DET - discussions

Quote

And I don't assume by default that this something is either true or false.

Yes you do, that's exactly how your analogy functions. You assume by default I must be dishonest or working from a closed-minded perspective. is it really that hard for you to believe that an intelligent person may dare to disagree with you?

No, and again, I don't assume that you are dishonest but latter is quite true from my point of view. You closed your mind to anything else but your theory. There is only one thing now and you do anything to show that it is correct. I can't define that anything else as close mindedness.

Observations are made and they fit exactly into what is predicted by DET. Simple, well-defined, unalterable: and it works. And the only assumptions are entirely logical and are minimized.

  Only in your mind. Sorry, but no DET doesn't predict anything and it all rests in the shoulder of aether which can't be detected in any way. Like the gap between two earth discs. You say that its  there but if you reach at the edge of disc you can't see, touch ot detect it anyway. It just doesn't exist.

Quote

Its not question of origin because your aether is constantly flowing. So there must be something that eats aether in some places to make low pressure places and then it is added somehow in other placese because if not then aether disappears after a while altogether.

What on earth are you talking about?!
Aether is constantly flowing because it doesn't exert a resistive force on itself. The origin of a low concentration is akin to asking the origin of the big bang. It's a dishonest question: no one can answer.

What the hell it does even mean, "it doesn't exert a resistive force on itself"? Is there some physical analogy where you can see how something moves when "it doesn't exert a resistive force on itself"? In general, when something moves then there is some other force in play that makes this thin move. So, I really want to understand how you make something move without anything.

Quote

No, its not quite clear because there is no way to follow currents of aether.

Learn. The. Model. Why is it so much to for you to have the slightest clue what you're talking about?!

 Sure, your "LEARN THE MODEL" means that shut the f*** up, take the existence of aether in blind fate and assume that everything happens because of aether. Can't do that. So, how do you follow the currents of aether and in what way it transfers the images of the Sun and the Moon and where the aether actually is, that means at what height we can detect it somehow?

[edit]

The behavior is incredibly simple, but how will you learn it if you persist in ignoring correction and deciding to assert a straw man because you're too moronic to accept there is a working model?

  Here is physical small scale and working model of RE - " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> . If you say that your model is also working then build one that works.

No, and again, I don't assume that you are dishonest but latter is quite true from my point of view. You closed your mind to anything else but your theory. There is only one thing now and you do anything to show that it is correct. I can't define that anything else as close mindedness.

Well, yes, when I am defending my theory I'm not going to take as a starting point "It must be wrong!" When I am talking with people who seek to falsify it, logic dictates that I hold to the model firmly.
That doesn't mean I did not develop the model scientifically, or put no rational thought behind it. if you would try to learn the model, you would see.

  Only in your mind. Sorry, but no DET doesn't predict anything and it all rests in the shoulder of aether which can't be detected in any way. Like the gap between two earth discs. You say that its  there but if you reach at the edge of disc you can't see, touch ot detect it anyway. It just doesn't exist.

So, a complete lie. The fact the equator behaves EXACTLY as the DE model predicts, the fact aether is a logical deduction, the fact the existence of aether is perfectly testable and verifiable...
How about you try to make an argument beyond "Aether works exactly as the DE model predicts, therefore it doesn't exist." That's just pathetic.

What the hell it does even mean, "it doesn't exert a resistive force on itself"? Is there some physical analogy where you can see how something moves when "it doesn't exert a resistive force on itself"? In general, when something moves then there is some other force in play that makes this thin move. So, I really want to understand how you make something move without anything.

What do you think it means?!
We're not dealing with mass, did you even try to learn the model?!

Sure, your "LEARN THE MODEL" means that shut the f*** up, take the existence of aether in blind fate and assume that everything happens because of aether. Can't do that. So, how do you follow the currents of aether and in what way it transfers the images of the Sun and the Moon and where the aether actually is, that means at what height we can detect it somehow?

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU MISERABLE penguin, YOUR ANSWERS ARE IN THE MODEL. I PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR AETHER, THE MODEL, AND DIRECT ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS. STOP IGNORING THIS JUST BECAUSE YOU PREFER TO REMAIN IGNORANT. YOU OUTRIGHT AND OPENLY LIE. LEARN. THE. MODEL. OR. FUCK. OFF.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT OF WASTING TIME ON YOU IF ALL YOU DO IS IGNORE THE ANSWERS AND WHINGE THAT YOU'RE TOO LAZY TO HAVE THE SLIGHTEST FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?!

