Dual Earth Theory

  • 197 Replies
  • 16744 Views
*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2015, 12:11:23 PM »
I found no evidence, the article is not very scientific. You simply state a few hypotheses, in which them selves are self contradicting. Your article is not a theory, and I can understand from this, that you are not a scientist. The subject is interesting but pure speculation.
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2015, 12:26:30 PM »
I found no evidence, the article is not very scientific. You simply state a few hypotheses, in which them selves are self contradicting. Your article is not a theory, and I can understand from this, that you are not a scientist. The subject is interesting but pure speculation.

So, assertion.
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 #32 on: December 02, 2015, 01:07:00 PM »
Yes :)
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2015, 01:15:12 PM »
Yes :)
When you have justification for what you say, I'll listen. You never know, maybe you can form an informed opinion on a model after reading it, rather than guessing.
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 #34 on: December 02, 2015, 01:41:00 PM »
Yes :)
When you have justification for what you say, I'll listen. You never know, maybe you can form an informed opinion on a model after reading it, rather than guessing.

I have read a lot of it now, and the more I read, the more sure I get that you have no clue what a scientific theory means :)
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

Roundearthisfalse

  • 42
  • My name is the truth
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2015, 03:16:48 PM »
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.
Hypothetically, if there was a point that everything is drawn to what stops everything from being sucked into it? Basically the same question you ask RE'ers about Gravity. Would like your thoughts.
My personal message is a lie.
Don't be an idiot and throw away science to follow the mad ramblings of a cult.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2015, 08:52:01 PM »
THIS is the amazing duel earth theory you people are talking about? *facepalm*
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.
uhh black holes aren't just a hypothetical concept they have been indirectly observed, which I'm pretty sure puts them above "hypothetical concept" level. Remember, you are claiming that a prediction of one of Einstein's theories is wrong, and I might want to point out that his IQ was an order of magnitude higher than yours.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2015, 01:25:49 PM »
Quote
I have read a lot of it now, and the more I read, the more sure I get that you have no clue what a scientific theory means
Are you ever going to provide justification for a word you say, or are you just offering baseless insults?

Quote
Hypothetically, if there was a point that everything is drawn to what stops everything from being sucked into it? Basically the same question you ask RE'ers about Gravity. Would like your thoughts.
Learn the model. One such point exists in the Earth.
I have no idea what question you're referencing.

Quote
THIS is the amazing duel earth theory you people are talking about?
So baseless rejection and nothing intelligent to add?

Quote
uhh black holes aren't just a hypothetical concept they have been indirectly observed, which I'm pretty sure puts them above "hypothetical concept" level. Remember, you are claiming that a prediction of one of Einstein's theories is wrong, and I might want to point out that his IQ was an order of magnitude higher than yours.
The theory is not purely Einstein's, it comes based on countless things which came before. If there is a problem with those, why would there not be a problem with what follows? I saw a detailed analysis of how the wizard gene would be passed on in Harry Potter once, should I accept it just because a smart person came up with it?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2015, 11:37:51 PM »
It's not a theory
Earth is flat, but Jupiter is the flattest planet in our solar system.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2015, 11:48:47 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.
I didn't ask "why", I asked "what". If you claim that aether moves then there must be something else that makes it move. So, let your fantasy soar and think up something that can make aether move. Some fancy  term like... attractor or repulsor or something like that.
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 #40 on: December 04, 2015, 06:07:12 AM »
Quote
It's not a theory
Amazing how REers keep spamming with insults like that. how long is it going to be before I can expect a justification?

Quote
I didn't ask "why", I asked "what".
Semantics. Why does the universe exist/what caused the big bang. Same thing, ultimately.

Quote
If you claim that aether moves then there must be something else that makes it move. So, let your fantasy soar and think up something that can make aether move. Some fancy  term like... attractor or repulsor or something like that.
I have explained the law. Your question is, by your own admission, what causes the low pressure spot within the earth, which is all the theory is based on. I don't know: what caused the matter at the big bang and what made it go boom? Origin questions are meaningless. Could you please try to address my response rather than wasting time repeating the same absurd question?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2015, 06:36:44 AM »

Quote
If you claim that aether moves then there must be something else that makes it move. So, let your fantasy soar and think up something that can make aether move. Some fancy  term like... attractor or repulsor or something like that.
I have explained the law. Your question is, by your own admission, what causes the low pressure spot within the earth, which is all the theory is based on. I don't know: what caused the matter at the big bang and what made it go boom? Origin questions are meaningless. Could you please try to address my response rather than wasting time repeating the same absurd question?

