DET - discussions

Once again, you have no evidence.

Once again, learn the model fuckwit. there is an entire section dedicated to evidence. Why do your persist in spamming this forum with your outright lies about DET? I'm getting sick of it.
If you're so secure in RET, why can't you mount an honest defense? Why do you need to defend your model with lies?

its a hypothesis, not a theory.

I've yet to see anyone justify this.

Since I still dont understand the difference between DEH and General Relativity, both describing space(-time) as a tensor field,

Then learn the model. Take the time to read what's said rather than deciding any FE model is too beneath you.

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.

I've proposed a test, I just do not have the resources to acrry it out, and REers aren't willing to put in the effort because none are willing to give FET a chance. I can't magically alter the model to create a deviation you can verify without leaving your room, that's a ridiculous claim. You can hardly test Morley with ease.

You MUST perform this duty BEFORE your hypothesis is even considered.

I have done an analogous principle. The model was completed, and the rules simply defined, long before I knew of certain aspects of the world: the principle behind testing is the same as this. An unknown quantity was successfully predicted by the DE model. I didn't consider such things as tides, and earthquakes, and meteorites, and the like when developing the model, and yet they are all neatly explained.

Quote

its a hypothesis, not a theory.

I've yet to see anyone justify this.

You havent published a paper. You haven't passed peer review. Your results and evidence have not been replicated. You have an hypothesis. My suggestion is that you dont lose confidence and keep working to achieve the status of theory.

Quote

Since I still dont understand the difference between DEH and General Relativity, both describing space(-time) as a tensor field,

Then learn the model. Take the time to read what's said rather than deciding any FE model is too beneath you.

I tried, believe me. I tried. You style of writing is such that I can only compare to greek treatises of math, those who used words, rather than formulae to express themselves. I am unable to extract any information from your posts, that are also all over the place. However, I still believe in you, and that's why I encourage you that, while I dont think at this moment you will be able to condense your writing much further, instead you focus on the falsifiability of it.

Quote

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.

I've proposed a test,

Ok, can you link it? I couldnt find it.

I just do not have the resources to acrry it out, and REers aren't willing to put in the effort because none are willing to give FET a chance. I can't magically alter the model to create a deviation you can verify without leaving your room, that's a ridiculous claim. You can hardly test Morley with ease.

No one asked that. What I said is that I can only perform relativelly simple experiments (my vacuumware is little more than a pressure cooker and a piece of lexan), and I can only perform them to relativelly low confidence. However, even that's a starter. You claim no one is willing to put the effort, but when I asked for experiments that could falsify RE/FE, no one stepped front. You cant expect to put something on a blog and then scientists to test it. You have to put a lot of work before it is even considered a hypothesis. When I call your ideas "hypothesis", it isnt an insult, in fact, Im giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because many would say that your writings arent a hypothesis, but mere opinions. And, believe it or not, but I could perform Michaelson-Morley. Not accurate enough to (not) detect aether? Most likelly, but enough to detect other sources of interference.

Quote

You MUST perform this duty BEFORE your hypothesis is even considered.

I have done an analogous principle. The model was completed, and the rules simply defined, long before I knew of certain aspects of the world: the principle behind testing is the same as this. An unknown quantity was successfully predicted by the DE model. I didn't consider such things as tides, and earthquakes, and meteorites, and the like when developing the model, and yet they are all neatly explained.

All those things add to the posible solidity of a model, but wont make it solid to start with, because a falsifiable test must reach diferent outcomes in the null model and the one being tested. In other words, ad hoc explanations dont matter untill a test that falsifies the theory is developed.

Quote

Once again, you have no evidence.

Once again, learn the model fuckwit. there is an entire section dedicated to evidence. Why do your persist in spamming this forum with your outright lies about DET? I'm getting sick of it.
If you're so secure in RET, why can't you mount an honest defense? Why do you need to defend your model with lies?

Yes, you have an entire evidence section without any actual evidence (measurable). As I said before, you don't know where anyone/anything is on your model. How do you know what they observe? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64710.msg1735498#msg1735498) Yet, you spam this forum that DEF matches everything we observe (observational evidence). Why do you need to defend your model with lies?

I didn't consider such things as tides, and earthquakes, and meteorites, and the like when developing the model, and yet they are all neatly explained.

Really, where have you "neatly explained" earthquakes (P & S waves, shadow zones)? All you ever do is assert/claim you and your model does stuff - easily, trivially, neatly no less. It does nothing.

I have a question about how ather cycles work. The only force acting on ather is pressure of the sounding ather, so ather gets moved towards low pressure zones, Ill call a low pressure zone A. Once the ather has moved to zone A it keeps moving past because there is no friction, so A becomes low pressure again
As soon as A becomes low pressure again it would start pulling the ather that just left it back again. So wouldn't ather stay oscillating instead of going around in circles.

JRoweSkeptic


HI!  I lurk on here a lot because it's kind of a guilty pleasure. I also watch a ton of Creationist Vs. Science debates on Youtube. I'm sick in the head I know. 

I wanted to ask some direct questions about your theory and I am honestly curious and in no way attacking so please read on.


 I read your thesis on a Dual Earth Model and I had some questions for clarification. I want to keep them as clear as possible so I don't misunderstand your answers.  I have tried to read all of the definitions for aether between the FET and DET theories from other believers to help answer most of my questions but a few still stand out.  Here they are:


1.) How big is the star in the center of this DET model?  What's it's mass?
2.) Do you believe in nuclear fusion for this model? If so, how would nuclear fusion begin without gravity?
3.) Since Aether does not directly interact with matter in this model, how is solar wind, radiation, solar particles, and intense heat deflected in the DET model? Or do they not exist in this model?  Does that mean they don't exist at all?
4.) How are the stars or planets that pass between the horizons kept on a perfect, predictable rotation so that we can measure their passing through the sky through the year?
5.) How do they pass by the second star without being sucked in or damaged by the star or even moved off course, changing their rotation timing?
6.) Does this star cause the whirpools that move the stars and planets through the horizons?
7.) I can image the idea of being moved from 1 flat plane to another instantly but a passageway large enough for stars and planets to move through the center of the Earth would require a large opening.  Wouldn't we be able to view this opening in some way?
8.) Wouldn't planes or low flying surveillance aircraft be able to image this opening in the Dual Earth?



