphere, in any case.

Then what's on the side? There's the northern hemisphere on the sop, the southern on the bottom, but what about on either side? Ether? Jeez

Are the stars duplicated between upper plane and bottom plane ? In other words, will people from the upper plane see the same stars than people on bottom plane ?

I ask this because during my last journey to Kenya (I go there a lot), I could observe the same stars in Kitale and in Nairobi, which goes 100% agaisnt your model (Aetheric transmission). In Kitale, I would be on the upper plane, in Nairobi, on the bottom one. So why the same stars ?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 02, 2015, 08:39:35 AM

Quote from: Why-Am-I-Here? on May 02, 2015, 12:18:38 AM

Alright JRowe. You asked, so I'll ask. How do we mine? If the earth is flat,surely we're going to end up tunnelling straight through? And what about the Mariana trench? How can that exist if the earth is flat. And if the earth is flat, and extremely thick, and has several layers, as has been agreed by geographers worldwide, then surely it would resemble a sphere? Just a thought

if the earth is round, surely we're going to end up tunnelling all the way through?
who cares? we haven't gotten that deep, end of.
it is not extremely thick. it is far wider than it is thick. i fail to see why two thick flat surfaces would even begin to resemble a sphere, in any case.

Then what's on the side? There's the northern hemisphere on the sop, the southern on the bottom, but what about on either side? Ether? Jeez

aether is everywhere, so of course it is present there. it is space, pelase familiarize yourself with the model.
there isn't really anything at the edges: space is thin, the distances may as well not exist.

this is complicated, i have a 'my flat earth model' thread in the ifnormation repository, there are diagrams near the end of page two. the point is, aether is especially thin at the edges (and through the center of the earth), but not throughout the rest of the earth. this is not convenient, it is governed by simple laws outlined several times.

Are the stars duplicated between upper plane and bottom plane ? In other words, will people from the upper plane see the same stars than people on bottom plane ?

I ask this because during my last journey to Kenya (I go there a lot), I could observe the same stars in Kitale and in Nairobi, which goes 100% agaisnt your model (Aetheric transmission). In Kitale, I would be on the upper plane, in Nairobi, on the bottom one. So why the same stars ?

that doesn't even begin to go against my model. you can see the top from the bottom, and the bottom from the top. light is transmitted over the equator just as matter is. why wouldn't it be? in dual earth theory, aether is space. transmission is caused by thin space: a decreased distance. if anything can cross space, it is 'transmitted'.

What assumptions does round earth require?

What assumptions does dual earth require?

Humour me, so we can objectively compare.

dual earth theory requires no explicit assumptions. we kow space exists, and the properties are logically deduced: those deductions are the only thing that could be called assumptions. they are a) less space means less distance (trivial) and b) it flows from high concentrations to low (a universal tendency observed in heat and pressure, among others).
they are logical, so i suppose the only assumption is that space behaves according to common, known laws.

round earth theory has gravity: which is not fully explained. there is an equation, a source, but no explanation for how that source produces the force. saying it can is an assumption.
round earth theory also has dark matter: equations don't match observations, so an assumption is thrown in.
there are many more minor aspects (auroras, which i've had a long discussion and embarassed round earthers over, the supposed reflectivity of the moon, etc), but those two major ones already make it worse than dual earth theory.

Quote from: Mainframes on May 02, 2015, 10:46:59 AM

What assumptions does round earth require?

What assumptions does dual earth require?

Humour me, so we can objectively compare.

dual earth theory requires no explicit assumptions. we kow space exists, and the properties are logically deduced: those deductions are the only thing that could be called assumptions. they are a) less space means less distance (trivial) and b) it flows from high concentrations to low (a universal tendency observed in heat and pressure, among others).
they are logical, so i suppose the only assumption is that space behaves according to common, known laws.

round earth theory has gravity: which is not fully explained. there is an equation, a source, but no explanation for how that source produces the force. saying it can is an assumption.
round earth theory also has dark matter: equations don't match observations, so an assumption is thrown in.
there are many more minor aspects (auroras, which i've had a long discussion and embarassed round earthers over, the supposed reflectivity of the moon, etc), but those two major ones already make it worse than dual earth theory.

And how exactly have you measured the concentration of space?

Gravity can be measured and predicted to high levels of accuracy. It is the method of propagation that is debated. Dark matter only presents issues at large scales, and is under investigation but this does not mean gravity does not exist.

And sorry to burst your bubble but the aurora and lunar reflectivity discussions are farcical as you've pulled facts from out of your bottom as usual.

Quote from: Gefn on May 03, 2015, 10:09:34 AM

Are the stars duplicated between upper plane and bottom plane ? In other words, will people from the upper plane see the same stars than people on bottom plane ?

I ask this because during my last journey to Kenya (I go there a lot), I could observe the same stars in Kitale and in Nairobi, which goes 100% agaisnt your model (Aetheric transmission). In Kitale, I would be on the upper plane, in Nairobi, on the bottom one. So why the same stars ?

that doesn't even begin to go against my model. you can see the top from the bottom, and the bottom from the top. light is transmitted over the equator just as matter is. why wouldn't it be? in dual earth theory, aether is space. transmission is caused by thin space: a decreased distance. if anything can cross space, it is 'transmitted'.

That would mean that any constellation can be seen from anywhere (e.g. north hemisphere/plane AND south hemisphere/plane) at the same time. But that's just plain wrong and doesn't match the reality.