If you say that your model is also working then build one that works.

That's not a working model, I can't stand on the underside of the earth: that's just an illustration of the model, which I provide in the model, as you would know if you had even tried to earn it. is that seriously your argument now? "Look at this plastic ball, the earth must be round!"
Christ you're pathetic.
What the fuck is wrong with you?

That model shows why the sun rises and sets and why we have seasons and phases of the moon - your model doesn't do any of that.

I've read your model I still cant figure out what causes that. and it's not aetheric whirlpools, because those are equally distributed above both planes. somehow in some directions the sunlight chooses to go to one disk and somehow to the other.

It doesn't explain timezones at all! from the look of your model. the sun would have to appear directly overhead above the aetheric whirlpools and dim instead of moving.

There is nothing REAL in the DE FANTASY (DEF). For months now, people, especially me, have been asking for something MEASURABLE. All you get are vague statements that it has been provided somewhere. At best, the model is "logical deduction" on top of "logical deduction".

His "evidence" is a test of "vertical refraction" - that he has not performed. He expects someone else to do it. Until that test is performed and falsified, DEF is proved! THAT is the only "evidence" he has. Again, nothing measurable or real - just theoretical BS at best.

There is nothing practical. Since JRowe doesn't even know where he is on his model, he can not tell you how to get from where YOU are to any destination on Earth - he just says you can.

He doesn't know where anything is on his model except the N.Pole, S.Pole and equator. Sun, Moon, planets, whatever are somewhere inside the Earth and the mythical Aether puts them somehow up in the sky. When asked for specifics, there are none - just vague hand-waving. This is not surprising because his model is a FANTASY. It doesn't deal with REALITY - measurements. No actual physical model demonstrating DEF/Aether is possible. All this is ONLY in JRowe's mind (imagination unrestrained by reality - fantasy).

That doesn't mean I did not develop the model scientifically, or put no rational thought behind it. if you would try to learn the model, you would see.

  I can't learn something about  something if first requirement is blind fate in some magical undetectable sustenance.

Quote

  Only in your mind. Sorry, but no DET doesn't predict anything and it all rests in the shoulder of aether which can't be detected in any way. Like the gap between two earth discs. You say that its  there but if you reach at the edge of disc you can't see, touch ot detect it anyway. It just doesn't exist.

So, a complete lie. The fact the equator behaves EXACTLY as the DE model predicts, the fact aether is a logical deduction, the fact the existence of aether is perfectly testable and verifiable...

  Actually, every point in the world behaves EXACTLY as the DE model predicts. Your gap between discs may be in whatever places in the world. So, next question. How did you determine that gap is where equator is and not in some other place?

Quote

What the hell it does even mean, "it doesn't exert a resistive force on itself"? Is there some physical analogy where you can see how something moves when "it doesn't exert a resistive force on itself"? In general, when something moves then there is some other force in play that makes this thin move. So, I really want to understand how you make something move without anything.

What do you think it means?!

  I don't know what it means, so I asked from you. Seems that you don't know either. Or can you give me some example where "something doesn't exert a resistive force on itself"? Can you even describe the situation?

Quote

Sure, your "LEARN THE MODEL" means that shut the f*** up, take the existence of aether in blind fate and assume that everything happens because of aether. Can't do that. So, how do you follow the currents of aether and in what way it transfers the images of the Sun and the Moon and where the aether actually is, that means at what height we can detect it somehow?

YOUR ANSWERS ARE IN THE MODEL. I PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR AETHER, THE MODEL, AND DIRECT ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS. STOP IGNORING THIS JUST BECAUSE YOU PREFER TO REMAIN IGNORANT.

Answers are maybe in the model after I blindly accept existence of aether but I can't do that. Somehow you fail to provide any other options to learn your theory than firstly and blindly accepting your aether. Kind of contradictory to name your theory scientific and then asking to believe blindly to your foundations on which your theory stands and not be able to provide some tangible evidence for it.

Quote

If you say that your model is also working then build one that works.