 Gravity is not a shared believe between RET or FET so I'm not 100% clear on how a 2nd sun would provide heat or light without nuclear fusion and this occurs under intense gravity.  Current understanding states the minimum size for a celestial mass to ignite nuclear fusion is 8.7% the mass of our own Sun.  I understand there are different beliefs on the size of our sun between the theories so this is the grey area.  Also, I'm not clear as to why the openings that would allow all of this activity could not be easily viewed by us. 


Any new info would be great.  Thanks man.

JRoweSkeptic


HI!  I lurk on here a lot because it's kind of a guilty pleasure. I also watch a ton of Creationist Vs. Science debates on Youtube. I'm sick in the head I know. 

I love those too, in fact I'm in several in different threads. Though you got it wrong, it's creation vs evolution. We (YEC) have no bones against science. We do however object to evolution which frankly I think it's nothing more than a religion (see my sig). But I don't want to derail the thread.

I wanted to ask some direct questions about your theory and I am honestly curious and in no way attacking so please read on.

I read your thesis on a Dual Earth Model and I had some questions for clarification. I want to keep them as clear as possible so I don't misunderstand your answers.  I have tried to read all of the definitions for aether between the FET and DET theories from other believers to help answer most of my questions but a few still stand out.  Here they are:


1.) How big is the star in the center of this DET model?  What's it's mass?
2.) Do you believe in nuclear fusion for this model? If so, how would nuclear fusion begin without gravity?
3.) Since Aether does not directly interact with matter in this model, how is solar wind, radiation, solar particles, and intense heat deflected in the DET model? Or do they not exist in this model?  Does that mean they don't exist at all?
4.) How are the stars or planets that pass between the horizons kept on a perfect, predictable rotation so that we can measure their passing through the sky through the year?
5.) How do they pass by the second star without being sucked in or damaged by the star or even moved off course, changing their rotation timing?
6.) Does this star cause the whirpools that move the stars and planets through the horizons?
7.) I can image the idea of being moved from 1 flat plane to another instantly but a passageway large enough for stars and planets to move through the center of the Earth would require a large opening.  Wouldn't we be able to view this opening in some way?
8.) Wouldn't planes or low flying surveillance aircraft be able to image this opening in the Dual Earth?



 Gravity is not a shared believe between RET or FET so I'm not 100% clear on how a 2nd sun would provide heat or light without nuclear fusion and this occurs under intense gravity.  Current understanding states the minimum size for a celestial mass to ignite nuclear fusion is 8.7% the mass of our own Sun.  I understand there are different beliefs on the size of our sun between the theories so this is the grey area.  Also, I'm not clear as to why the openings that would allow all of this activity could not be easily viewed by us. 


Any new info would be great.  Thanks man.

You havent published a paper. You haven't passed peer review. Your results and evidence have not been replicated. You have an hypothesis. My suggestion is that you dont lose confidence and keep working to achieve the status of theory.

It can't do the first two, due to the bias against FEt in academia. The results and evidence behind it have been confirmed numerous times. Again, learn the model.

I tried, believe me. I tried. You style of writing is such that I can only compare to greek treatises of math, those who used words, rather than formulae to express themselves. I am unable to extract any information from your posts, that are also all over the place. However, I still believe in you, and that's why I encourage you that, while I dont think at this moment you will be able to condense your writing much further, instead you focus on the falsifiability of it.

My posts typically just explain the model. The model itself should be clear enough; there are diagrams to help visualization. Words are typically used to explain theories: they have to be.

No one asked that. What I said is that I can only perform relativelly simple experiments (my vacuumware is little more than a pressure cooker and a piece of lexan), and I can only perform them to relativelly low confidence. However, even that's a starter. You claim no one is willing to put the effort, but when I asked for experiments that could falsify RE/FE, no one stepped front. You cant expect to put something on a blog and then scientists to test it. You have to put a lot of work before it is even considered a hypothesis. When I call your ideas "hypothesis", it isnt an insult, in fact, Im giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because many would say that your writings arent a hypothesis, but mere opinions. And, believe it or not, but I could perform Michaelson-Morley. Not accurate enough to (not) detect aether? Most likelly, but enough to detect other sources of interference.

The point is: what you're asking for is simply impossible for the vast majority of scientific theories. You couldn't do, say, Hafele–Keating by yourself. Does that damage the theory of relativity  in your eyes?
Even so, what you ask is unnecessary. There are multiple ways for a model to be preferred over another: one is explaining an observation not explained by the other (as you propose), while another is explaining the same observations better: whether in more detail, or with fewer assumptions. DET manages the latter, unambiguously; and that's a stronger point in its favor, simply because you don't need to understand the details of the model to understand the justification.

Ok, can you link it? I couldnt find it.

The gist is that vertical refraction will increase discontinuously (and gravity will decrease similarly). If you want the details you can probably just search the forum for 'vertical refraction' but it likely won't mean much if you don't know the model.

All those things add to the posible solidity of a model, but wont make it solid to start with, because a falsifiable test must reach diferent outcomes in the null model and the one being tested. In other words, ad hoc explanations dont matter untill a test that falsifies the theory is developed.

There are no ad hoc explanations. As I said, a simple rule developed independently of numerous observations worked just fine when those observations were acknowledged or brought to my attention. Preferring a theory simply because it was arrived at first is no more than an appeal to tradition.

Yes, you have an entire evidence section without any actual evidence (measurable).

Open lie.

As I said before, you don't know where anyone/anything is on your model. How do you know what they observe?

Incoherent as ever.

Really, where have you "neatly explained" earthquakes (P & S waves, shadow zones)? All you ever do is assert/claim you and your model does stuff - easily, trivially, neatly no less. It does nothing.

Another lie. You made a thread one arthquakes and I answered explicitly, all you've ever whinged about is the fact I have limited resources and can't map out the interior of the world singlehandedly. You try doing half the bullshit you ask of me sometimes, it's pathetic.

I'm done with you. Jadyyn, consider yourself blocked. You've consistently demonstrated that all you're capable of is dishonesty, outright lies, and timewasting.

