Dual Earth Theory

  • 197 Replies
  • 15017 Views
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Dual Earth Theory
« on: November 26, 2015, 02:31:18 PM »
http://en.textsave.org/qeOb

As the poll I set up seems to show a slight edge in favor of people who'll actually take the time to learn a model before talking about it, I'll put that to the test. If you have any questions, this goes for guests too, the means to ask me are around: but please take the time to read those pages, and learn the model.
If you do not learn the model, it should not be too much to ask for you to not make claims about it
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2015, 02:39:48 PM »
Constructive feedback from a usability perspective a link from chapter 1 to chapter 2 would be nice at the bottom of the page.

Interesting so far...

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2015, 03:08:39 PM »
It was interesting, I've read it all: some questions:

However, we need to note one thing. The aether is not composed of matter: there's no friction or resistive force governing its motion, so there's nothing to slow it. Also, when a higher concentration moves to a lower, a low concentration is necessarily left in its wake. you said that things balance out and that's what we observe everywhere else. Heat and pressure and everything that moves equalises itself if you place a hot object next to
A cold object they both become the same temperature


...

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. if the moonlight and sunlight are coming from between the two disks how is the light from
The stars being transmitted and why isn't it seriously distorted by the currants in the aether?


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. why doesn't this force tear them apart? Why is it strong where there stars are but not observed anywhere else?


Planets certainly have a visual similarity to stars when viewed from Earth, though their location is different (covered in a moment).  no they don't, planets move across the sky relatively to the stars and have observable feature, topography, rings moons etc, they don't look like stars even to
The naked eye.


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. how does that explain seasons? Why doesn't the moon collide with the sun? In your diagrams if the moon is smaller than the sun how can there be total
Eclipses? Apologies if that's just a scale
Issue in your drawing.


How can the currents be taking light from between the two disks and still allow stepping across from one another, either there's a gap there or there's not, by your model there is some
Either there, perhaps moving aether has less pressure like air?


*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2015, 03:20:06 PM »
Quote
you said that things balance out and that's what we observe everywhere else. Heat and pressure and everything that moves equalises itself if you place a hot object next to
A cold object they both become the same temperature
Because of resistive forces, this is why I fully explained what happens with aether.

Quote
if the moonlight and sunlight are coming from between the two disks how is the light from
The stars being transmitted and why isn't it seriously distorted by the currants in the aether?
The stars comes from above us, why is that a problem? The only distortion would be refraction.

Quote
why doesn't this force tear them apart? Why is it strong where there stars are but not observed anywhere else?
Friction. It is stronger higher up as the model predicted: more whirlpools combine, the force is the sum of each whirlpool.

Quote
no they don't, planets move across the sky relatively to the stars and have observable feature, topography, rings moons etc, they don't look like stars even to
The naked eye.
The first stretch is explained by closeness, the second is simply false. Brighter, yes, but clear similarity.


Quote
how does that explain seasons? Why doesn't the moon collide with the sun? In your diagrams if the moon is smaller than the sun how can there be total
Eclipses? Apologies if that's just a scale
Issue in your drawing.
Seasons are just a matter of angle, it's analogous to the classical FE explanation.
Why doesn't the moon collide with the Earth? It's in the wrong orbit to.
The moon isn't that much smaller.

Quote
How can the currents be taking light from between the two disks and still allow stepping across from one another, either there's a gap there or there's not, by your model there is some
The Sun and related don't occupy all the space between the disks. Why is the gap question either/or? If you knock a hole in the wall, building a thin pillar halfway won't remove the gap.

http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2015, 03:42:32 PM »
I'll get back to you on those tomorrow. And I've got lots more questions re tides and seismic waves

There's just one thing that's keeping me awake though.

How come you can't see the edge or the dust coming up or anything abnormal at the equator. Doesn't that seem weird?

You'd think it would be noticeable unless the system has been designed to be undetectable?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2015, 03:52:47 PM »
How come you can't see the edge or the dust coming up or anything abnormal at the equator. Doesn't that seem weird?
Not at all. Light moves through space.
Dust doesn't go up from the equator mind you. Not sure where that comes from. Dust is carried along the currents which originate from there, but... Not the same thing at all.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2015, 10:37:28 PM »
This is obviously trolling.

No flat earther ever discuss this model. I wonder why that is... Yeah, they the model sucks, or that the model is an act of trolling.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2015, 10:59:32 PM »
Where is the entropy in this system. I'm afraid your Aetheric currents don't make sense.

Things flow from low to high concentrations in general yes, but that doesn't leave a vacuum or empty space or a lower concentration than was there originally. That's where your model breaks down and it's the underpinning assumption that makes your model possible.

It's as fundamental as Gravity is to re theory, Gravity basically drives all the natural processes that create planets and solar systems and operates them. The difference is our gravity is observable and experimentally observed. It gets weaker as you move outwards from its centre of influence not stronger, that has been both predicted and observed. Without gravity re model can't work, it's something so fundamental and it's noticeable wherever you are no matter what your doing.

