Please Define AETHER

I looked up that rhombicombi. How blind can one be to see it as a torus?

Aether.

If, as claimed, the Flat Earth Wiki is out of date, and no flat earther can give a precise definition of AETHERIC EDDIFICATION then how do we know aether itself exists?  Is it possible or probable that no such thing exists?  There is first-hand evidence that air exists, because if I am deprived of it, I will die.  So, what first-hand evidence is there that this aether actually exists?

If, as claimed, the Flat Earth Wiki is out of date, and no flat earther can give a precise definition of AETHERIC EDDIFICATION then how do we know aether itself exists?  Is it possible or probable that no such thing exists?  There is first-hand evidence that air exists, because if I am deprived of it, I will die.  So, what first-hand evidence is there that this aether actually exists?

If you imagine the aether as some fluid, just think of eddification as waves. The problem is aether is generally badly defined: JRowe calls it space but then assumes space has several traits, while Vauxhall just handwaves any attempt at definition.
We don't know the aether itself exists, it is both possible and probably no such thing exists, and Vauxy, one of the major proponents of aether, has happily said he has no direct evidence for aether. (Though he does think air exists. Air denial seems to exclusively be the province of JRowe).

Let's keep in mind that Q&A is reserved for flat-earth questions and answers.

If, as claimed, the Flat Earth Wiki is out of date, and no flat earther can give a precise definition of AETHERIC EDDIFICATION then how do we know aether itself exists?  Is it possible or probable that no such thing exists?  There is first-hand evidence that air exists, because if I am deprived of it, I will die.  So, what first-hand evidence is there that this aether actually exists?

aether is the fabric of space. when space moves, that which exists within space moves.
we do not have first hand evidence of air. what you have given an example of is an observation, which has multiple explanations. no one has ever been deprived of air in an uncontaminated experiment.

Quote from: ZennerOne on April 17, 2015, 09:30:49 AM

If, as claimed, the Flat Earth Wiki is out of date, and no flat earther can give a precise definition of AETHERIC EDDIFICATION then how do we know aether itself exists?  Is it possible or probable that no such thing exists?  There is first-hand evidence that air exists, because if I am deprived of it, I will die.  So, what first-hand evidence is there that this aether actually exists?

aether is the fabric of space. when space moves, that which exists within space moves.
we do not have first hand evidence of air. what you have given an example of is an observation, which has multiple explanations. no one has ever been deprived of air in an uncontaminated experiment.

So everyone who has ever died of suffocation/asphyxiation was in on a "contaminated" experiment?

aether is the fabric of space. when space moves, that which exists within space moves.
we do not have first hand evidence of air. what you have given an example of is an observation, which has multiple explanations. no one has ever been deprived of air in an uncontaminated experiment.

I scuba dive and have many friends who do mixed gas deep dives. There is so much wrong with what you have said. Many dead people wish you where correct.

If fact, try this simple experiment, put your head in a plastic packet, seal the end around your neck in duck tape, record effects.

Please ensure you have a friend around to open the packet when you black out.

If you do not respond with your results to this very simple experiment I will take it you either don't have friends, or where wrong about that air thing.

Quote from: ZennerOne on April 17, 2015, 09:30:49 AM

If, as claimed, the Flat Earth Wiki is out of date, and no flat earther can give a precise definition of AETHERIC EDDIFICATION then how do we know aether itself exists?  Is it possible or probable that no such thing exists?  There is first-hand evidence that air exists, because if I am deprived of it, I will die.  So, what first-hand evidence is there that this aether actually exists?

aether is the fabric of space. when space moves, that which exists within space moves.
we do not have first hand evidence of air. what you have given an example of is an observation, which has multiple explanations. no one has ever been deprived of air in an uncontaminated experiment.

Yes, we DO have first-hand evidence for the existence of air.  We can determine its constituents as being molecules of (mainly) Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Carbon Dioxide, Helium, Neon, Methane, Ozone, plus a few other gases.  Are you suggesting that these molecules do NOT exist?