I have a question about how ather cycles work. The only force acting on ather is pressure of the sounding ather, so ather gets moved towards low pressure zones, Ill call a low pressure zone A. Once the ather has moved to zone A it keeps moving past because there is no friction, so A becomes low pressure again
As soon as A becomes low pressure again it would start pulling the ather that just left it back again. So wouldn't ather stay oscillating instead of going around in circles.

True in one dimension only: there are more directions for aether to fill in a low pressure zone, in reality.

1.) How big is the star in the center of this DET model?  What's it's mass?

I can't give details like this: I have limited resources. I wouldn't expect you to singlehandedly determine the mass and size of the Sun, or the core of the Earth, in your model, please don't make dishonest comparisons.

2.) Do you believe in nuclear fusion for this model? If so, how would nuclear fusion begin without gravity?

Why would nuclear fusion require gravity?

3.) Since Aether does not directly interact with matter in this model, how is solar wind, radiation, solar particles, and intense heat deflected in the DET model? Or do they not exist in this model?  Does that mean they don't exist at all?

There is certainly heat emanating from the Sun, but it's mostly blocked by the atmosphere. Analogous entities would exist, but on a much, much smaller scale due to the nature of the Sun,

4.) How are the stars or planets that pass between the horizons kept on a perfect, predictable rotation so that we can measure their passing through the sky through the year?

The cause of their motion is steady, why wouldn't the subsequent motion be predictable?

5.) How do they pass by the second star without being sucked in or damaged by the star or even moved off course, changing their rotation timing?
6.) Does this star cause the whirpools that move the stars and planets through the horizons?

What second star?

7.) I can image the idea of being moved from 1 flat plane to another instantly but a passageway large enough for stars and planets to move through the center of the Earth would require a large opening.  Wouldn't we be able to view this opening in some way?
8.) Wouldn't planes or low flying surveillance aircraft be able to image this opening in the Dual Earth?

Light moves through space: it's that simple. How can you view a distance that doesn't exist?

Gravity is not a shared believe between RET or FET so I'm not 100% clear on how a 2nd sun would provide heat or light without nuclear fusion and this occurs under intense gravity.  Current understanding states the minimum size for a celestial mass to ignite nuclear fusion is 8.7% the mass of our own Sun.  I understand there are different beliefs on the size of our sun between the theories so this is the grey area.  Also, I'm not clear as to why the openings that would allow all of this activity could not be easily viewed by us. 

There is no second sun, and the process by which stars operate was clearly explained in the model, which you claimed to have read.

I must thank you JRoweSkeptic, et al. I now am 10x more convinced of the RET and heliocentric models than when I first came to this website.

When I first came here, I roughly believed in RET/H. Without looking into them much, they matched what I saw and did. FE was popular so I wanted to see if it was better. To my utter surprise, I had a couple solid falisfications/disproofs of it in the first week here. Then you came along resurrecting DEF. Discussing the Moon, in this thread, I realized you had a lack of knowledge of astronomy. Continuing on with aligning telescopes, I realized all FE models were doomed because they were flat. You don't even know where anything actually is in your model.

On the other hand, aligning telescopes by latitude proved the Earth was spherical - WOW! The RET/H models specified the location of everyone/everything and therefore distances. It could align telescopes and TV dishes. Planes and ships could travel around the world with maps (including Columbus). The whole field of astronomy could rely on gravity, elliptical orbits and space probes. We could colonize the Moon, Mars and other places. They work. They are practical.

I did not appreciate RET/H. Now I do. Thank you JRoweSkeptic and friends.

Quote

You havent published a paper. You haven't passed peer review. Your results and evidence have not been replicated. You have an hypothesis. My suggestion is that you dont lose confidence and keep working to achieve the status of theory.

It can't do the first two, due to the bias against FEt in academia. The results and evidence behind it have been confirmed numerous times. Again, learn the model.

You still dont get what Im trying to say. You may be right, there might be a bias in academia, there might be no way for you to publish your results, there might be no way for you to get recognition or fair peer review. You are right in all of that.
However, lets look at it the other way. During the apartheid era, it is possible that a black person couldnt get into a university at all. No matter how smart, and apt he or she was, the barrier was there. However, is it reasonable of it to say "Well, since they wont accept me at med school, Im now a medic!"? I dont think so. You have an hypothesis. That isnt bad at all, however. Go talk to some scientist. Eventually, if your model is good, it will gather attention. Hell, it will gather attention even if it isnt, just look at creationists. Eventually you will get a fair peer review. Be prepared for the worst, though.

Quote

I tried, believe me. I tried. You style of writing is such that I can only compare to greek treatises of math, those who used words, rather than formulae to express themselves. I am unable to extract any information from your posts, that are also all over the place. However, I still believe in you, and that's why I encourage you that, while I dont think at this moment you will be able to condense your writing much further, instead you focus on the falsifiability of it.

My posts typically just explain the model. The model itself should be clear enough; there are diagrams to help visualization. Words are typically used to explain theories: they have to be.

Sure, but those explanations are done AFTER the thesis have been done. Scientific thesis have a very particular language which facilitates reading and review. I recommend you read a book on thesis style and writing, so you can get going.

Quote

No one asked that. What I said is that I can only perform relativelly simple experiments (my vacuumware is little more than a pressure cooker and a piece of lexan), and I can only perform them to relativelly low confidence. However, even that's a starter. You claim no one is willing to put the effort, but when I asked for experiments that could falsify RE/FE, no one stepped front. You cant expect to put something on a blog and then scientists to test it. You have to put a lot of work before it is even considered a hypothesis. When I call your ideas "hypothesis", it isnt an insult, in fact, Im giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because many would say that your writings arent a hypothesis, but mere opinions. And, believe it or not, but I could perform Michaelson-Morley. Not accurate enough to (not) detect aether? Most likelly, but enough to detect other sources of interference.

The point is: what you're asking for is simply impossible for the vast majority of scientific theories. You couldn't do, say, Hafele–Keating by yourself. Does that damage the theory of relativity  in your eyes?

