The logic behind the DET model

This may be a silly question, but how do we actually know the outsides of the hemidisks ARE flat?

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 20, 2015, 06:10:30 PM

This may be a silly question, but how do we actually know the outsides of the hemidisks ARE flat?

JRoeskepic has you blocked so I'll re-ask the question.

How do we know the edges of the hemidiscs are flat? Why can't they be round?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 20, 2015, 06:16:10 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 20, 2015, 06:10:30 PM

This may be a silly question, but how do we actually know the outsides of the hemidisks ARE flat?

JRoeskepic has you blocked so I'll re-ask the question.

How do we know the edges of the hemidiscs are flat? Why can't they be round?

That doesn't make sense. What are you talking about?! The edges are a curved circle.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 05:01:54 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 20, 2015, 06:16:10 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 20, 2015, 06:10:30 PM

This may be a silly question, but how do we actually know the outsides of the hemidisks ARE flat?

JRoeskepic has you blocked so I'll re-ask the question.

How do we know the edges of the hemidiscs are flat? Why can't they be round?

That doesn't make sense. What are you talking about?! The edges are a curved circle.

How do orbiting GPS satellites move between the hemispheres and how do measured distances on a flat plane fit in with measured ones showing a round earth?

I don't see any physical evidence to prove your DET.

If you wish to get peer review, then you will need LOTS of evidence to support your claims.

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on December 21, 2015, 06:04:01 AM

I have read your entire DET, and you have no evidence to support your claims.

Well, there is an entire section literally titled evidence, so... Do you feel able to address any of it, or are you just going to ignore it?

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on December 21, 2015, 07:04:12 AM

I don't see any physical evidence to prove your DET.

If you wish to get peer review, then you will need LOTS of evidence to support your claims.

This is getting tedious.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 06:23:56 AM

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on December 21, 2015, 06:04:01 AM

I have read your entire DET, and you have no evidence to support your claims.

Well, there is an entire section literally titled evidence, so... Do you feel able to address any of it, or are you just going to ignore it?

Quote

.... logically deduced ...

This is the major flaw of Dual Earth Fantasy. Every part of your model is "logically deduced" and no other evidence is ever given. This means that your model is not a "theory" but rather a fantasy, or a hypothesis at the best.

This may be a silly question, but how do we actually know the outsides of the hemidisks ARE flat?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 20, 2015, 06:16:10 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 20, 2015, 06:10:30 PM

This may be a silly question, but how do we actually know the outsides of the hemidisks ARE flat?

JRoeskepic has you blocked so I'll re-ask the question.

How do we know the edges of the hemidiscs are flat? Why can't they be round?

That doesn't make sense. What are you talking about?! The edges are a curved circle.

We ask for solid scientific evidence to prove your claims, and each time you can't deliver....

According to your sketches the sides are flat like hockey pucks. Why can't they be round sorta like a frisbee?

What altitude are the whirlpools at? the lowest and the highest.
In your model, how far away is let's say.... Jupiter, and earths moon in relation to earth?

Are they all rotating in the same directions?

How come light isn't distorted by this, and the view is always the same. - the planets move predictably in what appear to be orbits.

How can we be seing the planets and the stars at the same time if they are in the same place.

Why don't the whirlpools extend to the ground?

How do they explain seasons? the fact that the sun gets higher or lower in the sky as do the stars

Also, can you explain star formation in greater detail....

There is no logic behind DE model, that's why not even the dumbest FE believer can even consider it as a serious thing. It's just gibberish Jrowe came up with to troll stupid people.

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on December 21, 2015, 12:32:37 PM

There is no logic behind DE model, that's why not even the dumbest FE believer can even consider it as a serious thing. It's just gibberish Jrowe came up with to troll stupid people.

And still no actual argument or justification from you.

Quote from: eggyk on December 20, 2015, 08:16:54 AM

JRowe, you were asked on your forum why you didn't want to do youtube videos. This is why you should.
Upon looking and staring at your model, it is clear that you do actually explain the entire process he was asking for. However it is not clear in the slightest. Your figures are not particularly clear, and animations or simple images showing this exact process (of making stars with whirlpools) would make it way easier to understand.

You also said that text tends to be easier to reread and understand, but the opposite is true. A picture holds 1000 words, as they say. You could explain in text the whole of the theory of electromagnetism, but a simple diagram here and there would explain things far more easily.

Here are some things i think would greatly benefit from visual demonstration:

1) The process of dust becoming the earth
2) The detailed flows of aether within the earth (a bit like fig 1 except with both disks and the sun)
3) The process of the creation of stars, including the supposed flows of aether before formation
4) Visual representation of your supposed refraction experiment

This would probably remove 90% of the confusion from people.

Thank you for a post with some substance to it.

I am working on a rewrite of the model. Typically any youtube video would contain almost the exact same content, whether it's text or audio based. For this sort of explanation, written text outside of a video is preferred, for rereading.
What you seem to be proposing is more focus on diagrams or animations, and I can certainly see the advantages of animations in particular, but I'm limited by my own software and capabilities. Further, they can still be inserted into forum posts.
A slideshow of sorts may be possible, without smooth animation, just blocky transitions from one state to the next: though again, I'm still limited by my own capabilities. As you pointed out, the diagrams that currently exist are far from professional.

