How does Ether exist?

Someone's a little grumpy. Have you had your nap?

ok buddy, you calm now? You've had about a day to slam your head against a wall. Now, please, for the sake of sanity, explain these logical deductions you have made, and how they have been deduced by you, and you alone. Not one astronomer in history has made these same 'logical deductions' and we can't be expected to believe said deductions without a shred of tangible evidence.
In addition, once again, I will explain to you your circular reasoning, and see if you understand now. Let us say... we cannot reach space. Why not? Because the space gets too dense in the upper atmosphere. How do we know this? Because we can't go to space. Do you see the discrepancy now? The logic doesn't follow.

Please stop the all caps ranting, it doesn't make your posts easier to read. It just further reduces my opinion of you. I genuinely thought you were rather intelligent inventing your own hypothesis. It seems i was sorely mistaken.

Calm, small child.

In addition, once again, I will explain to you your circular reasoning, and see if you understand now. Let us say... we cannot reach space. Why not? Because the space gets too dense in the upper atmosphere. How do we know this? Because we can't go to space. Do you see the discrepancy now? The logic doesn't follow.

let's recap shall we?
i also told you:
and if it is the same example you used before AND WHICH I RESPONDED TO BEFORE you will be blocked
and would you look at that, you went and made the same exact argument. have a history lesson. let's look at the 'ask me about dual earth theory; thread, page 19. you made the exact same argument, i explained how i deduced aether was thicker higher up. you just proceeded to ignore me because you are incapable of learning.

I WILL RANT AT YOU ALL I WANT BECAUSE APPARENTLY YOU PAY ATTENTIO TO NOTHING ELSE
YOU HAVE JUST BLATANTLY LIED AND SHOWN TEHRE IS NO POINT IN TALKING TO YOU AS EVERYTHING I SAY SIMPLY GOES IGNORED

as promise,d blocked, and don't you dare act like this is a victory, as some morons have done. you have just shown that it is a waste of time trying to talk to you. you openly used a refuted argument. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

JRowe, if someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they are not paying attention to you or they cannot read.  Just because you want to act like a little baby who got their candy taken away every time someone questions your supposed logic doesn't mean you get free reign to blast off into stupid land and start raging.  It does you no service to act like an idiot.  People will just continue to treat you as such when you do, and the more you do it, the longer it will be before you get taken seriously about anything you say.

Cheers Mikey. Does this mean JRowe can no longer see my posts? Damn, I wasn't finished patiently dismantling his argument, and I didn't even get to ask why his version of ether is better than scepti's and the rest. Can someone post this? As a personal favour, just so he knows I will fight from the great beyond.

Cheers

JRowe, if someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they are not paying attention to you or they cannot read.  Just because you want to act like a little baby who got their candy taken away every time someone questions your supposed logic doesn't mean you get free reign to blast off into stupid land and start raging.  It does you no service to act like an idiot.  People will just continue to treat you as such when you do, and the more you do it, the longer it will be before you get taken seriously about anything you say.

true. when they are openly asking the same question again and again without responding to the answers i have repeatedly given, or when they make the exact same argument after directly being told that it had been answered, THAT means they are quite obviously ignroing me. i suggest you actually pay attention.

i am not the one acting like an idiot. i am sick of having to come here and have my time wasted by people who refuse to acknowledge a word i say, just like you clearly are as you obvously haven't read the discussion. i directly showed that he is repeating himself after i directly asked him not to. that is a fact, plain and simple. you cannot ignore this just because you would like to demonize everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Cheers Mikey. Does this mean JRowe can no longer see my posts? Damn, I wasn't finished patiently dismantling his argument, and I didn't even get to ask why his version of ether is better than scepti's and the rest. Can someone post this? As a personal favour, just so he knows I will fight from the great beyond.

Cheers

Hey JRoweSkeptic, Why-Am-I-Here got something for you. By the way, if you keep on avoiding questions from people, you are pretty much implying that you cannot defend your idea. And FE's will be owned by RE's, just like in this thread
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58262
An RE put an argument, backed up by other RE's, no FE's responded, and basically RE's been winning for years!!!

Cheers man, but unfortunately JRowe doesn't understand life. If he doesn't agree with something, it's wrong. His opinion is fact, backed up by absolutely zero evidence and just his 'logical deductions'. No matter how many points RE score, he's going to keep arguing.