Once again: I DIDNT ask you to provide an experiment I should be able to do. I only asked you to provide a PLAUSIBLE TEST that SOMEONE may be able to do. Relativity predicted several phenomena that were tested successfully (excerpt from wikipedia):

"Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:[1]

the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
the deflection of light by the Sun
the gravitational redshift of light"


All of those were then tested, and confirmed. More tests were developed, then tested, then confirmed. This is your job as a proposer.

Even so, what you ask is unnecessary. There are multiple ways for a model to be preferred over another: one is explaining an observation not explained by the other (as you propose), while another is explaining the same observations better: whether in more detail, or with fewer assumptions.

No. If two models have exactly the same consequences for every single possible test and experiment, then the two models are identical, meaning that they are actually diferent interpretations of the same model, meaning is not a theory (an example would be, in Quantum Mechanics, the diferent interpretations like Copenhagen or many worlds. Both predict exactly the same results. In that case, the debate stops being scientific)

DET manages the latter, unambiguously; and that's a stronger point in its favor, simply because you don't need to understand the details of the model to understand the justification.

I havent managed to understand either, but that's ok, its my problem after all, and its not necesary at all. Im just the lab technician following the directions of the actual scientists.

Quote

Ok, can you link it? I couldnt find it.

The gist is that vertical refraction will increase discontinuously (and gravity will decrease similarly). If you want the details you can probably just search the forum for 'vertical refraction' but it likely won't mean much if you don't know the model.

Great! This is an actual prediction that doesnt seem to match GR. Please describe mathematically the relationship between altitude and vertical acceleration. The terms youdescribe sound pretty similar to UA's bendy light, though, which has been mostly disproven.

Quote

All those things add to the posible solidity of a model, but wont make it solid to start with, because a falsifiable test must reach diferent outcomes in the null model and the one being tested. In other words, ad hoc explanations dont matter untill a test that falsifies the theory is developed.

There are no ad hoc explanations. As I said, a simple rule developed independently of numerous observations worked just fine when those observations were acknowledged or brought to my attention. Preferring a theory simply because it was arrived at first is no more than an appeal to tradition.

The problem is that, as you know, you dont have a theory. As a rule of thumb, no two competing theories can exist in science (although theories can overlap, but that's not the same), and besides, you lack the experimental evidence for the validity of your model.

Since it seems like I wont ever understand your theory, is there any RE'r like sokarul that understands this model, to help me correct any mistakes I do?

However, lets look at it the other way. During the apartheid era, it is possible that a black person couldnt get into a university at all. No matter how smart, and apt he or she was, the barrier was there. However, is it reasonable of it to say "Well, since they wont accept me at med school, Im now a medic!"? I dont think so. You have an hypothesis. That isnt bad at all, however. Go talk to some scientist. Eventually, if your model is good, it will gather attention. Hell, it will gather attention even if it isnt, just look at creationists. Eventually you will get a fair peer review. Be prepared for the worst, though.

True: but that's not what's happening. It is undeniable that there is a bias against FET: it's a go-to example of an absurd theory. So the fact is simply that something could be a valid theory without being published: I simply want DET to be judged on its own merits, not by the fact no one wants to learn an FE model. I'll wait here, for a while: this is where people who're actually interested in FET come.

No. If two models have exactly the same consequences for every single possible test and experiment, then the two models are identical, meaning that they are actually diferent interpretations of the same model, meaning is not a theory (an example would be, in Quantum Mechanics, the diferent interpretations like Copenhagen or many worlds. Both predict exactly the same results. In that case, the debate stops being scientific)

Not true: gravity and 'intelligent falling,' the idea that a supreme being actively pulls everything down to the Earth's surface, are two models that, under RET, explain how things fall to the Earth. Defining the supreme being in such a way that there would be no varying predictions is trivial: are they different interpretations of the same model? Not remotely; one relies on an untestable assumption. In these cases, Occam's Razor is used: while it is a generally strictly logical tool, its application is clear.

Great! This is an actual prediction that doesnt seem to match GR. Please describe mathematically the relationship between altitude and vertical acceleration. The terms youdescribe sound pretty similar to UA's bendy light, though, which has been mostly disproven.

Detailed math isn't so easy to supply. I've given the equation for the thickness of aether, whose derivatives will approximate this, in a separate thread ("Formula for the density of aether,") but it isn't easy to solve.
Detailed numbers aren't too relevant, however: all we want is a discontinuity. If you have a device to measure gravity that is sensitive enough to pick up a change between two altitudes (gravity being the easier example to example), with a few significant figures in the difference, then DET predicts that as you ascend, you'll find gravity is approximately constant, before falling a sudden amount: a discontinuity. Hypothetically it may be possible to do at home, but you'd need a very sensitive gauge (and of course multiple experiments).

Words are best for this description. If you want a mathematical outline we get into awful epsilon/delta analysis definitions of continuity.

The problem is that, as you know, you dont have a theory. As a rule of thumb, no two competing theories can exist in science (although theories can overlap, but that's not the same), and besides, you lack the experimental evidence for the validity of your model.

I have as much experimental evidence as RET.

Since it seems like I wont ever understand your theory, is there any RE'r like sokarul that understands this model, to help me correct any mistakes I do?

I wouldn't know. The REers that understand the model wouldn't be the ones who'd ask me questions, so I have no way of gauging their understanding. If you're honestly curious, I'm happy to discuss details over PM, if there are aspects you don't understand: you seem to be one of the more honest REers.
(If so, it'd be best to go section by section. Later sections are based on what comes before: a good understanding of aether answers nearly all questions about the world itself).

Please list your experimental evidence, eg. measurements.

Quote

However, lets look at it the other way. During the apartheid era, it is possible that a black person couldnt get into a university at all. No matter how smart, and apt he or she was, the barrier was there. However, is it reasonable of it to say "Well, since they wont accept me at med school, Im now a medic!"? I dont think so. You have an hypothesis. That isnt bad at all, however. Go talk to some scientist. Eventually, if your model is good, it will gather attention. Hell, it will gather attention even if it isnt, just look at creationists. Eventually you will get a fair peer review. Be prepared for the worst, though.

True: but that's not what's happening. It is undeniable that there is a bias against FET: it's a go-to example of an absurd theory. So the fact is simply that something could be a valid theory without being published: I simply want DET to be judged on its own merits, not by the fact no one wants to learn an FE model. I'll wait here, for a while: this is where people who're actually interested in FET come.