As it stands, I hope my rewritten model will alleviate some confusion.

How far away is the Sun in your DET?

How does red shift and blue shift fit your model?

We become justified as soon as someone DOES read it...

I don't know if you've been on youtube lately, but you can re-watch videos. Let it be known that although the videos may have the same content, it may be leanred and retained better for many people. People generally all have different ways of learning.

To be  honest, any diagrams, rewrites, and animations of all sorts are welcome.

Please let me know when this rewrite is released so i can read it.

There's no logic on DET because its gibberish made up to troll forum users. It's supposed to be stupid so people waste time posting about that abomination - like I just did. We would be better off ignoring all DET-related bullshit

Occam's Razor - Viewing the Moon.

With the Earth at a 23.5° axis tilt and the Moon having a 5° orbital tilt, the Moon can appear up to 28.5° N/S latitude (however DEF explains it - BTW, please do explain it in detail - angles within the Earth and Aether concentrations/properties needed to see the Moon 28.5° up - BTW, the Moon rotates and revolves/orbits(?) somehow around the Sun?)

Look at the combined pic below - outer topmost ring, right dot as the Moon. Observers are like the 2nd pic.

So, imagining a person on the N.hemidisk a few feet north of the equator looking at the Moon due north of them at maximum elogation ~28°. The light, per the DEF model, travels from the Moon inside the Earth somewhere "near the Sun," goes to the edge, swings around into the sky ~118° until it is ~62° up (facing north) for the observer who is perpendicular to the equator, then ~180° to the eye of the observer.

Now imagining another person on the S.hemidisk a few feet south of the equator looking at the Moon due north of them at the same time ~28° elogation. The light per the DEF model, travels from the Moon inside the Earth somewhere "near the Sun," goes to the edge, swings around into the sky ~118° until it is ~62° up (facing north) for the observer who is perpendicular to the equator, then ~180° past the first observer, bends ~152° around the edge of the equator, passes through the Earth bypassing the Aether pocket where the Moon is, bends another ~118° until it is ~62° (facing north) up then ~90° to the eye of the second observer.

**Hell, I don't even know if these angles are correct. What is confusing is an observer can look ~62° up north and south at different parts of the sky. YOU try to figure out the angles.  Try to explain this to a child.

Per DEF - Moon shining light:

Per DEF - light travelling through the Earth:

Per DEF - combined:


Or per RET/heliocentric model, the Moon is in orbit around the Earth and people look straight at it. Try to explain this to a child.

Per RET/heliocentric model - Moon orbit and viewing from Earth:


Which is simpler?

Occam's Razor... DEF preferred over RET/heliocentric... right...

Per:




What is not clearly explained to me is... Take the person on the top hemidisk on the right (1st pic). Let him go north a couple miles. When he looks directly up, he basically still sees the stars above the equator somehow. When he looks just north of straight up, the Aether shows the stars north of him without going through the Earth. When he looks just south of straight up, Aether knowing where he is, bends light through the Earth to the other side. *I* don't get how Aether knows this.

Please tell me Jadyyn's not still whining about the DE model. He knows he's blocked, after countless time-wasting rants, and yet he persists in addressing arguments to someone who can't see his posts. Spectacular dishonesty, by all accounts.
Plus there's a forum where he could go if he was actually interested in answers. Of course, he's not: he's interested in mounting a dishonest argument against a model, and convicning people not to actually spend time educating themselves and making up their own minds. I bet even several REers could pinpoint the flaws, if they read the model. That's the only reason for this kind of dishonest set-up I can see: whinging when he knows there can't be a response.

He really is just childish. "Pay attention to me! Waa! Waaa!"

Listen, if you know the truth behind your DET, why do you care so much about what anybody else thinks?

But, if you wish to sell or promote your DET to others, then expect the need to answer questions....

There's a reason he's blocked. How about you learn the model before demanding I waste my time? From where I'm sitting, all I can see is more of his typical timewasting and "You don't have infinite time and money and resources, therefore you're wrong!" Plus a hefty dose of lies, completely bastardizing Occam's Razor, mocking without substance, and inexplicably thinking aether is sentient rather than following simple and established rules that have been given countless times.
Andromeda, make your own arguments rather than parroting someone as pathetic as Jadyyn. Maybe even read the model first, and explain what the issue is rather than "It doesn't work! Waaa!" with no explanation or clarification whatsoever. He's wasting time, that's all. half the questions are incoherent, and the rest are explicitly answered in the model. of course, that would require him to actually learn what it is he's talking about, which he's incapable of.

Quote

Listen, if you know the truth behind your DET, why do you care so much about what anybody else thinks?

I care because I want people to make up their own minds, rather than have them made up for them by an arrogant, timewasting troll.

Quote

But, if you wish to sell or promote your DET to others, then expect the need to answer questions....

I'm happy to answer questions. Inexplicable rants that are either blatant straw men, addressed by the model, or too incoherent for any kind of response to be formulated are not questions, they're timewasting.