Do you not accept "observation" as a relevant scientific determinant?

Can you please clarify exactly what you mean when you say "no one has ever been deprived of air in an uncontaminated experiment", and more specifically what you define as an "uncontaminated" experiment?  TIA.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 18, 2015, 09:46:55 AM

aether is the fabric of space. when space moves, that which exists within space moves.
we do not have first hand evidence of air. what you have given an example of is an observation, which has multiple explanations. no one has ever been deprived of air in an uncontaminated experiment.

I scuba dive and have many friends who do mixed gas deep dives. There is so much wrong with what you have said. Many dead people wish you where correct.

If fact, try this simple experiment, put your head in a plastic packet, seal the end around your neck in duck tape, record effects.

Please ensure you have a friend around to open the packet when you black out.

If you do not respond with your results to this very simple experiment I will take it you either don't have friends, or where wrong about that air thing.

I am starting to get worried, JRowe has not come back with the results of this test. .

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 18, 2015, 09:46:55 AM

Quote from: ZennerOne on April 17, 2015, 09:30:49 AM

If, as claimed, the Flat Earth Wiki is out of date, and no flat earther can give a precise definition of AETHERIC EDDIFICATION then how do we know aether itself exists?  Is it possible or probable that no such thing exists?  There is first-hand evidence that air exists, because if I am deprived of it, I will die.  So, what first-hand evidence is there that this aether actually exists?

aether is the fabric of space. when space moves, that which exists within space moves.
we do not have first hand evidence of air. what you have given an example of is an observation, which has multiple explanations. no one has ever been deprived of air in an uncontaminated experiment.

Yes, we DO have first-hand evidence for the existence of air.  We can determine its constituents as being molecules of (mainly) Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Carbon Dioxide, Helium, Neon, Methane, Ozone, plus a few other gases.  Are you suggesting that these molecules do NOT exist?

Do you not accept "observation" as a relevant scientific determinant?

Can you please clarify exactly what you mean when you say "no one has ever been deprived of air in an uncontaminated experiment", and more specifically what you define as an "uncontaminated" experiment?  TIA.

gases exist, but air does not. we can prove it just by opening our eyes: you know how a grain of sand in your eyes, yet apparently our eyes are constantly bombarded by billions of molecules. that's clearly false.
observation is a valid scientific method, but you cannot force one conclusion onto one observation when it does not match other observations.
how exactly do we determine the contents of air? the supposed experiments are awful. i've seen one person say we do it by dipping a test tube into liquid nitrogen, and we then see the test tube has a lot of nitrogen in. that's laughable.

the problem with plastic bags or scuba tanks is not the emptiness, it is the material. scuba tanks are filled with gas, because oxygen is breathable (and even encourages heat conduction), but when they is gone, the particles from the tank are inhaled as there is no pressure keeping them in place. the same is true for the bag: when we inhale plastic etc particles, we are poisoned.

gases exist, but air does not. we can prove it just by opening our eyes: you know how a grain of sand in your eyes, yet apparently our eyes are constantly bombarded by billions of molecules. that's clearly false.

Thank you for your response.

How do you explain that when I swim underwater with my eyes open that the billions of water molecules "bombarding" my eyes don't damage them?

How do you explain that I can visually "observe" the three states of water (and physically touch them) that my observations are invalid?  You say a single observation does not a valid conclusion draw, and I agree.  But THREE independent observations of the same thing, IE water molecules, in THREE differing states of existence, should prove their actuality should it not?  I mean of course ice, water, and steam.  TIA.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 21, 2015, 01:37:04 AM

gases exist, but air does not. we can prove it just by opening our eyes: you know how a grain of sand in your eyes, yet apparently our eyes are constantly bombarded by billions of molecules. that's clearly false.

Thank you for your response.

How do you explain that when I swim underwater with my eyes open that the billions of water molecules "bombarding" my eyes don't damage them?