I wouldnt say undeniable: there is simply no evidence for any FEH model. In fact, there hasnt been any coherent model of FEH ever. Yours might be, I dont know, since I cant understand it. If you want DEH to be judged on its merits, again, write a paper, present your evidence, and present it to a cathedratic in geophysics or astrophysics.

Quote

No. If two models have exactly the same consequences for every single possible test and experiment, then the two models are identical, meaning that they are actually diferent interpretations of the same model, meaning is not a theory (an example would be, in Quantum Mechanics, the diferent interpretations like Copenhagen or many worlds. Both predict exactly the same results. In that case, the debate stops being scientific)

Not true: gravity and 'intelligent falling,' the idea that a supreme being actively pulls everything down to the Earth's surface, are two models that, under RET, explain how things fall to the Earth. Defining the supreme being in such a way that there would be no varying predictions is trivial: are they different interpretations of the same model? Not remotely; one relies on an untestable assumption. In these cases, Occam's Razor is used: while it is a generally strictly logical tool, its application is clear.

Gravity and intelligent falling ARE equivalent in the material claims. However, intelligent falling adds something that gravity doesnt: angels are the cause of the fall. This is a claim that could be tested if we consider angels to be material. If they are, then the model is testable, and then it is a hypothesis. If they arent (as the proposers claim), then intelligent falling is making a supernatural claim, that of course falls outside the scope of science, and therefore the proposal is invalid (although it may be right, the formulation converts it into philosophy, not science). Besides, Occam's Razor is nothing but a questionable philosophycal tool and has nothing to do with science.

Quote

Great! This is an actual prediction that doesnt seem to match GR. Please describe mathematically the relationship between altitude and vertical acceleration. The terms youdescribe sound pretty similar to UA's bendy light, though, which has been mostly disproven.

Detailed math isn't so easy to supply. I've given the equation for the thickness of aether, whose derivatives will approximate this, in a separate thread ("Formula for the density of aether,") but it isn't easy to solve.
Detailed numbers aren't too relevant, however: all we want is a discontinuity. If you have a device to measure gravity that is sensitive enough to pick up a change between two altitudes (gravity being the easier example to example), with a few significant figures in the difference, then DET predicts that as you ascend, you'll find gravity is approximately constant, before falling a sudden amount: a discontinuity. Hypothetically it may be possible to do at home, but you'd need a very sensitive gauge (and of course multiple experiments).

Words are best for this description. If you want a mathematical outline we get into awful epsilon/delta analysis definitions of continuity.

This is the correct and simple way of mathematically declaring discontiniuties


Please tell me if this is correct.

Quote

The problem is that, as you know, you dont have a theory. As a rule of thumb, no two competing theories can exist in science (although theories can overlap, but that's not the same), and besides, you lack the experimental evidence for the validity of your model.

I have as much experimental evidence as RET.

[citation needed]

I also don't get why the ather doesn't equalize. The ather appears to act like a fluid, one that has zero viscosity/friction. Its the pressure of a fluid, not the friction, that causes an equilibrium. The friction only causes the equilibrium to happen faster.

Why would nuclear fusion require gravity?

Nuclear fusion doesn't require gravity, it requires a force to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion force between ions. In a star, this force is the gravity from its HUGE mass. How does your sun create its energy?

I can't give details like this: I have limited resources. I wouldn't expect you to singlehandedly determine the mass and size of the Sun, or the core of the Earth, in your model, please don't make dishonest comparisons.

Amusing, as in the RE model, this is possible to many degrees of accuracy.

There are so many quotes i've missed but i just can't bring myself to quote all of them.

Please list your experimental evidence, eg. measurements.

Please try to actually read the model rather than wasting my time and constantly demanding I repeat myself.

I wouldnt say undeniable: there is simply no evidence for any FEH model. In fact, there hasnt been any coherent model of FEH ever. Yours might be, I dont know, since I cant understand it. If you want DEH to be judged on its merits, again, write a paper, present your evidence, and present it to a cathedratic in geophysics or astrophysics.

Again, the problems with that path have already been explained. You simply presuppose RET.

Gravity and intelligent falling ARE equivalent in the material claims. However, intelligent falling adds something that gravity doesnt: angels are the cause of the fall. This is a claim that could be tested if we consider angels to be material. If they are, then the model is testable, and then it is a hypothesis. If they arent (as the proposers claim), then intelligent falling is making a supernatural claim, that of course falls outside the scope of science, and therefore the proposal is invalid (although it may be right, the formulation converts it into philosophy, not science). Besides, Occam's Razor is nothing but a questionable philosophycal tool and has nothing to do with science.

Exactly: but how do you choose between gravity and intelligent falling? if the material claims are the same, what do you do beyond that?
If angels cause falling, how do you test that? It may be testable, just without the means to test it: you reject it because it is a claim based not on evidence, but on assumption. That's merely an application of Occam's Razor. Just because you're unused to hearing the term used in this context doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

This is the correct and simple way of mathematically declaring discontiniuties
Please tell me if this is correct.
 

In the specific case, that formulation can be used. There'd be too many unknowns and variables to use in this specific case, to make a general claim. My meaning I believe was clear.

[citation needed]

How exactly am I to justify experimental evidence to someone who doesn't understand what the evidence is for? This is explained in the model.

I also don't get why the ather doesn't equalize. The ather appears to act like a fluid, one that has zero viscosity/friction. Its the pressure of a fluid, not the friction, that causes an equilibrium. The friction only causes the equilibrium to happen faster.

Haven't you asked that exact question before?
How can equilibrium be reached when there is nothing to damp the movement?

Nuclear fusion doesn't require gravity, it requires a force to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion force between ions. In a star, this force is the gravity from its HUGE mass. How does your sun create its energy?

With nothing remotely close to nuclear fusion. learn the model, this was explicitly explained.

Amusing, as in the RE model, this is possible to many degrees of accuracy.

With how many people working on it, over how many years, with how much budget?
Try to make honest comparisons, this is getting tedious.

For me, there are too many contradictory, "pick the part you choose/need," and bunch of various properties thrown together of Aether. Whenever anyone asks a question, a part is chosen to answer it.