Actually a more interesting question - and one you haven't been able to answer satisfactorily is why it hasn't all equalled out - the second law of thermodynamics is violated by your model.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2015, 07:14:12 AM »

Quote
If you claim that aether moves then there must be something else that makes it move. So, let your fantasy soar and think up something that can make aether move. Some fancy  term like... attractor or repulsor or something like that.
I have explained the law. Your question is, by your own admission, what causes the low pressure spot within the earth, which is all the theory is based on. I don't know: what caused the matter at the big bang and what made it go boom? Origin questions are meaningless. Could you please try to address my response rather than wasting time repeating the same absurd question?
  Its not absurd question and its not origin question. You claim that aether moves and that means that somehow low pressure points are occurring right now. I don't ask you to explain how aether come to exist or how it all began but I want something for current situation. And current situation is that aether moves somehow and you fail to explain totally why it moves/what makes it 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 #43 on: December 04, 2015, 08:45:13 AM »
Quote
Actually a more interesting question - and one you haven't been able to answer satisfactorily is why it hasn't all equalled out - the second law of thermodynamics is violated by your model.
I've answered it. The fact you're not satisfied is your problem, not mine. The second law isn't violated: the second law says entropy will not decrease, not that it will always incease.

Quote
  Its not absurd question and its not origin question. You claim that aether moves and that means that somehow low pressure points are occurring right now. I don't ask you to explain how aether come to exist or how it all began but I want something for current situation. And current situation is that aether moves somehow and you fail to explain totally why it moves/what makes it move.
I have explained what makes it move: the universal law that states things go from high concentrations to low. Please either learn the model or READ WHAT I AM SAYING. You explicitly said your question would then be what causes the low concentration: that question is analogous to "What caused the matter at the big bang?" It's an origin question, and remains ridiculous.

Can you please actually read what I'm saying rather than repeating the same old nonsense?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2015, 11:10:59 AM »
Quote
It's not a theory
Amazing how REers keep spamming with insults like that. how long is it going to be before I can expect a justification?


Not long if you publish some actual science
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 11:15:21 AM by Kogelblitz »
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 #45 on: December 04, 2015, 12:05:23 PM »
Not long if you publish some actual science
The science is given. Why is it so hard to get REers to actually respond?!
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 #46 on: December 04, 2015, 02:21:35 PM »
I must agree with the Black Hole formed from pure energy on this one. There is NOTHING scientific about your essay. So as you say, the science is given: false. The science fiction may be given but, I personally like star wars better.
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2015, 03:54:59 PM »
Quote
It's not a theory
Amazing how REers keep spamming with insults like that. how long is it going to be before I can expect a justification?


Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You cussed at pretty much everybody here including me and I never said or typed a cuss word in my life.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2015, 04:37:36 AM »
Quote
I must agree with the Black Hole formed from pure energy on this one. There is NOTHING scientific about your essay. So as you say, the science is given: false. The science fiction may be given but, I personally like star wars better.

WHY IS IT LIKE PULLING TEETH TO GET A SINGLE ONE OF YOU TO JUSTIFY A SINGLE CLAIM YOU MAKE?!

Quote
Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You cussed at pretty much everybody here including me and I never said or typed a cuss word in my life.
I don't give a fuck about whatever petty detail is fuelling your ego-trip today. if you're secure in your model, WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANY HONEST DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER?!
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2015, 07:02:45 PM »
Quote
I must agree with the Black Hole formed from pure energy on this one. There is NOTHING scientific about your essay. So as you say, the science is given: false. The science fiction may be given but, I personally like star wars better.

WHY IS IT LIKE PULLING TEETH TO GET A SINGLE ONE OF YOU TO JUSTIFY A SINGLE CLAIM YOU MAKE?!

Quote
Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You cussed at pretty much everybody here including me and I never said or typed a cuss word in my life.
I don't give a fuck about whatever petty detail is fuelling your ego-trip today. if you're secure in your model, WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANY HONEST DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER?!

Ok simple question: what specific evidence you have that makes DET better than the round earth?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #50 on: December 06, 2015, 08:47:35 AM »
Quote
I must agree with the Black Hole formed from pure energy on this one. There is NOTHING scientific about your essay. So as you say, the science is given: false. The science fiction may be given but, I personally like star wars better.