How do you explain that I can visually "observe" the three states of water (and physically touch them) that my observations are invalid?  You say a single observation does not a valid conclusion draw, and I agree.  But THREE independent observations of the same thing, IE water molecules, in THREE differing states of existence, should prove their actuality should it not?  I mean of course ice, water, and steam.  TIA.

water has surface tension, it is very different to gases. if you've ever cooked, you'll know you can definitely feel when smoke or steam hits your eyes, because gases have different properties to liquid.

i have never denied the existence of wate,r i'm not sure what your second quetsion is getting at.

however, this is q&a. if you want to debate this further, i suggest you start a thread.

Thank you again.  I will.

Quote from: ZennerOne on April 13, 2015, 04:50:34 AM

I have noticed that the word "aether" is used multiple times by different people on these forums.  I searched the Flat Earth Wiki for its definition and could only find one reference which mentioned AETHERIC EDDIFICATION as a sub-heading.  But this entry is vacant.

What is aetheric eddification?  It has been suggested that aether may have no mass (substance?) so how can it form eddies?  TIA.

the wiki is out of date.
aether is the fabric of space, in the dual earth model. it does not need mass to have an effect, as we rely on space to exist. think of it as a way to alter distance.

Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals. 

Sorry I don't understand. Could you try that again, but in English this time?  Also, sig'd.

Sorry I don't understand. Could you try that again, but in English this time?  Also, sig'd.

Well how dumbed down a level do you want it at ?.maybe you should of spent more time learning about things that "matter" & less time on your deluded level of intelligents. Supported by nothing more then a hochpoch of different language dribble thown together. I personally find people that dont resort to every day  bastardisation of the  English language. Nothing more then Dramatized annal retentives moronic  bores.
Shall I be placing you in that category? 

Again, apologies. What?

Again, apologies. What?

I think he's trying to say that you're unintelligent.

Although, I could be wrong.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 14, 2015, 03:54:41 AM

Quote from: ZennerOne on April 13, 2015, 04:50:34 AM

I have noticed that the word "aether" is used multiple times by different people on these forums.  I searched the Flat Earth Wiki for its definition and could only find one reference which mentioned AETHERIC EDDIFICATION as a sub-heading.  But this entry is vacant.

What is aetheric eddification?  It has been suggested that aether may have no mass (substance?) so how can it form eddies?  TIA.

the wiki is out of date.
aether is the fabric of space, in the dual earth model. it does not need mass to have an effect, as we rely on space to exist. think of it as a way to alter distance.

Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

some of us are trying to have an intelligent conversation. your definition is absurd, meaningless, unnecessary, and would not result in anything. it fails every test that something needs to pass to be taken seriously.
whereas we know space exists necessarily, logical deductions may be taken to result n a well-defined model (even if round earthers disagree with those resulting traits), and it gives the results we desire.
can you provide even an explanation of how your absurd aether works?

Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 14, 2015, 03:54:41 AM

Quote from: ZennerOne on April 13, 2015, 04:50:34 AM

I have noticed that the word "aether" is used multiple times by different people on these forums.  I searched the Flat Earth Wiki for its definition and could only find one reference which mentioned AETHERIC EDDIFICATION as a sub-heading.  But this entry is vacant.

What is aetheric eddification?  It has been suggested that aether may have no mass (substance?) so how can it form eddies?  TIA.

the wiki is out of date.
aether is the fabric of space, in the dual earth model. it does not need mass to have an effect, as we rely on space to exist. think of it as a way to alter distance.

Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

some of us are trying to have an intelligent conversation. your definition is absurd, meaningless, unnecessary, and would not result in anything. it fails every test that something needs to pass to be taken seriously.
whereas we know space exists necessarily, logical deductions may be taken to result n a well-defined model (even if round earthers disagree with those resulting traits), and it gives the results we desire.
can you provide even an explanation of how your absurd aether works?

Can you provide evidence of your even more absurd version of aether?