Quote from: Why-Am-I-Here? on May 26, 2015, 01:45:31 PM

Cheers Mikey. Does this mean JRowe can no longer see my posts? Damn, I wasn't finished patiently dismantling his argument, and I didn't even get to ask why his version of ether is better than scepti's and the rest. Can someone post this? As a personal favour, just so he knows I will fight from the great beyond.

Cheers

Hey JRoweSkeptic, Why-Am-I-Here got something for you. By the way, if you keep on avoiding questions from people, you are pretty much implying that you cannot defend your idea. And FE's will be owned by RE's, just like in this thread
An RE put an argument, backed up by other RE's, no FE's responded, and basically RE's been winning for years!!!

i am not avoiding any questions. have you actually been readinga  single thing? i answer questions repeatedly, i block people when they refuse to accept my answers or respond in ay way to them, and just ignore them: which whyamihere is directly guilty of. i explicitly asked him to either not ask the same question, or give a reason why my answer was not acceptable, and he completely ignored me and put forward the exact same argument with no alterations whatsoever. i answer questions, i block people who ignore everything i say.

round earthers have force of numbers, that's it. flat earths have responded to and refuted everythign, you just reject what we say on pricniple, without any thought. look past your own bias and be honest.

he hasn't even come close to dismantling one part of my argument. the fact he thinks he has is further proof he just ignores every single one of my responses. apparently he also doesn't understand occam's razor, so that explains a little about his logical skills.

JRowe buddy, you realise I can read what you're typing. You realise I know the slanderous allegations you are casting against me. If you would like, I will find at least 3 cases of where I have responded to something you have said, and directly disputed it. Would that help? It's difficult to argue a point when all I get in reply is a torrent of insults and repeated assertions that what i am asking to see has already been answered. Having read this thread several times, I have still yet to discover any links to any experiments you performed, or indeed any references made to said experiments.
Furthermore, I do understand occam's razor, but i fail to see how it applies. Your entire model relies on the idea of properties of ether that have yet to be agreed upon by anyone else, and does not comply with the general concept of space. It relies on the assumption there is a conspiracy concealing the true shape of the earth. It relies on all the 'astronauts', 'cosmonauts', and government agents being twisted and corrupted liars. It assumes that all the mathematical calculations deduced over the centuries by astronomers and mathematicians the world over are entirely wrong. Thats a lot of fucking assumptions, most of which involve a huge distrust of the human race. Is that your problem? Were you maltreated as a child, and turned against humanity? Cos your argument and insults seem to help reflect that.

JRowe buddy, you realise I can read what you're typing. You realise I know the slanderous allegations you are casting against me. If you would like, I will find at least 3 cases of where I have responded to something you have said, and directly disputed it. Would that help? It's difficult to argue a point when all I get in reply is a torrent of insults and repeated assertions that what i am asking to see has already been answered. Having read this thread several times, I have still yet to discover any links to any experiments you performed, or indeed any references made to said experiments.
Furthermore, I do understand occam's razor, but i fail to see how it applies. Your entire model relies on the idea of properties of ether that have yet to be agreed upon by anyone else, and does not comply with the general concept of space. It relies on the assumption there is a conspiracy concealing the true shape of the earth. It relies on all the 'astronauts', 'cosmonauts', and government agents being twisted and corrupted liars. It assumes that all the mathematical calculations deduced over the centuries by astronomers and mathematicians the world over are entirely wrong. Thats a lot of fucking assumptions, most of which involve a huge distrust of the human race. Is that your problem? Were you maltreated as a child, and turned against humanity? Cos your argument and insults seem to help reflect that.

you do not understand the model (and probably any kind of logic), let's leave it at that. you cannot tell the difference between a consequence and a assumption, you cannot tell the difference between an insult and an argument, you do not understand that people make mistakes, you don't understand that the same observations could have many proposed explanations, you do not udnerstand the concept of observational evidence, or the fact dual earth theory answers existing already-performed scientific experiments, or the simple fact is that all dual earth theory needs to do is explain all observations with fewer assumptions than the alternative.
it's amazing how often you repeat your question about who else discovered aether when it has been answered multiple times and you have not once acknowledge the fact i have answered it. thank you for making your dishonesty clear to everyone. you don't care about learning, you care about insulting.

stop taking part in discussions if you can't be bothered to take in what the other party says. it's the height of arrogance.

why are you here?

I would like to take this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of the above discussion. Having been accused repeatedly of being illiterate and never answering the questions, I have just been treated to a list of accusations which fail to answer any questions, aside from with more questions, neither relevant to the topic, or the questions I have asked.
On a side note "udnerstand"... well done Mr. Skeptic.