That's not a working model, I can't stand on the underside of the earth

  Tellurium is working model that illustrates accurately day/night, eclipses etc. If you are not able to build simple physical model that illustrates accurately your theory then this theory is overly complicated and simpler one should be preferable.
 And your worry about not being able to stand underside of the earth is about what theory? RE or DE? Because in both you are underside of the earth in some place.

That model shows why the sun rises and sets and why we have seasons and phases of the moon - your model doesn't do any of that.

How about you learn the model rather than outright lying?!

I've read your model I still cant figure out what causes that. and it's not aetheric whirlpools, because those are equally distributed above both planes. somehow in some directions the sunlight chooses to go to one disk and somehow to the other.

The Sun rotates due to the whirlpools, its light goes to both sides, the amount depending on its tilt. What don't you understand?

It doesn't explain timezones at all! from the look of your model. the sun would have to appear directly overhead above the aetheric whirlpools and dim instead of moving.

That makes absolutely no sense.

There is nothing REAL in the DE FANTASY (DEF). For months now, people, especially me, have been asking for something MEASURABLE

WHat you've been asking for is beyond the means of any one person. If you refuse to do my experiment, why should I do what you ask? Hypocrite.

I can't learn something about  something if first requirement is blind fate in some magical undetectable sustenance.

Then you clearly haven't read even the first section on DET. How about you try to make an informed decision rather than assert falsehood with no reason?

How did you determine that gap is where equator is and not in some other place?

Logic. Again, learn the model, it needs to be at the equator. Things vary when viewed from each side: circumpolar stars, coriolis force... Plus basic distance.

  I don't know what it means, so I asked from you. Seems that you don't know either. Or can you give me some example where "something doesn't exert a resistive force on itself"? Can you even describe the situation?

I did describe what it means: there is no resistive force at play. Throw a rock into vacuum, does it slow or stop?

Answers are maybe in the model after I blindly accept existence of aether but I can't do that. Somehow you fail to provide any other options to learn your theory than firstly and blindly accepting your aether. Kind of contradictory to name your theory scientific and then asking to believe blindly to your foundations on which your theory stands and not be able to provide some tangible evidence for it.

So you refuse to understand anything about DET because you refuse to accept, even as a hypothesis, an accept justified both by logic on its own merits, and by the evidence for the theory as a whole. Just because you ignore the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.
HOW ABOUT YOU LEARN THE MODEL RATHER THAN OUTRIGHT LYING AND CLAIMING THERE IS NO EVIDENCE

Tellurium is working model that illustrates accurately day/night, eclipses etc. If you are not able to build simple physical model that illustrates accurately your theory then this theory is overly complicated and simpler one should be preferable.
 And your worry about not being able to stand underside of the earth is about what theory? RE or DE? Because in both you are underside of the earth in some place.

What the hell are you on about?! ADDRESS WHAT I AM SAYING RATHER THAN COMPLETELY IGNORING IT TO BULLSHIT YET AGAIN. The model is an ILLUSTRATION of certain principles, which I provide. It is not a working model of RET because it does not take into account fundamental aspects like, for example, gravity.
WHAT ARE YOU STRUGGLING WITH HERE? OR ARE YOU JUST BEING A HYPOCRITE? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU DO YOU NOT SEE HOW DISHONNEST YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY BEING?

How do you know that the sun revolves by whirlpools?

How do you know that the sun revolves by whirlpools?

How about you learn the model?!
You're asking after conclusions of the model, LEARN THE MODEL SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 04, 2015, 09:37:48 AM

How do you know that the sun revolves by whirlpools?

How about you learn the model?!
You're asking after conclusions of the model, LEARN THE MODEL SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

Here's what I got out of the model:

Aether exists, we know this because of the theory of relativity
The earth is two discs that is connected by Aether
The sun uses Aether to direct light to both sides of the discs

How does the theory of relativity proves that Aether exist?
What experiments are there to observe Aether?
How do you know that Aether can do the things your model claim?
 

How does the theory of relativity proves that Aether exist?
What experiments are there to observe Aether?
How do you know that Aether can do the things your model claim?