The major disagreement between two flat earthers - CHARLES BLOOMINGTON and JRS - would seem to indicate and reinforce my understanding that there is no universal agreement amongst the flat earth fraternity about their own earth model.  It would seem from my now having scanned most of the forum content that there are in fact several contradictory models and maps of the so-called flat earth.  There seems to be no agreed-upon model.

Every round earther seems to agree absolutely on the oblate spheroid model, and which is obviously the current scientific status quo.  Whereas the flat earthers' theories, models and maps seem to be in total disarray.  This fact alone obviously supports the round earth "model" and severely undermines the flat earth model surely?

The major disagreement between two flat earthers - CHARLES BLOOMINGTON and JRS - would seem to indicate and reinforce my understanding that there is no universal agreement amongst the flat earth fraternity about their own earth model.  It would seem from my now having scanned most of the forum content that there are in fact several contradictory models and maps of the so-called flat earth.  There seems to be no agreed-upon model.

Every round earther seems to agree absolutely on the oblate spheroid model, and which is obviously the current scientific status quo.  Whereas the flat earthers' theories, models and maps seem to be in total disarray.  This fact alone obviously supports the round earth "model" and severely undermines the flat earth model surely?

You are speaking as if this really is a debate. Let's face it guys, we're here to laugh at people, not to debate.

The major disagreement between two flat earthers - CHARLES BLOOMINGTON and JRS - would seem to indicate and reinforce my understanding that there is no universal agreement amongst the flat earth fraternity about their own earth model.  It would seem from my now having scanned most of the forum content that there are in fact several contradictory models and maps of the so-called flat earth.  There seems to be no agreed-upon model.

Every round earther seems to agree absolutely on the oblate spheroid model, and which is obviously the current scientific status quo.  Whereas the flat earthers' theories, models and maps seem to be in total disarray.  This fact alone obviously supports the round earth "model" and severely undermines the flat earth model surely?

all that shows is that round earthers have a formalized structure, brainwashing, and time. so? science always begins with conflicting theories, before something is solidified to overturn the status quo.

all that shows is that round earthers have a formalized structure, brainwashing, and time. so? science always begins with conflicting theories, before something is solidified to overturn the status quo.

Or that you have two guys that argue whether 2+2=5 or 2+2=3.

Quote from: ZennerOne on May 04, 2015, 06:25:14 AM

Every round earther seems to agree absolutely on the oblate spheroid model, and which is obviously the current scientific status quo.  Whereas the flat earthers' theories, models and maps seem to be in total disarray.  This fact alone obviously supports the round earth "model" and severely undermines the flat earth model surely?

all that shows is that round earthers have a formalized structure, brainwashing, and time. so? science always begins with conflicting theories, before something is solidified to overturn the status quo.

When you use the term "round earthers" do you not understand that you are referring to EVERY scientist in the world PLUS all 7 billion of the world's population?  You make it sound as though the REs are nothing more than some sort of splinter group believing in the impossible, when in fact it is the other way around with the FEs fitting that category LOL.

You are correct of course in agreeing that the round earth tenets are a "formalised structure".  This is simply because a round earth forms the scientific status quo, whilst the flat earth model has NO recognition in the world of science.  And all duly qualified scientists simply laugh at the notion of a flat earth, and look at anyone who claims it to be so as a raving lunatic.

You are also correct in saying that all credible science began with conflicting theories, but science subjects its theories to rigorous peer review, ascertains any contradictions and resolves them, weighs up the current evidence, and amends the theories as time and knowledge advance.  This process is exactly what ensures the validity of the current scientific status quo.  Incidentally, and contrary to common belief, scientists are constantly trying to DISPROVE new theories rather than prove them.

Anyway, the geometry of the earth has been accepted to be an oblate spheroid for at least 400 years (although first posited 2,500 years ago).

The ONLY "evidence" that the flat earthers can produce is 150-year-old pseudoscience cobbled together by an unqualified English writer and lay preacher.  Hardly the pinnacle of scientific endeavour!