I'm here to shut you lot up,

Why are you here?

which fail to answer any questions
another lie. you could always read my posts, but apparently you're incapable of that.

i'm here to eduacte. unfortunately, only people able to acknowledge anything i say can be educated.

Quote from: Why-Am-I-Here? on May 27, 2015, 07:21:13 AM

JRowe buddy, you realise I can read what you're typing. You realise I know the slanderous allegations you are casting against me. If you would like, I will find at least 3 cases of where I have responded to something you have said, and directly disputed it. Would that help? It's difficult to argue a point when all I get in reply is a torrent of insults and repeated assertions that what i am asking to see has already been answered. Having read this thread several times, I have still yet to discover any links to any experiments you performed, or indeed any references made to said experiments.
Furthermore, I do understand occam's razor, but i fail to see how it applies. Your entire model relies on the idea of properties of ether that have yet to be agreed upon by anyone else, and does not comply with the general concept of space. It relies on the assumption there is a conspiracy concealing the true shape of the earth. It relies on all the 'astronauts', 'cosmonauts', and government agents being twisted and corrupted liars. It assumes that all the mathematical calculations deduced over the centuries by astronomers and mathematicians the world over are entirely wrong. Thats a lot of fucking assumptions, most of which involve a huge distrust of the human race. Is that your problem? Were you maltreated as a child, and turned against humanity? Cos your argument and insults seem to help reflect that.

you do not understand the model (and probably any kind of logic), let's leave it at that. you cannot tell the difference between a consequence and a assumption, you cannot tell the difference between an insult and an argument, you do not understand that people make mistakes, you don't understand that the same observations could have many proposed explanations, you do not udnerstand the concept of observational evidence, or the fact dual earth theory answers existing already-performed scientific experiments, or the simple fact is that all dual earth theory needs to do is explain all observations with fewer assumptions than the alternative.
it's amazing how often you repeat your question about who else discovered aether when it has been answered multiple times and you have not once acknowledge the fact i have answered it. thank you for making your dishonesty clear to everyone. you don't care about learning, you care about insulting.

stop taking part in discussions if you can't be bothered to take in what the other party says. it's the height of arrogance.

why are you here?

I have quoted your previous post, the one I previously referred to. Where are the answers? I asked questions, you didn't answer. It's that simple. I was merely highlighting your hypocrisy. While we're on the subject, would you be so kind as to explain why my example of circular reasoning is not circular? I could go and find it, but it would be far easier, and probably more understandable if you would now.
You're being evasive and you're being hypocritical. If that's education, then god help us all.

Perhaps I can answer your questions, but I cannot be bothered to read the entire thread. So please do repost your questions, and I will answer them as honestly as possible.

As one of the leading researchers of aether, along with Jrowe and a few others, I am more than qualified to have a discourse about this topic.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 27, 2015, 08:06:16 AM

Quote from: Why-Am-I-Here? on May 27, 2015, 07:21:13 AM

JRowe buddy, you realise I can read what you're typing. You realise I know the slanderous allegations you are casting against me. If you would like, I will find at least 3 cases of where I have responded to something you have said, and directly disputed it. Would that help? It's difficult to argue a point when all I get in reply is a torrent of insults and repeated assertions that what i am asking to see has already been answered. Having read this thread several times, I have still yet to discover any links to any experiments you performed, or indeed any references made to said experiments.
Furthermore, I do understand occam's razor, but i fail to see how it applies. Your entire model relies on the idea of properties of ether that have yet to be agreed upon by anyone else, and does not comply with the general concept of space. It relies on the assumption there is a conspiracy concealing the true shape of the earth. It relies on all the 'astronauts', 'cosmonauts', and government agents being twisted and corrupted liars. It assumes that all the mathematical calculations deduced over the centuries by astronomers and mathematicians the world over are entirely wrong. Thats a lot of fucking assumptions, most of which involve a huge distrust of the human race. Is that your problem? Were you maltreated as a child, and turned against humanity? Cos your argument and insults seem to help reflect that.

you do not understand the model (and probably any kind of logic), let's leave it at that. you cannot tell the difference between a consequence and a assumption, you cannot tell the difference between an insult and an argument, you do not understand that people make mistakes, you don't understand that the same observations could have many proposed explanations, you do not udnerstand the concept of observational evidence, or the fact dual earth theory answers existing already-performed scientific experiments, or the simple fact is that all dual earth theory needs to do is explain all observations with fewer assumptions than the alternative.
it's amazing how often you repeat your question about who else discovered aether when it has been answered multiple times and you have not once acknowledge the fact i have answered it. thank you for making your dishonesty clear to everyone. you don't care about learning, you care about insulting.

stop taking part in discussions if you can't be bothered to take in what the other party says. it's the height of arrogance.

why are you here?