Learn the definition of aether, learn the evidence, READ THE FUCKING MODEL

I'm sick of dealing with you. You don't have a single goddamn question, you just repeat the same old shit THAT IS ANSWERED. What the fuck are you on about?! Aether is defined clearly and specifically, so your third question is trivial. Relativity gives us a template (space) to work with, which a logical property is deduced from, giving us the definition mentioned in the answer to three. Two is answered under the section evidence, in addition to several other experiments.

I HAVE SAID ALL OF THIS BEFORE, ARE YOU GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE A FUCKING WORD OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER AGAIN?!
WHY ARE YOU HERE IF YOU REFUSE TO LEARN THE SLIGHTEST THING!?!

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 04, 2015, 10:52:32 AM

How does the theory of relativity proves that Aether exist?
What experiments are there to observe Aether?
How do you know that Aether can do the things your model claim?

Learn the definition of aether, learn the evidence, READ THE FUCKING MODEL

I'm sick of dealing with you. You don't have a single goddamn question, you just repeat the same old shit THAT IS ANSWERED. What the fuck are you on about?! Aether is defined clearly and specifically, so your third question is trivial. Relativity gives us a template (space) to work with, which a logical property is deduced from, giving us the definition mentioned in the answer to three. Two is answered under the section evidence, in addition to several other experiments.

I HAVE SAID ALL OF THIS BEFORE, ARE YOU GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE A FUCKING WORD OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER AGAIN?!
WHY ARE YOU HERE IF YOU REFUSE TO LEARN THE SLIGHTEST THING!?!

He gave you 3 questions, they are the sentences that end in question marks. You literally quoted them. Jroweskeptic, just because questions have been asked before, doesn't mean they can't be re-asked.

However, from the point of view of this debate, you are in the right, although very rude. To luke, according to his theory, the aether is pre-defined, and thus cannot be measured or proven experimentally. The aether is something that agrees with the universe and how it works, and so what he attempts to say is that everything that ever happens from now to the end of time can be explained by an aether.

The aether can do what the model claims because the model revolves around the notion of the aether.

Jrowe, i am puzzled by the theory of relativity comments. Are you saying that the aether can be derived from the theory, or can simply be compared to "space-time" in relativity?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 04, 2015, 10:58:39 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 04, 2015, 10:52:32 AM

How does the theory of relativity proves that Aether exist?
What experiments are there to observe Aether?
How do you know that Aether can do the things your model claim?

Learn the definition of aether, learn the evidence, READ THE FUCKING MODEL

I'm sick of dealing with you. You don't have a single goddamn question, you just repeat the same old shit THAT IS ANSWERED. What the fuck are you on about?! Aether is defined clearly and specifically, so your third question is trivial. Relativity gives us a template (space) to work with, which a logical property is deduced from, giving us the definition mentioned in the answer to three. Two is answered under the section evidence, in addition to several other experiments.

I HAVE SAID ALL OF THIS BEFORE, ARE YOU GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE A FUCKING WORD OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER AGAIN?!
WHY ARE YOU HERE IF YOU REFUSE TO LEARN THE SLIGHTEST THING!?!

He gave you 3 questions, they are the sentences that end in question marks. You literally quoted them. Jroweskeptic, just because questions have been asked before, doesn't mean they can't be re-asked.

However, from the point of view of this debate, you are in the right, although very rude. To luke, according to his theory, the aether is pre-defined, and thus cannot be measured or proven experimentally. The aether is something that agrees with the universe and how it works, and so what he attempts to say is that everything that ever happens from now to the end of time can be explained by an aether.

The aether can do what the model claims because the model revolves around the notion of the aether.

Jrowe, i am puzzled by the theory of relativity comments. Are you saying that the aether can be derived from the theory, or can simply be compared to "space-time" in relativity?

Thank you, eggy. To Jrowe, according to your model Aether is the fabric of space which have yet to be proven that space has a fabric to it. Also, why should I reject the round earth and go with DET if the DET says that Aeyher explains what we see and the round earth says that simple the fact that earth is a ball explains what we see? I think Occam's raser favors the round earth because the round earth doesn't need Aether to explain stuff like sunsets, sunrises, and seasons.

Quote

There is nothing REAL in the DE FANTASY (DEF). For months now, people, especially me, have been asking for something MEASURABLE

WHat you've been asking for is beyond the means of any one person. If you refuse to do my experiment, why should I do what you ask? Hypocrite.