Sorry but unless you can come up with a different explanation for what drives your aetheric currants your model is impossible in my opinion.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2015, 11:09:50 PM by Teutarch »

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2015, 05:10:19 AM »
Where is the entropy in this system. I'm afraid your Aetheric currents don't make sense.

No shit.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2015, 05:51:28 AM »
Quote
No flat earther ever discuss this model. I wonder why that is... Yeah, they the model sucks, or that the model is an act of trolling.
Amazing how all you do is assert this claim, and always back down from justifying it or ever discussing it. Sounds like fear to me.

Quote
Where is the entropy in this system.
Entropy does not decrease at any point in the model.

Quote
Things flow from low to high concentrations in general yes, but that doesn't leave a vacuum or empty space or a lower concentration than was there originally. That's where your model breaks down and it's the underpinning assumption that makes your model possible.
That's because the tangible examples you're thinking of include a resistive force. this is the point.
Think of it like this:

You have a cube: you put a divider halfway into it, perfectly splitting it into two watertight sections. You then fill the left all the way up with water, and the right a quarter of the way.
If you lift the central divider, water will equalize: high and low pressure balances out. However, if you only lift the divider a crack it will take time because water can't move at infinite speed. It's limited by its mass: the size of the gap, and the speed of its movement.
If you lift the divider all the way out however, they'll flow together far more quickly: and it will cause ripples, it won't become equalized in a snap of your fingers. There is back and forth motion, we just don't normally notice it because it's damped by the resistive forces.

Quote
The difference is our gravity is observable and experimentally observed. It gets weaker as you move outwards from its centre of influence not stronger, that has been both predicted and observed. Without gravity re model can't work, it's something so fundamental and it's noticeable wherever you are no matter what your doing.
The downwards force resulting from aether would get weaker as you get higher, that's fully predicted by the model. You'd have less whirlpools pushing down on you.
I refer you also to the final section, titled evidence. Aether is observable and experimentally observed, as much as gravity is: the fact your favor RET won't change that.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2015, 01:32:49 AM »
The same way they do on the top. It is explained very clearly in the model: the two sides mirror one another.

But it is not.

Ether pressure = terrestrial gravity on a flat earth plane

The other side in DET does not mirror the other in this respect: a much greater force of pressure would be needed to explain terrestrial gravity on the underside.

On the underside we would have at least one half trillion billion liters of water which must stay glued to the surface; moreover, we have to explain the tides (oceanic and atmospheric).

The underside needs a much greater force of pressure which is lacking in our real world.

Then, we have the problem of the setting/rising Sun in Antarctica, discussed earlier.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2015, 01:39:56 AM »
The same way they do on the top. It is explained very clearly in the model: the two sides mirror one another.

But it is not.

Ether pressure = terrestrial gravity on a flat earth plane

The other side in DET does not mirror the other in this respect: a much greater force of pressure would be needed to explain terrestrial gravity on the underside.

On the underside we would have at least one half trillion billion liters of water which must stay glued to the surface; moreover, we have to explain the tides (oceanic and atmospheric).
And that's exactly what has to be done on the top. There is no objective down direction under DET: the subjective downwards forces (caused by the currents of the aether) exists on both sides.
Sides are fairly simply defined as consequences of the whirlpool: the downwards force shifts subtly in intensity as the whirlpool goes around, pushing water down a bit more in one place, so it necessarily rises elsewhere. This would be linked to the aether that carries the image of the moon, causing the RE misunderstanding and assumption that corellation means causation.
Your objections primarily seem to step from the fact our models differe: I don't believe my model of aether is the same as yours, it's not surprising there are some variations.

Quote
The underside needs a much greater force of pressure which is lacking in our real world.
It does not. Each side has to keep similar amounts on.

Quote
Then, we have the problem of the setting/rising Sun in Antarctica, discussed earlier.
Daylight variations are explained by the simple tilting of the Sun. It will be biased towards one hemiplane at certain times.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2015, 02:17:34 AM »
Daylight variations are explained by the simple tilting of the Sun. It will be biased towards one hemiplane at certain times.
  And who tilts the Sun and why?
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2015, 02:24:40 AM »
Daylight variations are explained by the simple tilting of the Sun. It will be biased towards one hemiplane at certain times.
  And who tilts the Sun and why?
Learn the model, please, it's a simple result of the currents of aether.
Why are you asking after a person and motive?!
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2015, 05:24:49 AM »
The biggest problem with DET is the solar precession (whatever DET model is chosen, one in which continents face each other, an inverted earth kind of scenario, or one in which the Earth becomes a disk).

In DET, the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer are located on different surfaces, and yet the sun's orbit is bounded by these latitudes.

The distance between these latitudes is some 6000 km (global Piri Reis map).

We know that the precession amounts to 1.5 km/year.

In 2000 years, the westward shift of the sun will measure 3000 km.

In 4000 years, it will cover the entire space alloted for its orbit (the 6000 km mentioned above).