WHY IS IT LIKE PULLING TEETH TO GET A SINGLE ONE OF YOU TO JUSTIFY A SINGLE CLAIM YOU MAKE?!

Quote
Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You cussed at pretty much everybody here including me and I never said or typed a cuss word in my life.
I don't give a fuck about whatever petty detail is fuelling your ego-trip today. if you're secure in your model, WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANY HONEST DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER?!

Ok simple question: what specific evidence you have that makes DET better than the round earth?

I am not going to repeat myself. Read the model. It's given. if you have an objection to what is stated there, tell me, rather than expecting me to guess.
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 #51 on: December 06, 2015, 08:54:36 AM »
THIS is the amazing duel earth theory you people are talking about? *facepalm*
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.

You know, MET explained this with mind blowing accuracy, beautiful yet simple mathematical equations.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2015, 08:57:01 AM by sircool »
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #52 on: December 06, 2015, 08:56:48 AM »
THIS is the amazing duel earth theory you people are talking about? *facepalm*
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.
uhh black holes aren't just a hypothetical concept they have been indirectly observed, which I'm pretty sure puts them above "hypothetical concept" level. Remember, you are claiming that a prediction of one of Einstein's theories is wrong, and I might want to point out that his IQ was an order of magnitude higher than yours.

You know, MET explained this with mind blowing accuracy, beautiful yet simple mathematical equations.

And yet I'm still waiting for a SINGLE justification of any of your claims against DET. Instead of evidence or logic you provide straw men, insults, and parody. That really says it all.

If you can't manage a single honest argument, maybe the problem isn't with DET. Ever think of that?
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 #53 on: December 06, 2015, 09:08:09 AM »
THIS is the amazing duel earth theory you people are talking about? *facepalm*
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.
uhh black holes aren't just a hypothetical concept they have been indirectly observed, which I'm pretty sure puts them above "hypothetical concept" level. Remember, you are claiming that a prediction of one of Einstein's theories is wrong, and I might want to point out that his IQ was an order of magnitude higher than yours.

You know, MET explained this with mind blowing accuracy, beautiful yet simple mathematical equations.

And yet I'm still waiting for a SINGLE justification of any of your claims against DET. Instead of evidence or logic you provide straw men, insults, and parody. That really says it all.

If you can't manage a single honest argument, maybe the problem isn't with DET. Ever think of that?

Yes, often. You see, my arguments are based on my knowledge in science. Maybe you are the one getting insulted by the wrong reasons, ever think of that? I have never intentionally attacked you as an individual. I simply feel that it is in my right to protect science from pseudo and ad hoc ways of thinking, there's too much confusion, and I can not get any relief.
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #54 on: December 06, 2015, 10:49:48 AM »
Quote
I must agree with the Black Hole formed from pure energy on this one. There is NOTHING scientific about your essay. So as you say, the science is given: false. The science fiction may be given but, I personally like star wars better.

WHY IS IT LIKE PULLING TEETH TO GET A SINGLE ONE OF YOU TO JUSTIFY A SINGLE CLAIM YOU MAKE?!

Quote
Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You cussed at pretty much everybody here including me and I never said or typed a cuss word in my life.
I don't give a fuck about whatever petty detail is fuelling your ego-trip today. if you're secure in your model, WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANY HONEST DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER?!

Ok simple question: what specific evidence you have that makes DET better than the round earth?

I am not going to repeat myself. Read the model. It's given. if you have an objection to what is stated there, tell me, rather than expecting me to guess.
All the model said was observation proves DET. It didnt went into what experiments have been done or can be done to prove it. And like a poster above me I'm not attacking anyone personally, I'm attacking the argument like a good debater would.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #55 on: December 07, 2015, 04:24:57 AM »
Quote
DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
DET predictions are wrong. At higher altitudes the density of air/atmosphere goes down, so does the refractive index.

Why the discontinuity and why it is unexplainable over RET?

Besides from what I read you are doing a lot of hand-waving. There are also few things that do no make any sense.