First, this approach does not work.

A) An example is the "Miller Experiment" in biology. "Primordial" atmosphere #1 is used to create Amino Acids. Atmosphere #2 is used to create Nucleic Acids. #3 & #4 are used to create Purines and Pyramidines. All of these are necessary "building blocks" of cells. Each experiment works but would require Earth to have at least 4 different atmospheres. When the atmospheres are combined, the experiment does not know the intent of the experimenter. Much easier compounds are formed and you almost get no Amino Acids, Nucleic Acids, Purines and Pyramidines (complex compounds).  An unintended result based on mixing several "ad hoc" parts together.

B) Another example is your medicine chest. Doctors prescribe medicines for specific conditions, that sort-of work - one-at-a-time. But when you take several, at the same time, the drugs can hurt or even kill you. An unintended result based on mixing several "ad hoc" parts together.

c) Same can be said for Aether, with a dozen different ad hoc properties to handle specific situations. Are all the properties mutually exclusive or do they combine? What happens when you combine/apply them all together?

Problems for me. Aether:

• is Relativity space, but it moves and goes from high to low concentrations and causes whirlpools. My understanding is that Relativity space BENDS space, not ROTATES it. I do not believe Relativity space has these additional components so I don't think it can be used as Aether's definition. Aether is something else. Relativity space is used to demonstrate AN Aether exists, not that DEF Aether exists - an ad hoc explanation of existence.
• is a non-material material (substance)?? This sounds like you want it to have properties of - anything, everything - as you need it to. It could be anything from spirit to matter as needed.
• cherry-picks properties. It goes from high to low concentrations like a material (like gas - material) but does not equalize the concentrations (unlike a gas - non-material), and then goes from low to high concentrations (unlike a gas - non-material) or it would pool or oscillate in the low concentration areas. An ad hoc explanation, somewhat but not really supported by materials/matter.
• ignores properties. Apparently it circulates regardless of concentrations. Unlike a material (being non-material??) it has no friction so it keeps moving regardless.
• is apparent sometimes and real at other times as needed. It changes how we PERCEIVE space, stretching and compressing but not actually changing the distance between objects (subjectively). But then it ACTUALLY affects the objects - "gravity" - when necessary.
  • "In this way, if we have more aether in a certain space, we have a stretch which, from an external perspective, would seem the same size as another spot, but from an internal perspective, is far longer."
  • "A note on friction: while aether would not directly have friction with the metal, it would be responsible for subtly shifting the molecules in the metal. This movement would make the metal rub against itself, creating the friction required."
  So is it apparently stretching space/matter or really doing it (friction)?
• does "vertical refraction." As pointed out several times, this is NOT normal horizontal refraction (layering). Somehow, you need a balloon to measure it vertically (layering)? Why can't you walk across a field and measure it vertically?
• it transmits light from the Sun, Moon and planets correctly to display them in the sky. Yet we don't know how big these are, where they are or how they move and face inside the Earth. If you do, please provide this information.
• somehow transmits heat to the Earth (lava,magma - very hot) that should be very hot at the poles, less so at the equator, then somehow, without burning up people at the equator (only 4000 mi away with magma under their feet), produces warmth around the planet. It doesn't melt the Moon that is "near the Sun." Is the Earth hotter at the Poles?
• has a Moon (lit by heated metal - friction, not the Sun) that does not warm the Earth as the Sun does?? "The metal is heated white-hot by friction with the aether". The Moon is "near the Sun". Why no Moon heat on the Earth?

As pointed out in the above examples (A & B), each of these properties is separate, being invoked as needed to answer a single objection. But how do ALL of its properties at once apply to the objection? Will they have unintended affects? Will they combine in ways the experimenter did not intend?

Obviously, Aether makes no sense to me.

Quote

I also don't get why the ather doesn't equalize. The ather appears to act like a fluid, one that has zero viscosity/friction. Its the pressure of a fluid, not the friction, that causes an equilibrium. The friction only causes the equilibrium to happen faster.

Haven't you asked that exact question before?
How can equilibrium be reached when there is nothing to damp the movement?

My earlier point was asking why the motion would be in a circle and not ocilating.
The movement doesn't need dampening. The net movement of particals in and out of an area just needs to be close to zero. As I said, friction is not needed to create equilibrium.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 09, 2015, 05:53:56 AM

Quote

I also don't get why the ather doesn't equalize. The ather appears to act like a fluid, one that has zero viscosity/friction. Its the pressure of a fluid, not the friction, that causes an equilibrium. The friction only causes the equilibrium to happen faster.

Haven't you asked that exact question before?
How can equilibrium be reached when there is nothing to damp the movement?

My earlier point was asking why the motion would be in a circle and not ocilating.
The movement doesn't need dampening. The net movement of particals in and out of an area just needs to be close to zero. As I said, friction is not needed to create equilibrium.

I was referring to more than just this thread.
The movement requires dampening if it is ever going to stop. We aren't dealing with particles, firstly. What is it you imagine will reduce the movement? What is acting to limit or lessen the flow of aether? If nothing, why would its behavior alter?

With nothing remotely close to nuclear fusion. learn the model, this was explicitly explained.

Oh.. this model that explains it all in trivial, undeniable terms eh?

In the center would be the largest: a spotlight-star like all the others, that shines in one direction. This light would be transmitted by the similar currents of aether to those responsible for crossing the equator, over to the tops and bottoms of the Earth. This would be the Sun.

Jrowesceptic, if this is what you deem EXPLICITLY explaining how the sun creates its energy, you are deceiving yourself. The light is transmitted by the aether, but what physical process creates the energy, and how? The quote above is speculation, not theory.

See, you can't say read the model now, because this is your model.

Well, Jrowe, since we now agree on something, could you please provide me an estimation of the value of the threshold t? A range of values, or a expected function would be fine, specially if you can put a confidence level on it. This is more or less necesary for the mathematical definition of a hypothesis (which should be done on the thesis, but I'll help since you are allergic to math), which then can be methodically tested.

Jrowesceptic, if this is what you deem EXPLICITLY explaining how the sun creates its energy, you are deceiving yourself. The light is transmitted by the aether, but what physical process creates the energy, and how? The quote above is speculation, not theory.