The fact remains - you have no evidence - just 2 words "vertical refraction". You have not even defined an actual test. It is your FANTASY that you need to bring to reality.

He gave you 3 questions, they are the sentences that end in question marks. You literally quoted them. Jroweskeptic, just because questions have been asked before, doesn't mean they can't be re-asked.

He has asked the EXACT SAME bullshit EVERY FUCKING TIME we've spoken, and he's been answered EVERY SINGLE TIME, and all he does is ignore the answers, ignore the outline in the model, ignore the evidence given, and waste time.
I will use whatever words are appropriate for a moron like that.

according to his theory, the aether is pre-defined, and thus cannot be measured or proven experimentally. The aether is something that agrees with the universe and how it works, and so what he attempts to say is that everything that ever happens from now to the end of time can be explained by an aether.

LEARN THE MODEL BEFORE MAKING CLAIMS ABOUT IT
Why is this such a hard concept for REers?! Yes, aether is defined: as a result of logical deduction, and the experimental evidence for it is intrinsically connected to the experimental evidence for DET, given, as all of DET is a deduction from the definition of aether.

Are you saying that the aether can be derived from the theory, or can simply be compared to "space-time" in relativity?

Both. The model fo relativity gives one of the two key traits of aether, the second is derived with logic, and confirmed with observation.

according to your model Aether is the fabric of space which have yet to be proven that space has a fabric to it.

HOW ABOUT YOU ACTUALLY LOOK UP RELATIVITY RATHER THAN CONSTANTLY WASTING MY TIME?! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ANSWER YOU BEFORE YOU PAY ANY ATTENTION WHATSOEVER?!

I think Occam's raser favors the round earth because the round earth doesn't need Aether to explain stuff like sunsets, sunrises, and seasons.

It needs gravity. Aether relies on fewer assumptions. HOW ABOUT YOU TRY TO ACTUALLY READ THE MODEL BEFORE MAKING BULLSHIT CLAIMS? ALL THIS IS EXPLICITLY AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED. WHY DO YOU KEEP WASTING MY TIME?! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

you have no evidence

READ THE FUCKING MODEL YOU PATHETIC penguin. STOP LYING, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO CALL YOU OUT ON YOUR BULLSHIT?!

You have not even defined an actual test.

DO YOU EVER READ A FUCKING WORD I SAY OR DO YOU JUST LIE? The ONE time I didn't outline a full test after bringing up that statement was when all I was doing was calling you out on a lie, and giving you the means to verify with the search fucntion. You clearly did not.

STOP LYING. FOR FUCK'S SAKE WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANY KIND OF HONEST ARGUMENT?!
If you're so secure in RET, FUCKING ACT LIKE IT.

LEARN THE MODEL BEFORE MAKING CLAIMS ABOUT IT
Why is this such a hard concept for REers?! Yes, aether is defined: as a result of logical deduction, and the experimental evidence for it is intrinsically connected to the experimental evidence for DET, given, as all of DET is a deduction from the definition of aether.

I'm sorry, but if you look at my post i put before i was actually defending your theory. Seriously be a little less harsh with people.
In terms of evidence, I quote from your own text:

Note, also, that experiments are merely a special case of observation. They are just a specific way to observe the rules of the world when applied to a controlled setting.

Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET.

So your evidence for an all encompassing thing is all experiments ever made? You know what? That is valid, to a degree. But it isn't what people are asking for. They are asking for a specific experiment or test specifically with the task of proving the aether's existence. (this is not what im asking for specifically, i'm simply just saying) Like this ominous piece:

There is one specific experiment that may be performed to confirm the DE model over the RE model, though it requires resources I do not have.

May i add a very important note: I understand and accept your explanation that all experiments support the aether, but support does not equate to direct proof. But then again, you could argue its the same way for other areas of physics. Its just that most areas of physics can test and repeat results that support the theory.

I'm sorry, but if you look at my post i put before i was actually defending your theory. Seriously be a little less harsh with people.

Misrepresentation is not defense.

I understand and accept your explanation that all experiments support the aether, but support does not equate to direct proof.

It's the only form of proof that exists. Saying it's not direct proof is meaningless.