For instance:
Quote
The Earth is, as the theory's name suggests, a pair of discs. The rim is the equator: which sounds odd, until you remember the aether. There is no distance from the top right hand side of the Earth (viewed from any outside point), and the bottom left: to cross from one to the other, there is such a low concentration within the Earth that it would, subjectively, feel as though no distance is crossed (fig 2).
Direction is not lost. At the equator, you move as aether does, neatly connecting each side as a result of how the Earth was made.
1. With such a low concentration the equator should attract aether by, univerasal law.
2. When viewing the equator directly from above the quator, why do not we see both discs at an agle but a single plane?
3. How can you move from one side to the other (Fig2), which is thousands of km, without feeling that? That looks like a "teleportation". How do you avoid the Sun?
4. Since the equator looks like to be the escaping place for the aether, why acceleration works there? And how in fact the aether escapes through a place with so small concentration?

And other things:
5. Why the Sun and all other bodies stay inside even though the concentration of aether is low there, aehter flow goes inside and then blows away outside of the Earth discs? Aether's current will not influence them even though it causes things to accelerate towards the Earth's surface?
6. Why this is possible:
Quote
The metal is heated white-hot by friction with the aether, while the rock remains dull.
but we do not feel any friction of the aether passing through us or the Earth's surface? There is plently of metal inside us or things we built.

These 6 questions are a good start.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #56 on: December 07, 2015, 06:35:48 AM »
Quote
Yes, often. You see, my arguments are based on my knowledge in science. Maybe you are the one getting insulted by the wrong reasons, ever think of that? I have never intentionally attacked you as an individual. I simply feel that it is in my right to protect science from pseudo and ad hoc ways of thinking, there's too much confusion, and I can not get any relief.
And yet you NEVER offer the SLIGHTEST FUCKING THING to justify your claims, you justc oming in acting like an arrogant penguin and whine that people dare to disagree with you. Grow up.

Quote
All the model said was observation proves DET. It didnt went into what experiments have been done or can be done to prove it.
An outright lie. Once again, LEARN THE MODEL. DO you think you won't get called out on your dishonesty?

Quote
DET predictions are wrong. At higher altitudes the density of air/atmosphere goes down, so does the refractive index.
Do you not understand the meaning of the word 'vertical?'
Quote
Why the discontinuity and why it is unexplainable over RET?
Learn the model, and learn you're model. RET does not include discontinuities increasing with altitude.

Quote
With such a low concentration the equator should attract aether by, univerasal law.
As it does. Learn the model, fuckwit.

Quote
When viewing the equator directly from above the quator, why do not we see both discs at an agle but a single plane?
Because light moves through space. learn the model.

Quote
How can you move from one side to the other (Fig2), which is thousands of km, without feeling that? That looks like a "teleportation". How do you avoid the Sun?
Because it is not thousands of km, there is no distance. WHY DO YOU KEEP WASTING MY TIME WITH THESE TRIVIALITIES? IF YOU WANT THE ANSWERS THEN LEARN THE FUCKING MODEL YOU TREMENDOUS penguin, I AM SICK OF DEALING WITH YOUR BULLSHIT

Quote
Since the equator looks like to be the escaping place for the aether, why acceleration works there? And how in fact the aether escapes through a place with so small concentration?
That doesn't even remotely make sense.

Quote
Why the Sun and all other bodies stay inside even though the concentration of aether is low there, aehter flow goes inside and then blows away outside of the Earth discs? Aether's current will not influence them even though it causes things to accelerate towards the Earth's surface?
Forces balance.

Quote
Why this is possible:
Don't know what world you live on, but I definitely do feel friction: there's just more aether up there.

HOW ABOUT YOU TAKE THE TIME TO ACTUALLY LEARN THE SLIGHTEST THING ABOUT WHAT YOU WHINE ABOUT RATHER THAN SKIM TWO OR THREE SENTENCES AND IGNORE EVERY WORD OF CONTEXT AND REFUSE TO PUT ANY THOUGHT INTO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AT ALL?!
You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. I am happy to explain DET when you do more than whine about what's been covered in detail already. LEARN THE FUCKING MODEL OR FUCK OFF.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #57 on: December 07, 2015, 08:32:28 AM »
Quote
4. Evidence

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.

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.

This doesn't mean much. Given enough time, any model could come up with explanations for everything. This is why we have Occam's Razor: to sort between two possible models, both explaining equal amounts, the question is which has more assumptions.

Recall your experience reading these pages. All of DET falls into place from our definition of aether; so excluding assumptions shared between models (such as the origin of matter) the only one under DET is the idea of aether forming concentrations and travelling from high to low. Now, both of these are logical: deduced in the same way we may deduce any law.
To compare this to RET however, we need only look at the most obvious aspect not shared between them: gravity. The RE model of gravity is an unexplained property of mass bending space, and an unexplained consequence of this bending.
At the very least, the two models are equal: but note also how reasonable the DE assumptions are. Bith have some evidence behind them, while the RE model relies on hope.