What is the interior of the Earth made out of in your "dual-Earth" hypothesis? It looks pretty thin so I'm curious what's underneath our dirt, more dirt?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 03, 2015, 12:32:44 PM

Quote from: Gefn on May 03, 2015, 10:09:34 AM

Are the stars duplicated between upper plane and bottom plane ? In other words, will people from the upper plane see the same stars than people on bottom plane ?

I ask this because during my last journey to Kenya (I go there a lot), I could observe the same stars in Kitale and in Nairobi, which goes 100% agaisnt your model (Aetheric transmission). In Kitale, I would be on the upper plane, in Nairobi, on the bottom one. So why the same stars ?

that doesn't even begin to go against my model. you can see the top from the bottom, and the bottom from the top. light is transmitted over the equator just as matter is. why wouldn't it be? in dual earth theory, aether is space. transmission is caused by thin space: a decreased distance. if anything can cross space, it is 'transmitted'.

That would mean that any constellation can be seen from anywhere (e.g. north hemisphere/plane AND south hemisphere/plane) at the same time. But that's just plain wrong and doesn't match the reality.

why on earth would it mean that? you can't see forever.

What is the interior of the Earth made out of in your "dual-Earth" hypothesis? It looks pretty thin so I'm curious what's underneath our dirt, more dirt?

there is matter most of the way, and at the edges, but the majority of the interior is just aether (with the rotating, superheated metal sun at the center). there is dirt most of the way down, then there's just space.

Quote from: Dog on May 04, 2015, 12:40:11 AM

What is the interior of the Earth made out of in your "dual-Earth" hypothesis? It looks pretty thin so I'm curious what's underneath our dirt, more dirt?

there is matter most of the way, and at the edges, but the majority of the interior is just aether (with the rotating, superheated metal sun at the center). there is dirt most of the way down, then there's just space.

Why is there a sun in the middle? Why is it rotating and made out of metal?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 04, 2015, 11:41:29 AM

Quote from: Dog on May 04, 2015, 12:40:11 AM

What is the interior of the Earth made out of in your "dual-Earth" hypothesis? It looks pretty thin so I'm curious what's underneath our dirt, more dirt?

there is matter most of the way, and at the edges, but the majority of the interior is just aether (with the rotating, superheated metal sun at the center). there is dirt most of the way down, then there's just space.

Why is there a sun in the middle? Why is it rotating and made out of metal?

information repository, 'my flat earth model', one of the most recent posts. i don't want to have to repeat myself, it's explained.

the sun is made out of metal, that's just a fact. it forms naturally, requires no nuclear fission (impossible with its size), and matches how it looks and (when heated) feels.

the sun is made out of metal, that's just a fact. it forms naturally, requires no nuclear fission (impossible with its size), and matches how it looks and (when heated) feels.

The sun is made out of a lot of hydrogen, some helium, and some other non-metals. It's very easy to prove using its absorption spectra.  It runs on nuclear FUSION, and has a radius of 695,800 km.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 06, 2015, 08:05:07 AM

the sun is made out of metal, that's just a fact. it forms naturally, requires no nuclear fission (impossible with its size), and matches how it looks and (when heated) feels.

The sun is made out of a lot of hydrogen, some helium, and some other non-metals. It's very easy to prove using its absorption spectra.  It runs on nuclear FUSION, and has a radius of 695,800 km.

this thread is about dual earth theory, not round earth. if you have no questions, do not post: all that does is waste time.
when measurements do not take into account the effect of aether, they will not give an accurate picture.

this thread is about dual earth theory, not round earth. if you have no questions, do not post: all that does is waste time.
when measurements do not take into account the effect of aether, they will not give an accurate picture.

I was just correcting your claim that the sun is made out of metal.

Maybe the Aether is making you believe the Earth is not round, due to its weird effects.

in an effort to keep all discussion and refinement of the theory in one place, rather than the multiple threads covering the forums, please direct any questions you have about dual earth theory to this post.

if you are unfamiliar with the basic model:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258
read from there, onwards. it outlines the model itself, and refinements are made later on. a later post also explains the nature of aether in simple detail.

if something has already been answered either in this thread, or the original, i will ignore you as i am tired of having to repeat myself if you add nothing new. further, if i have you blocked, i will read your posts for the purposes of this thread, but i will hold you to this rule far more strictly.

ask away.

So are you guys giving up on the idea of the earth accelerating in a single direction to simulate gravity? 

Whenever I see this thread title, I think it needs a little theme music.

Do-do-da-do "It's Ask Me About Dual Earth Theory. And here's your host, JRowe!"
(wild applause)

Quote from: abaaaabbbb63 on May 06, 2015, 08:26:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 06, 2015, 08:05:07 AM

the sun is made out of metal, that's just a fact. it forms naturally, requires no nuclear fission (impossible with its size), and matches how it looks and (when heated) feels.

The sun is made out of a lot of hydrogen, some helium, and some other non-metals. It's very easy to prove using its absorption spectra.  It runs on nuclear FUSION, and has a radius of 695,800 km.

this thread is about dual earth theory, not round earth. if you have no questions, do not post: all that does is waste time.
when measurements do not take into account the effect of aether, they will not give an accurate picture.

Q: What calculation can be used to determine the effects the aether will have on the absorption spectra?

CONCAVE EARTH IS TRUTH AND IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVEN IT YOUR A SHILL

Dude, leave other people's conversations alone.  You are worse than a 2 year old on a sugar high.

Dude, leave other people's conversations alone.  You are worse than a 2 year old on a sugar high.

PEPELE NEED TRUTH YOU CAN NOT STOP IT SHILL