See, you can't say read the model now, because this is your model.

Because that isn't the explanation of how the Sun creates its energy? Why would you expect an irrelevant section to answer your question?! What the hell are you on about?!
Learn about stars in the DE model. I'm not going to waste my time on someone so openly dishonest.

Well, Jrowe, since we now agree on something, could you please provide me an estimation of the value of the threshold t? A range of values, or a expected function would be fine, specially if you can put a confidence level on it. This is more or less necesary for the mathematical definition of a hypothesis (which should be done on the thesis, but I'll help since you are allergic to math), which then can be methodically tested.

I'm fine with math, but it's hardly easy to post in this forum, and developing it often requires far more resources than I have. I've given a mathematical outline for the behavior of aether.
An exact threshold I can't give, but I've given the means to test. if you can measure, to several significant figures, the difference in gravity or vertical refraction over a set altitude, it should be possible to observe a discontinuity. Gravity should be easier to test as there would be no other meaningful alteration, save at the discontinuity. Basically, if there is any measured change, it will not happen smoothly: that can be tested without exact values, so long as the change is measured.

Quote

Jrowesceptic, if this is what you deem EXPLICITLY explaining how the sun creates its energy, you are deceiving yourself. The light is transmitted by the aether, but what physical process creates the energy, and how? The quote above is speculation, not theory.

See, you can't say read the model now, because this is your model.

Because that isn't the explanation of how the Sun creates its energy? Why would you expect an irrelevant section to answer your question?! What the hell are you on about?!
Learn about stars in the DE model. I'm not going to waste my time on someone so openly dishonest.

Wait, what? That's the part of your model where you cover the subject of the sun, isn't it? Dishonest? I think we may have had a mis-understanding here. Is the textsave the full theory? Am i missing an obvious link to a theory full of my answers?

Please let me know what part of your theory directly answers the following:

"How does the sun create its energy?"

Here's what he said about the heavens

3. The Heavens

Dust will collect in the whirlpools above the Earth, and be gathered together, following the same currents. unsurprisingly, this will result in distinct objects forming. The dust will be forced together as it repeats the same motions, creating multiple distinct objects. These are stars.
Each celestial object, whether a so-called planet or a star or moon or meteor is ultimately the same kind of entity though some, like meteors, are at a different stage of development.

They can easily be thought of as a cylinder of metal encased in rock, with just one circular face exposed. This is a simplification, but the image is easier to picture. The dust in the center is denser, metal, while that which is on the outside and which collides to join will be rock (fig 4)
The metal is heated white-hot by friction with the aether, while the rock remains dull. This provides illumination, and clearly we will observe two different sets on each side of the Earth, each rotating around the relevant pole.

A note on friction: while aether would not directly have friction with the metal, it would be responsible for subtly shifting the molecules in the metal. This movement would make the metal rub against itself, creating the friction required.

Planets certainly have a visual similarity to stars when viewed from Earth, though their location is different (covered in a moment). Meteors are formed of rock and metal that fell to the Earth, often by not forming a stable path in a whirlpool. Some are torn apart by pressures between whirlpools, others fall relatively intact (beyond the effects of friction).

A word on space travel: under DET, it is impossible. The higher you go, the thicker aether becomes, creating more and more difficulty. Rockets fail.
There is not a Flat Earth conspiracy: they merely fake space travel. It began in the cold war, for political gain, and is now perpetuated by each new company that tries not wishing to be the first to admit failure. Classical FE answers hold for many related issues, such as GPS and the ISS and satellites.

We note, also, that the necessary conditions to create stars exist inside the Earth as well. Indeed, far more dust arrives at this point, so slightly greater stars will be formed.

In the center would be the largest: a spotlight-star like all the others, that shines in one direction. This light would be transmitted by the similar currents of aether to those responsible for crossing the equator, over to the tops and bottoms of the Earth. This would be the Sun.
While this may seem counterintuitive, this is only a result of thinking in RE terms. It follows very neatly from previous established DE facts.

In this central plane would form also others. We call these the moon, and the planets. It's simple to see how most of this works. For example, the moon rotates, and so a limited fraction of its light would make it to the Earth. Similarly, as the Sun rotates with the motion of the whirlpool, it will be cut off, causing the sunset.
An eclipse would be caused, clearly, by the moon passing in front of the Sun.

We can see, as well, that the presence of the rotating metal Sun in the center of the Earth will have other effects: it will cause the Earth's magnetic field, and geothermal energy.

There you go. Pick at it if you want.

Here's what he said about the heavens

Quote

3. The Heavens

Dust will collect in the whirlpools above the Earth, and be gathered together, following the same currents. unsurprisingly, this will result in distinct objects forming. The dust will be forced together as it repeats the same motions, creating multiple distinct objects. These are stars.
Each celestial object, whether a so-called planet or a star or moon or meteor is ultimately the same kind of entity though some, like meteors, are at a different stage of development.

They can easily be thought of as a cylinder of metal encased in rock, with just one circular face exposed. This is a simplification, but the image is easier to picture. The dust in the center is denser, metal, while that which is on the outside and which collides to join will be rock (fig 4)
The metal is heated white-hot by friction with the aether, while the rock remains dull. This provides illumination, and clearly we will observe two different sets on each side of the Earth, each rotating around the relevant pole.

A note on friction: while aether would not directly have friction with the metal, it would be responsible for subtly shifting the molecules in the metal. This movement would make the metal rub against itself, creating the friction required.

Planets certainly have a visual similarity to stars when viewed from Earth, though their location is different (covered in a moment). Meteors are formed of rock and metal that fell to the Earth, often by not forming a stable path in a whirlpool. Some are torn apart by pressures between whirlpools, others fall relatively intact (beyond the effects of friction).

A word on space travel: under DET, it is impossible. The higher you go, the thicker aether becomes, creating more and more difficulty. Rockets fail.
There is not a Flat Earth conspiracy: they merely fake space travel. It began in the cold war, for political gain, and is now perpetuated by each new company that tries not wishing to be the first to admit failure. Classical FE answers hold for many related issues, such as GPS and the ISS and satellites.