Its just that most areas of physics can test and repeat results that support the theory.

Just as can be done for DET.

Misrepresentation is not defense.

Misrepresentation is arguably better than nothing. I -although not completely correct on your theory- did explain some fundamental points to the guy.

It's the only form of proof that exists. Saying it's not direct proof is meaningless.

Hmm.
Placing a positive and negative particle next to each other will ALWAYS attract. This is direct proof that they attract. Its repeatable.
The fact that all things fall to the earth is not direct proof of gravity, but the fact their fall can be accurately described by gravitational theory strongly supports that the theory is correct. Not direct, but incredibly likely.
Just my two cents.

Quote

Its just that most areas of physics can test and repeat results that support the theory.

Just as can be done for DET.

I would love to hear an example of what classifies as one of these tests. By which i mean a test specific to that of proving DET, not a totally unrelated test that DET supports in its results.

Anyway, i digress, as i do not wish to argue and derail the thread on these philosophical debates.
Have you attempted to add mathematical proof to your theory? For me personally, explaining a theory with maths is the best way to comprehend what's going on (i understand this is different from the norm). However, one thing RET has that DET doesn't is quite the comprehensive list of tested and proven equations that support the thesis. As far as i have seen, i can't find the same in your theory. Perhaps we could discuss that from a start point, instead of the totally derailed thread you posted before? EDIT: This thread may be as good as any to discuss mathematics with you, as it is general DET discussion.

Quote

you have no evidence

READ THE FUCKING MODEL YOU PATHETIC penguin. STOP LYING, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO CALL YOU OUT ON YOUR BULLSHIT?!

Quote

You have not even defined an actual test.

DO YOU EVER READ A FUCKING WORD I SAY OR DO YOU JUST LIE? The ONE time I didn't outline a full test after bringing up that statement was when all I was doing was calling you out on a lie, and giving you the means to verify with the search fucntion. You clearly did not.

STOP LYING. FOR FUCK'S SAKE WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANY KIND OF HONEST ARGUMENT?!
If you're so secure in RET, FUCKING ACT LIKE IT.

Instead of insulting, ranting and raving like a lunatic, why don't you just answer the question?
Two words "vertical refraction" are not evidence.
What is a test for your "vertical refraction"?
Is there any other evidence?

Misrepresentation is arguably better than nothing. I -although not completely correct on your theory- did explain some fundamental points to the guy.

Misrepresentation is worse than nothing. I want people to understand my theory, not have preconceptions coloured by a flawed depiction. I deal with enough straw men on this forum.

Placing a positive and negative particle next to each other will ALWAYS attract. This is direct proof that they attract. Its repeatable.
The fact that all things fall to the earth is not direct proof of gravity, but the fact their fall can be accurately described by gravitational theory strongly supports that the theory is correct. Not direct, but incredibly likely.
Just my two cents.

We have direct proof of nothing but the observations themselves: you can't prove a positive and negative will always attract because you haven't tested every possible particle in every possible situation (and there are some situations they won't attract: ie, if there is another more powerful charge interfering). A formula can be accurate, but that doesn't mean the theory behind it is: multiple explanations can have the same end result. For objects falling, that's little more than the inverse square law times a constant.

Anyway, i digress, as i do not wish to argue and derail the thread on these philosophical debates.
Have you attempted to add mathematical proof to your theory? For me personally, explaining a theory with maths is the best way to comprehend what's going on (i understand this is different from the norm). However, one thing RET has that DET doesn't is quite the comprehensive list of tested and proven equations that support the thesis. As far as i have seen, i can't find the same in your theory. Perhaps we could discuss that from a start point, instead of the totally derailed thread you posted before? EDIT: This thread may be as good as any to discuss mathematics with you, as it is general DET discussion.

There is a thread on a formula for the density of aether, which is ultimately the key to DET.

words "vertical refraction" are not evidence.
What is a test for your "vertical refraction"?

You should know this if you read a word I say. I'm sick of having to deal with your time wasting, why do you demand I waste time on you when you know where you can find the answers? Why should I dedicate my time to explaining myself to someone who consistently ignores when you refuse to use even the slightest bit of yours?

I would love to hear an example of what classifies as one of these tests. By which i mean a test specific to that of proving DET, not a totally unrelated test that DET supports in its results.