I have quoted your previous post, the one I previously referred to. Where are the answers? I asked questions, you didn't answer. It's that simple. I was merely highlighting your hypocrisy. While we're on the subject, would you be so kind as to explain why my example of circular reasoning is not circular? I could go and find it, but it would be far easier, and probably more understandable if you would now.
You're being evasive and you're being hypocritical. If that's education, then god help us all.

the argument is not circular because i concluded there were higher concentrations of aether higher up by a completely different method: teh creation of the earth. i have already told you this, try not to ignore it this time.

let's recap what i said:

you cannot tell the difference between a consequence and an assumption
you don't understand that the same observations could have many proposed explanations
you do not understand the concept of observational evidence, or the fact dual earth theory answers existing already-performed scientific experiments

Perhaps I can answer your questions, but I cannot be bothered to read the entire thread. So please do repost your questions, and I will answer them as honestly as possible.

As one of the leading researchers of aether, along with Jrowe and a few others, I am more than qualified to have a discourse about this topic.

Alright Vauxhall, I'm game.
I'll just give a choice few, and bring up more as I remember them, because i don't want to wade through the shit this thread has become.
1. Why can't ether and space travel co-exist as concepts?
2. How do you know ether exists, and how it behaves differently to space, despite being "the same thing as space"-quotation from JRoweSkeptic.
3. Why do so many people have different versions of ether, but only your one is correct?
4. How did you discover it, and why haven't you disclosed any findings, rather turn offensive and obtuse?

On a side note, and I don't really expect an answer, but how do you research a concept such as ether, alongside someone like JRowe, who can't stand people disagreeing with him?

Cheers

You concluded this based upon what evidence? Expand upon these logical deductions if you please, as it's clear very few people think the same way you do with regards to this matter.
I do, in fact, understand each and every one of those concepts, but they don't answer the statements. Many plausible outcomes from observations? I'm pretty sure a cylinder and a sphere look pretty different. Maths isn't my strongest subject, but even I can tell the difference. Maths, in my experience, doesn't tend to lie, and trigonometry performed by several civilisations across time, has resulted in an agreed upon round earth? You can't even pull the "different trigonometry" line, as your sun doesn't orbit the earth, in any sense of the word. I'll just leave the questions at that for now, that should be plenty.

Also, "the", not "teh"...

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 27, 2015, 10:21:27 AM

Perhaps I can answer your questions, but I cannot be bothered to read the entire thread. So please do repost your questions, and I will answer them as honestly as possible.

As one of the leading researchers of aether, along with Jrowe and a few others, I am more than qualified to have a discourse about this topic.

Alright Vauxhall, I'm game.
I'll just give a choice few, and bring up more as I remember them, because i don't want to wade through the shit this thread has become.
1. Why can't ether and space travel co-exist as concepts?
2. How do you know ether exists, and how it behaves differently to space, despite being "the same thing as space"-quotation from JRoweSkeptic.
3. Why do so many people have different versions of ether, but only your one is correct?
4. How did you discover it, and why haven't you disclosed any findings, rather turn offensive and obtuse?

On a side note, and I don't really expect an answer, but how do you research a concept such as ether, alongside someone like JRowe, who can't stand people disagreeing with him?

Cheers

I am not Jrowe, so don't expect the same answers. I am immune to criticism and conduct my research in a completely non-biased way. I'll move on to your questions now.

1) They can. That doesn't mean that it's possible at this time, however.

2) Aether has been proven mathematically to be a property of space-time that formed before the bang. Mathematical formula for the creation and perpetuation of aether. I do not believe that it's the "same thing" as space, but it is vital to space's existence.

3) Surprisingly, there are not that many theories about aether. Einstein's aether is the concept that I subscribe to. I am not one to question the mind of a proven genius. Why do you? Do you believe yourself smarter than Einstein? Here is a direct quote from the man himself: "The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events." That is exactly how aether works in the FE model as well.

4) It's been proven mathematically, but has not been directly observed for a number of reason. It exists as a property of space-time, and therefore is currently undetectable (just like gravity). No one is asking for you to find a gravity particle, so why are you asking us to find an aether particle? Some things are just beyond human comprehension, and you are just going to have to accept that.