This is the biggest problem for any FE model, one which no one else, so far (with the exception of the theory I have proposed), has been able to tackle and solve properly.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2015, 07:08:04 AM »
In DET, the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer are located on different surfaces, and yet the sun's orbit is bounded by these latitudes.
Why would it not be? The Sun would not tilt endlessly: it it were its location would be unstable, and we wouldn't have days. The Tropics are simply where we notice it does not pass.

Quote
The biggest problem with DET is the solar precession (whatever DET model is chosen, one in which continents face each other, an inverted earth kind of scenario, or one in which the Earth becomes a disk).
It seems perfectly understandable in terms of the whirlpool which rotates the Sun.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2015, 11:27:45 AM »
Daylight variations are explained by the simple tilting of the Sun. It will be biased towards one hemiplane at certain times.
  And who tilts the Sun and why?
Learn the model, please, it's a simple result of the currents of aether.
Why are you asking after a person and motive?!
Sure, I should have asked what tilts the Sun and why. Still, if you say currents of aether then why there are even currents of aether? If you are going to say that because there are low pressure and high pressure places then I am going to ask what makes these low pressure and high pressure places. Or is there something else what makes aether move?
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2015, 12:29:22 PM »
Daylight variations are explained by the simple tilting of the Sun. It will be biased towards one hemiplane at certain times.
  And who tilts the Sun and why?
Learn the model, please, it's a simple result of the currents of aether.
Why are you asking after a person and motive?!
Sure, I should have asked what tilts the Sun and why. Still, if you say currents of aether then why there are even currents of aether? If you are going to say that because there are low pressure and high pressure places then I am going to ask what makes these low pressure and high pressure places. Or is there something else what makes aether move?
And why does the universe exist, and what caused the big bang, and why are there laws of motion and thermodynamics, and why does the universe obey and rules at all, and what makes space warp when you go at high speeds, and...
Ask why enough times the only answer you're going to get is 'because.' Learn the model.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Roundearthisfalse

  • 42
  • My name is the truth
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2015, 07:11:55 AM »
What would cause black holes then? Why are things sucked into the center of a black hole which even light cannot escape?
My personal message is a lie.
Don't be an idiot and throw away science to follow the mad ramblings of a cult.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2015, 07:38:55 AM »
What would cause black holes then? Why are things sucked into the center of a black hole which even light cannot escape?
Black holes are a purely hypothetical RE concept. Analogous systems to how the Earth was formed may present the appearance of a point where all matter is drawn towards it, however.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2015, 08:38:10 AM »
No, not a theory. Pls learn what theory means.
Earth is flat, but Jupiter is the flattest planet in our solar system.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2015, 09:45:23 AM »
No, not a theory. Pls learn what theory means.
I know what it means: a hypothesis verified by evidence, which is testable and falsifiable: but not falsified. What part of that do you believe DET fails to meet?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2015, 09:55:25 AM »
"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. "

This is just one og many, but merely an unscientfic hypothesis, based on a conspiracy, and definetly wrong.
Earth is flat, but Jupiter is the flattest planet in our solar system.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2015, 09:57:16 AM »
It's a fairytale!
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2015, 09:59:28 AM »
Quote
"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. "

This is just one og many, but merely an unscientfic hypothesis, based on a conspiracy, and definetly wrong.
It is a conclusion drawn from the rest of the model. How exactly is it unscientific? Asserting it as wrong is a waste of time, you must at least acknowledge the evidence is nowhere near as clear-cut as you suppose, you can find pages of debate on this and other forums.

Quote
It's a fairytale!
Do you have anything meaningful to add? have you, for example, learned anything about that which you are rejecting out of hand?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2015, 10:04:13 AM »
Well i read about it, no evidence for your aether, and why it gets thicker higher up. The while thing sounds made up, hence a fairytale!
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2015, 10:36:03 AM »
Well i read about it, no evidence for your aether, and why it gets thicker higher up. The while thing sounds made up, hence a fairytale!
Then you clearly did not read it. The justification for the properties of aether, and why it was logical, is covered in the very first section, and the specific evidence for it extends from the evidence for all DET, which has its own section. As for why it gets thicker, this is clearly explained by the model: higher up you have the summation of the thicknesses of the lower whirlpools, hence thicker.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2015, 10:46:29 AM »
No I just scimmed it for scientific values, noen were found. I found no scientific documentation if it, I have never even heard science speak of this phenomenon, if however you are a scientist and have researched this topic, where is the paper on the subject?
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2015, 11:38:03 AM »
No I just scimmed it for scientific values, noen were found. I found no scientific documentation if it, I have never even heard science speak of this phenomenon, if however you are a scientist and have researched this topic, where is the paper on the subject?

So, you skimmed rather than read part of the outline of the model, and concluded from a thoroughly incomplete understanding that you somehow knew enough to reject the model?
You can see the evidence. You can judge it for yourself. How about you make up your own mind rather than relying on the bias in academia?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2015, 12:08:51 PM »
It's a fairytale!

Perhaps, but remember Fairytales have happy endings (sometimes)

This rant called DE apparently has no end  ;D