Vertical refraction and gravitational force should be the easiest. DET predicts the change will be discontinuous, as you go up past whirlpools. I'll give the example based on gravity as it's easier to explain, but an analogous principle will hold for refraction, if you have the means to measure it in the vertical direction.
You need two altitudes, with ideally minimized horizontal distance, and a device that measures gravitational force in enough detail that there are several significant figures of measured difference between the lower altitude L and the higher H. With that, simply ascend from L to H keeping an eye on the device. DET predicts that the downwards force will be approximately constant, before decreasing discontinuously.
A hot air balloon is my cliche example of how it could be performed, as that would allow for the test with refraction as well, though theoretically it could work on a mountain.

So specifically, how would "vertical refraction" and "gravitational force" apply to the "altitude of stars" - the height of Polaris?

Misrepresentation is worse than nothing. I want people to understand my theory, not have preconceptions coloured by a flawed depiction. I deal with enough straw men on this forum.

I would argue that him even showing interest is better than you waving him away and him learning nothing. But i respect your opinion.

We have direct proof of nothing but the observations themselves: you can't prove a positive and negative will always attract because you haven't tested every possible particle in every possible situation (and there are some situations they won't attract: ie, if there is another more powerful charge interfering).

That is simply wrong, if -for example - the two particles were both put into an electric field, there would still be attraction between the particles. Even if they were being pulled apart by other charges, the two particles affect each other, and slow down the process of seperation. What i mean by attract is that they both "attempt" to attract, regardless of other sources.
And you are correct that not every single situation has been measured, but literally millions have, have all been peer reviewed and satisfy the electromagnetic theory.

A formula can be accurate, but that doesn't mean the theory behind it is: multiple explanations can have the same end result. For objects falling, that's little more than the inverse square law times a constant.

I agree in the logic of the statement, but not the implication that your reasoning is better, not yet.

There is a thread on a formula for the density of aether, which is ultimately the key to DET.

I'll comment in that thread then, i just got a bit confused in it due to changes made and discussions made.

Vertical refraction and gravitational force should be the easiest. DET predicts the change will be discontinuous, as you go up past whirlpools. I'll give the example based on gravity as it's easier to explain, but an analogous principle will hold for refraction, if you have the means to measure it in the vertical direction.

Does it not presuppose that the change will be discontinuous? I can't quote any experiments made similar to this, so i would be interested in the results.

So specifically, how would "vertical refraction" and "gravitational force" apply to the "altitude of stars" - the height of Polaris?

What the hell are you on about?!

I would argue that him even showing interest is better than you waving him away and him learning nothing.

I don't wave away: I give them the place where he can choose to learn the model. if he chooses not to dedicate that tiniest part of effort required to click a link and read, he's too set in his ways to even try to learn.

That is simply wrong, if -for example - the two particles were both put into an electric field, there would still be attraction between the particles. Even if they were being pulled apart by other charges, the two particles affect each other, and slow down the process of seperation. What i mean by attract is that they both "attempt" to attract, regardless of other sources.
And you are correct that not every single situation has been measured, but literally millions have, have all been peer reviewed and satisfy the electromagnetic theory.

Your clarification certainly makes it make more sense: though your final statement stands. We haven't observed that the rule holds universally, we assume it based on the fact the theory we have to explain observations would imply they do.

I agree in the logic of the statement, but not the implication that your reasoning is better, not yet.

The point is simply that the same observations may have multiple explanations. As there exists a model which explains the same observations with fewer assumptions, it should be preferred. It is easy to see how RET could develop as a misinterpretation of observations. Holding to a model simply because you're more used to it is not logical.

Does it not presuppose that the change will be discontinuous? I can't quote any experiments made similar to this, so i would be interested in the results.

I haven't claimed that this test has been performed. Currently, it is a prediction: one on which DET may be confirmed or falsified.

Quote

So specifically, how would "vertical refraction" and "gravitational force" apply to the "altitude of stars" - the height of Polaris?

What the hell are you on about?!

Since these are your only tests of Aether that have not been performed (balloon), how do they even apply to your "altitude of stars" as explaining telescope alignment? Specifically, how can we use those to determine the height of Polaris?