You concluded this based upon what evidence? Expand upon these logical deductions if you please, as it's clear very few people think the same way you do with regards to this matter.
I do, in fact, understand each and every one of those concepts, but they don't answer the statements. Many plausible outcomes from observations? I'm pretty sure a cylinder and a sphere look pretty different. Maths isn't my strongest subject, but even I can tell the difference. Maths, in my experience, doesn't tend to lie, and trigonometry performed by several civilisations across time, has resulted in an agreed upon round earth? You can't even pull the "different trigonometry" line, as your sun doesn't orbit the earth, in any sense of the word. I'll just leave the questions at that for now, that should be plenty.

Also, "the", not "teh"...

i have a thread in the information repository. read it. learn.
the evidence is observational: that is, this model explains observations. that is what evidence is.
math does lie if you do not take everything into account. for example, one supposed attempt to calculate the curvature of the earth only works if you posit the sun to be a great distance away. if that is not the case, it does not show curvature: in fact, it shows the opposite.
dual earth theory is a disk, not a cylinder.
you cannot simply handwave and assert 'math'. try giving examples: justify what you say. i have give my reasoning.

Thank you Vauxhall, I appreciate it. I wasn't aware of this version of ether, only scepti's and JRowe's. JRowe's being the one currently under heavy dispute. If ether and space travel can co-exist, then, at least so far, I see no cause for dispute, as it seems acceptable that man has indeed visited the moon. As for Einstein, I certainly do not believe myself to be smarter, i still struggle with GCSE physics, although I must ask which model his version of ether conforms to. I assure you, JRowe disagrees.
The rest I appreciate, but cannot really address aside from, for the time being, accepting it. If you would be so kind as to give an example or two of your experiments, it would be much appreciated.
Thank you for your time.

Thank you Vauxhall, I appreciate it. I wasn't aware of this version of ether, only scepti's and JRowe's. JRowe's being the one currently under heavy dispute. If ether and space travel can co-exist, then, at least so far, I see no cause for dispute, as it seems acceptable that man has indeed visited the moon. As for Einstein, I certainly do not believe myself to be smarter, i still struggle with GCSE physics, although I must ask which model his version of ether conforms to. I assure you, JRowe disagrees.
The rest I appreciate, but cannot really address aside from, for the time being, accepting it. If you would be so kind as to give an example or two of your experiments, it would be much appreciated.
Thank you for your time.

Most scientists that reveal revolutionary information are ridiculed and disgraced at first. It will probably take Jrowe's death for the stubborn scientific community to accept his findings. In time, he will probably be vindicated.

I must ask which model his version of ether conforms to. I assure you, JRowe disagrees.
einstein defined aether to be space. certainly, my model differs in particulars as i have deduced traits for space he has not (or at least did not openly state), but the similarity is there.

If you would be so kind as to give an example or two of your experiments, it would be much appreciated.
what experiments?
if you want evidence directly for the theory, you have been answered: all experiments suffice. the theory relies on observational evidence.
if you want predictions for you to test: vertical refraction will be discontinuous due to the whirlpools, and any cameras made to ascend (usually by rocket) will slow extremely at the peak of their flight, as they reach thicker aether.

The general consensus over centuries of mathematical trialing all points to one of two things. Flat or Round earth. The latter being supported by the vast majority, the former by the shrunken minority. If it lies, it lies very well. This model explains observations, but also disputes an increasing number of easily observable phenomena, which require far more complex thinking.
If you would, explain the Mariana trench, deep mining and the rest. Is the sun a disc as well? Is the earth entirely two-dimensional? This seems, even by your standards, far fetched, and also, shockingly, disagrees with a previous conversation we had on a previous thread I started, which still awaits a concrete answer.
I think you'll find I can simply hand wave and assert math, as it is one piece of evidence you have yet to provide. Indeed, it is much the same principle as in many other arguments where you simply hand wave and cite "ether". Hence this thread.

i have a thread in the information repository that explains the dual earth model in detail. the mariana trench is irrelevant: the earth is flat, but it clearly has depth. the sun etc are explained (they are spotlights and approximate spheres).

i do not have the resources to provide math to measure properties. i can define aspects mathematically, but those mean little without resources i do not have.

If the earth is a disc, then it implies it is two-dimensional.
A three-dimensional disc is known as a cylinder.
Once you have said equipment, let us know. Maybe we'll take you more seriously then.