It is simple hypocrisy to say this is not enough. You are more than welcome to provide an example of evidence which you believe does not match the definition given above: and if you cannot, you must concede that this definition holds, and therefore what follows from it is true.

Occam's Razor favors DET over RET.

That should be enough. 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.
DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
If you have the means to measure refraction accurate, and can see a change over several significant figures with altitude, as a result of that means, then please let me know. Simply increasing in altitude (thanks to, for example, a balloon) while measuring will allow us to see whether this change is continuous, or not, and could provide the final proof of DET.

I've done everybody a favor and copied and pasted the evidence section of your model OP. now we can see for ourselves of what we're talking about.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 08:34:47 AM by Luke 22:35-38 »
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #58 on: December 07, 2015, 08:38:35 AM »
Quote
1. Aether

Aether is space; by which I mean, the fabric of space (which I'll define properly later). I use the term aether because it is more well-known in FET (albeit with a different definition), and it tends to make phrasing clearer, once the definition's understood. Outer space, for example, is called space: which can be misleading. In addition, I could refer to 'more aether in a certain space', in which case 'space' is meant colloquially: from an external perspective, how it might seem.

Anyway, to properly define, aether is the fabric of space: it is the dimension that is how we define distance. More aether means more distance: less aether, less distance. 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 useful analogy is a spring. If you travel along the coils themselves then, no matter what, it's the same distance from A to B. However, the spring can be stretched out, or condensed: that set distance can get you from one place to another, when another route might take several compressed springs to do the same journey.

That's the basic definition. All that we have done so far is make a definition; none of this requires evidence. You could call it anything, all I do is choose an easier word.

We can tell that aether exists as an actual something: even RET accepts this. Relativity forms one example, where space is viewed as a fabric, not a mere direction.

It's trivial to note that this exists in concentrations: next to nothing is a binary in reality (even things like "Does it exist or not?" get murky at the quantum level). Even REers acknowledge there is such a thing as no space (ie: it began to exist): it follows there is a difference between the existence of space, and the non-existence of space. It's simple to then conclude there is a difference in the amount of aether that exists at various points. If that is unconvincing, mark it as an assumption: all theories are based on some (such as the definition if gravity relying on an assumption about mass, and the consequences of bent space).
It's also simple to note that, as we exist in (sort of on, terminology's confusing) aether, when aether moves, we will move with it.

All this is fairly easy to deduce, even if it seems a useless hypothetical. We'll get onto what the means for the shape of the world on the next page. 

The last thing is one of the most important. We observe a universal tendency in the world: we see it in pressure, diffusion... Things move from areas of high concentrations, to low. If you blow up a balloon, the slightly compressed air (a high concentration) within the balloon will rush out, to the lower concentration around us. As this behavior appears universal, we may assume that the same holds for the aether: that if a high concentration and low concentration of aether are adjacent, they will begin to even themselves out, much of the high moving to the low.
The reason this is a fair thing to do is used at a fair few places in science. Take the Laws of Thermodynamics: clearly, they have not been tested for all places, at all times, with all things. However, we're all very happy to conclude that in a closed system, net entropy never decreases.

I've also copied and paste your first  point about Aether. Don't know why nobody thought of this before. Now you can see for yourself what we're talking about.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #59 on: December 07, 2015, 09:43:47 AM »
Extracts:
 "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. "

"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. "

Assumptions:
Now I would say Newtons laws of motion represents what you call RET, and we normal people call science. As I have interpreted your claim, is to say that all space travel is impossible.

Experiment:
Let me construct an experiment that will match your hypothesis, and if not, then it must be rejected and never become a theory.

Construct a rocket that can reach orbital speed(Calculus/newton), get rocket to upper atmosphere to reduce friction, accelerate to orbit.

Predictions:
Newton predicted that rocket will stay in orbit until speed is reduced. You predict that the rocket will never reach upper atmosphere. Newton will also give you the exact time.

Observation:
Look up into the sky, use binoculars and you will ser satellites and the ISS. These observations would be impossible on the parameters of your hypothesis.

Conclude?
We know of course space travel is happening as we speak and has been happening for many decades. Your hypothesis is rejected.
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science