Quote

Quote

So specifically, how would "vertical refraction" and "gravitational force" apply to the "altitude of stars" - the height of Polaris?

What the hell are you on about?!

Since these are your only tests of Aether that have not been performed (balloon), how do they even apply to your "altitude of stars" as explaining telescope alignment? Specifically, how can we use those to determine the height of Polaris?

What the fuck are you talking about?! That doesn't make sense in the slightest.

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 05, 2015, 08:22:42 AM

Quote

Quote

So specifically, how would "vertical refraction" and "gravitational force" apply to the "altitude of stars" - the height of Polaris?

What the hell are you on about?!

Since these are your only tests of Aether that have not been performed (balloon), how do they even apply to your "altitude of stars" as explaining telescope alignment? Specifically, how can we use those to determine the height of Polaris?

What the fuck are you talking about?! That doesn't make sense in the slightest.

Read the "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment" thread.

Why should anyone believe DEF is real?

Since DEF can not specify where a person is or persons are, it can not:

• calculate distances between 2 points (i.e. make a map, be useful for ships/planes traveling anywhere)
• say how horizons will look, especially looking N or S.
• say what continents look like
• align TV dishes
• align telescopes
• say what a person sees in the sky (e.g. how high the Sun, Moon, etc. are)
• say how sunrises/sunsets look (e.g. where are they - E, NE, SE, etc.)

So I am not sure why it is brought up in threads when it can't actually do anything...

Also, how is it the "preferred" model (compared to RET), when it can't do anything and RET can?

The first question to ask is simple: what is evidence?
The answer is just as simple: observation.

There is no form of evidence beyond this. To have evidence for a model, you need only observe something in line with what that model predicts. This is what science is based on: this is all there is. The best possible kind of model is one that explains all observations proposed.

I am confused about these statements.

I am in Denver, CO. DEF doesn't know where I am on the model.

How does it know what I observe?
How can it then explain all observations when it doesn't know where they are happening on Earth?

Take the distance on the DEF model between the N.Pole and equator. If I am 20% of the distance S of the N.Pole, will I observe the same thing as being 20% of the distance N of the equator?

Read the "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment" thread.

So, no answer. You're tying together unrelated aspects, what the fuck are you on about?!

Why should anyone believe DEF is real?

Evidence in the model, fuckwit.

Since DEF can not specify where a person is or persons are, it can not:

Aside from a few lies, all your whining establishes is that DET does not have the same resources as RET. This is not a flaw, and no amount of your dishonesty will change that. The fact you are incapable of managing any actual argument against DET and exclusively rely on false comparison and derailment is all anyone needs to know.

How does it know what I observe?
How can it then explain all observations when it doesn't know where they are happening on Earth?

How about you stop being such a pathetic penguin and read the model, and stop whining about completely irrelevant and inexplicable straw men. Who do you think you're fooling? WHY CAN YOU NOT MANAGE A SINGLE HONEST ARGUMENT?!

WHY DO YOU KEEP WHINING ABOUT DET AND YET REFUSE TO PROVIDE A SINGLE HONEST ARGUMENT AGAINST IT?!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!?

Once again, you have no evidence.

Since I still dont understand the difference between DEH (its a hypothesis, not a theory. Same with FEH) and General Relativity, both describing space(-time) as a tensor field, I suggest instead that the creator of the hypothesis himself does his job as a scientist and proposes a test to discern between the accepted theory and his hypothesis, and to falsify it. If this test can be done by an amateur with a reasonable amount of significance, I (and Im sure many others as well) will come and try to design (and, maybe even test) the experiment that performs such a test. Every single hypothesis before did this (and some hypothesis came after the test was done for another purpose and an unexpected value came by, for example, the Michelson–Morley experiment was intended to detect the motion of the aether as the Earth soared through the Solar system. The result was one of the main basis for SR,  first, and GR, later). You MUST perform this duty BEFORE your hypothesis is even considered. I recomend this thread for your thesis, although a post here will do as well. Remember to try and be clear with what must be tested, follow the scientific method to the letter, and remember that a negative result may come, and you must accept it (to the degree of significance it was done, of course)

I eagerly away your thesis, and recommend you this video in the meanwhile : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">10 - The Scientific Method Made Easy