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 04, 2015, 11:26:23 AM

Quote from: ZennerOne on May 04, 2015, 06:25:14 AM

Every round earther seems to agree absolutely on the oblate spheroid model, and which is obviously the current scientific status quo.  Whereas the flat earthers' theories, models and maps seem to be in total disarray.  This fact alone obviously supports the round earth "model" and severely undermines the flat earth model surely?

all that shows is that round earthers have a formalized structure, brainwashing, and time. so? science always begins with conflicting theories, before something is solidified to overturn the status quo.

When you use the term "round earthers" do you not understand that you are referring to EVERY scientist in the world PLUS all 7 billion of the world's population?  You make it sound as though the REs are nothing more than some sort of splinter group believing in the impossible, when in fact it is the other way around with the FEs fitting that category LOL.

You are correct of course in agreeing that the round earth tenets are a "formalised structure".  This is simply because a round earth forms the scientific status quo, whilst the flat earth model has NO recognition in the world of science.  And all duly qualified scientists simply laugh at the notion of a flat earth, and look at anyone who claims it to be so as a raving lunatic.

You are also correct in saying that all credible science began with conflicting theories, but science subjects its theories to rigorous peer review, ascertains any contradictions and resolves them, weighs up the current evidence, and amends the theories as time and knowledge advance.  This process is exactly what ensures the validity of the current scientific status quo.  Incidentally, and contrary to common belief, scientists are constantly trying to DISPROVE new theories rather than prove them.

Anyway, the geometry of the earth has been accepted to be an oblate spheroid for at least 400 years (although first posited 2,500 years ago).

The ONLY "evidence" that the flat earthers can produce is 150-year-old pseudoscience cobbled together by an unqualified English writer and lay preacher.  Hardly the pinnacle of scientific endeavour!

if you have nothing more to say except stock bs responses to points that are not being made, why exactly do you come to this site?

if you have nothing more to say except stock bs responses to points that are not being made, why exactly do you come to this site?

I thank you for yet ANOTHER non-response to my comments.  Is there any reason in particular that you invariably avoid posting meaningful responses to my comments - as well as the comments of others?  You seem repeatedly to fall back on veiled insults, and empty rhetoric.  And I note that you still have not defined aether in any terms relevant to accepted science.  You keep bleating that aether "just is" without ever identifying its essential qualities.  The closest [sic] you have come is to claim that aether = air = space (I think LOL) which is of course nonsensical.

ZennerOne, stop trying to debate answers in the flat Earth Q&A forum.  You will be banned next time. 

Aether is a substance with no mass, but great power. Probably released after the Big Bang and has been flowing upward (relative) in space ever since. Whatever is trapped (mostly stray matter) in this upward flow eventually gets condensed into a disc. It is theorized that there are many separate aetheric flows in the universe (which means many possible disc planets), but only ours has been identified. FE scientists are currently working to find these other aetheric flows in space so that we can discover life on the discs formed by them. As you know, the resources of our disc are dwindling, and I believe this search for more life may just be an attempt to steal resources.

Do you guys have a theory worked out of how you would travel between the discs?  Are they proposed to be traveling at the same exact speed?  Same direction?  Is there only 1 real direction for the discs?   How would you launch a craft toward the other alien disc to compensate for the direction we are traveling?

And I note that you still have not defined aether in any terms relevant to accepted science.  You keep bleating that aether "just is" without ever identifying its essential qualities.  The closest [sic] you have come is to claim that aether = air = space (I think LOL) which is of course nonsensical.
as you cans ee, your illiteracy is clear. aether fills many functions supposedly blamed on air (when air is clearly non-material), and i have defined space clearly, and so have defined what aether is. if you are not willing to read a word i say, why do you persist in wasting everybody's time with questions?

Do you guys have a theory worked out of how you would travel between the discs?
aether is space. at the edge, space is thin, so when you cross the edge, you move through space: the distance from a subjective point of view may as well not be there.

Are they proposed to be traveling at the same exact speed? 
the earth does not move.