We note, also, that the necessary conditions to create stars exist inside the Earth as well. Indeed, far more dust arrives at this point, so slightly greater stars will be formed.

In the center would be the largest: a spotlight-star like all the others, that shines in one direction. This light would be transmitted by the similar currents of aether to those responsible for crossing the equator, over to the tops and bottoms of the Earth. This would be the Sun.
While this may seem counterintuitive, this is only a result of thinking in RE terms. It follows very neatly from previous established DE facts.

In this central plane would form also others. We call these the moon, and the planets. It's simple to see how most of this works. For example, the moon rotates, and so a limited fraction of its light would make it to the Earth. Similarly, as the Sun rotates with the motion of the whirlpool, it will be cut off, causing the sunset.
An eclipse would be caused, clearly, by the moon passing in front of the Sun.

We can see, as well, that the presence of the rotating metal Sun in the center of the Earth will have other effects: it will cause the Earth's magnetic field, and geothermal energy.

There you go. Pick at it if you want.

I quoted that exact text. Where in there does it explain how the sun creates its energy? It says it illuminates due to friction from aether? That is vague at best. This also does not account for the  (near) perfect black body radiation emitted by the sun that is measured on earth and by satellites. If the light from the sun was caused by glowing material it would not emit black body radiation.
ALSO, the fact that spectral lines in the sun's rays show the presence of very large quantities of hydrogen and helium, not rock.

Wait, what? That's the part of your model where you cover the subject of the sun, isn't it? Dishonest?

Yes, it covers some of the facts of the Sun. It has nothing to do with what the Sun is.

Where in there does it explain how the sun creates its energy? It says it illuminates due to friction from aether? That is vague at best.

How the fuck is that vague?! It's an explicit answer. if you're not going to ignore an answer when it's presented because you refuse to admit to not even trying to read the model, you're a waste of time.

If the light from the sun was caused by glowing material it would not emit black body radiation.

Which is just simply wrong. Even objects lit by conventional means produce black body radiation.

ALSO, the fact that spectral lines in the sun's rays show the presence of very large quantities of hydrogen and helium, not rock.

So, there's no hydrogen or helium between the source of these measurements, and the Sun?

How the fuck is that vague?! It's an explicit answer. if you're not going to ignore an answer when it's presented because you refuse to admit to not even trying to read the model, you're a waste of time.

I quoted your text and talked about it.. How could i not have read it? Reading and understanding are not the same thing. You're rather hard to have a discussion with man. And saying that the aether causes the sun to glow doesn't really make much sense to me. Why does the aether transmit a frictional force if it isn't a physical mass? On what basis do you assume that friction occurs?

So, there's no hydrogen or helium between the source of these measurements, and the Sun?

Why would there be?

Also, if you tell me to read your model one more time i'll lose it. I've read the model, and i am questioning the parts that don't make sense to ME. If someone says "i don't understand this book" the first thing you say is NOT "read the book again".

Quote

How the fuck is that vague?! It's an explicit answer. if you're not going to ignore an answer when it's presented because you refuse to admit to not even trying to read the model, you're a waste of time.

I quoted your text and talked about it.. How could i not have read it? Reading and understanding are not the same thing. You're rather hard to have a discussion with man. And saying that the aether causes the sun to glow doesn't really make much sense to me. Why does the aether transmit a frictional force if it isn't a physical mass? On what basis do you assume that friction occurs?

Also explicitly answered in the text. You clearly have not read it as you persist in whining about things already explicitly answered, I don't know why you're lying but it's verifiable to everyone. So no denying it, if you have any honesty in you whatsoever. If you don't understand it, how about saying what you don't understand? Otherwise I'll just be repeating myself and it won't achieve anything.

Quote

So, there's no hydrogen or helium between the source of these measurements, and the Sun?

Why would there be?

Hmm, I wonder. Are you breathing at all?

Also, if you tell me to read your model one more time i'll lose it. I've read the model, and i am questioning the parts that don't make sense to ME. If someone says "i don't understand this book" the first thing you say is NOT "read the book again".

It is if they refuse to actually explain what they don't understand. As it stands you're just demanding I repeat myself. If you have indeed read the model, you would have seen answers explicitly addressed to your questions. if you don't understand them, the obvious thing to do would be to say why, rather than expecting me to guess.
As you're just claiming the questions aren't answered, what do you expect me to conclude beyond "You didn't even read it." Grow up. I'm calling you on your bullshit, deal with it. You can either keep or denying, or you can have an actual discussion. let's see.

Do you understand that measuring the derivative of gravity will be noisy as hell, right? The measure we are looking for is, instead, the delta. Measuring the potential at several diferent points in altitude, filter noise, and average them out to get the m/s^2 per metre. If the discontinuity is, as you seem to say, spatial, then we can aproximate the range via bisection.

Do you understand that measuring the derivative of gravity will be noisy as hell, right? The measure we are looking for is, instead, the delta. Measuring the potential at several diferent points in altitude, filter noise, and average them out to get the m/s^2 per metre. If the discontinuity is, as you seem to say, spatial, then we can aproximate the range via bisection.

Gravity is just one example, though it would be easier: refraction would increase as you look through more air (and so increase with altitude), in addition to the effect of aether.
There will be noise in any scientific experiment. Also handy would be repetitions, to average out noise. With an average of the gravity at each altitude, we can plot and see if it's a smooth curve, or if there are any sudden jumps.

Quote from: Conker on December 11, 2015, 05:34:50 AM

Do you understand that measuring the derivative of gravity will be noisy as hell, right? The measure we are looking for is, instead, the delta. Measuring the potential at several diferent points in altitude, filter noise, and average them out to get the m/s^2 per metre. If the discontinuity is, as you seem to say, spatial, then we can aproximate the range via bisection.

Gravity is just one example, though it would be easier: refraction would increase as you look through more air (and so increase with altitude), in addition to the effect of aether.
There will be noise in any scientific experiment. Also handy would be repetitions, to average out noise. With an average of the gravity at each altitude, we can plot and see if it's a smooth curve, or if there are any sudden jumps.

What I meant is that measuring the derivative of gravity is possible, but unfortunate, since derivatives are usually noisier. Measuring g at various points makes more sense, which is what I suggested, and what I think you also accept.