If the earth is a disc, then it implies it is two-dimensional.
A three-dimensional disc is known as a cylinder.
Once you have said equipment, let us know. Maybe we'll take you more seriously then.

true two dimensioal things do not exist. the shape is understood. unless you're as young as your illiteracy would make you sound, you would have seen computer discs: they were not literally 2D, just far thinner than they were long.

you'l never taken me seriously, you're far too closed minded. all i need is a model with fewer assumptions,w hcih i have.

Quote from: Why-Am-I-Here? on May 22, 2015, 01:20:22 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 22, 2015, 01:09:32 PM

Quote from: Why-Am-I-Here? on May 22, 2015, 11:08:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 22, 2015, 07:04:30 AM

Quote from: Why-Am-I-Here? on May 20, 2015, 01:51:59 PM

Ether, the thing that seems to do everything for flat earthers. How has no-one else discovered it? How did you discover it? What was the experiment that you discovered it in, and how do you know how it works??

I await your replies.

Why-Am-I-Here???

aether is space. plain and simple. it has been discovered, it is known to exist. logical deduction shows, however, that it is all that is required to explain the world, rather than ad hoc (which is apparently acceptable for round earthers) and needless fantasies.
more space means more distance (fact), and there is a universal tendency guiding things from high concentrations to low (see: pressure, heat). that's all that's needed to explain the world.

Ether is space? Then why does it behave so differently to space? Who knows it to exist? When and how was it discovered?? Needless fantasies, says the fairy believer. Please answer above questions. What is this evidence? What experiments?

or you could learn to read you pathetic, illiterate, incompetent buffoon. aether behaves exactly like space. space is something that is known to exist, if you're really going to deny that you've given up on any pretense of intelligence. everything is just logical deductions base don known facts. i refer you to the post i made which you seem to have completely ignored to repeat the same bs questions.
if you're just going to ignore every word said what is the point in trying to educate you?
why are you here?

Please cease the insults, it isn't necessary. Is it so difficult to post a link to this evidence. Logical deductions have been ignored and ridiculed elsewhere on this website, so why are they allowed for your hypothesis alone? I don't seem to recall space not allowing people to travel in it, nor do I recall space denying the existence of air and clouds, yet promoting the existence of fairies. Unicorns too? Please, for the sake of simplicity, show me this mound of evidence and these so called 'logical deductions' that so easily prove your hypothesis, and cease the insults.
What is the point in trying to educate me? Ask my school teachers.

I'm here to seek the truth. (concave earth anyone?)

what the fuck are you on about?
what the hell do you think space is?! SPACE IS DISTANCE. THIS IS BASIC FUCKING STUFF. if you move, you move through space. THAT IS WHAT MOVEMENT IS> THAT IS WHAT EVERYTHING IS. SPACE EXISTS. OF COURSE WE TRAVEL THROUGH SPACE HOW ELSE DO YOU EXPECT TO HAVE ANY CONCEPT OF WHAT TRAVEL OR MOVEMENT OR DISTANCE ACTUALLY IS?!

i will insult as much as i want because you are clearly being moronic and you're repeating irrelevant questions, even when they've already been answered: or you just make shit up to try and discredit a theory, BECAUSE YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT TRUTH YOU JUST CARE ABOUT ACTING SMUG.

the non-existence of air and clouds is common sense, as you would know if you had bothered to actually read those threads and educate yourself. like the existence of fairies, there is no dependence on aether whatsoever. this you would know if you could be botehred to read. clearly, you cannot so i see no point in trying to waste my time.

come back when you have some understanding of what travel is. how do you expect to travel without moving through space?!

You understand that we further define things to further organize and explain them, right?
Just throwing basically all scientific understandings into one blanket term is kind of silly, don't you think?
That's like someone referencing a guitar string, and then you calling them stupid when they don't understand what you mean by saying, "The string is just the guitar, it's so simple and there's no need for referencing things like strings and fretboards; It's all a guitar."

The Mariana trench is extremely deep. The connotations of this imply that the sides of the earth are quick thick. If so, what's there? If the mariana trench is deep enough to go through the Earth all together, then we would know. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Hence, from my own logical deductions, and using the idea of dual earth theory to some degree, the earth is a cylinder.

The Mariana trench is extremely deep.
it is 11km deep. that is next to nothing compard to the width of the world. the world could be ten times that depth and would still be comparable to a disc. try to get some sense of scale.

th3rm, absolutely none of your post makes sense.