First I do NOT accept the "so called" non elliptical orbits of these satellites. They do not exist because they are not possible with regards to the flat earth.
Ok this is quite fascinating. You claim [quite strongly] that you do not accept the non elliptical orbits
on the basis that they are simply
"not possible with regards to the flat earth". Did you know that this is the definition of arguing from Ideology? More specifically, this is a form of epistemological fallacy (one of the more interesting types I'll admit). What you're doing here is setting your perspective on the basis of a presupposition (more on these soon.), and you are editing which
observations you admit to being real
on the basis of that presupposition. What's important here is that your position stems from
prioritising the
ideological stance, the concept,
over the
observational evidence. You have it backwards. Where, in logical argument, observational evidence
instructs concept. The proposition is made, thus the conclusion [that the proposition is true]
follows from the
assertions substantiating the proposition. You see how that works?
You err here by turning this on it's head. You make an ideological stance (concept), and your assertion is that observation X (substantive form) is
non existent on the basis of it's incompatibility with the concept. In laymen terms, you are saying "I reject the claim that this
observation is real on the basis of my
belief." Where basic rationality follows such that "evidence X logically concludes concept Y (It's actually a bit more complicated than this, see [1])". The important thing here is to note the ordering of the stages. This type of claim in question though, is opposed to basic rationality. I hope you can understand why. A good example here is when scientists are found to have done this, it is universally accepted that their conclusion is false as the process of reasoning they have used is fallacious. Regardless of the context being argued, this form of argument is by definition
invalid due to the basic necessities, prerequisite to validity, in an argument's structure. Food for thought.
If you wish to understand this concept more deeply I do implore you to read [1].
Each of us start with a pre-supposition. When you start with the "earth is a spinning ball" [...]
You seem to keep making this reference to the significance that we begin our stances with a presupposition. I mentioned before that the claim that the Earth is round is not a presupposition. Though you don't agree with this, I presume this is down to a misunderstanding of the word, so lets break some stuff down.
First lets look at the definition of presupposition:
- "a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse." [2]
there are a couple of important terms in here that I'll break down further:
- suggested though not directly expressed.
- always to be found in; essentially connected with.
- a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
So a
presupposition is a
belief essentially connected with a concept though not directly expressed and that is accepted as true without proof..
Where:
proof is:
sufficient evidence or a [sufficient] argument for the truth of a proposition.And
Truth is:
being in accord with fact or reality.Where,
Fact is: something that has really occurred or is actually the case, verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement.
And
Reality is: the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.
The important distinction here is the concept of a presupposition as a claim without proof, where
proof is reliant upon truth and
truth is reliant upon
facts derived from measuring and defining observations in
reality. Following? Good.
So lets analyze the claim that the
"the Earth is Round" under these criteria. This claim is a
justified true belief (see[1] for further definition of this point) as a component of
knowledge derived from
proven facts, in turn
derived from things that are
actually the case as verified by
repeatable careful
observation and
measurement.
Let me simplify this. The concept of the Earth being round, is
based upon observations, measurements of reality. From which, the
conclusion that the Earth is round is the
rational inference therein, due to the soundness in the application of established, proven facts, on to defining that component of Reality.
The claim that this is a presupposition fails. A presupposition simply isn't derived from this propositional state.
(I'm refraining from explaining why the Claim that the Earth is Flat
is a presupposition as I'm sure you can extrapolate the same processes of analysis onto that claim and come to that conclusion. Though if you wish me to I will in another post, along with further substantiation of this point.)
[...]then these orbits can happen. But if the Earth is a flat disc then they are not possible in the flat earth theory. The affect of the aether both moves the Satellites and keep them in their positions.
Refer to the earlier term definitions to understand why this arbitrary cross referencing of the contemporary physical models and the flat Earth Hypothesis isn't compatible. One is a presupposition that lacks proof or testable evidence (required to establish truth). The other, is the sum of a predictive system comprised of rationally sound proven facts based on observational evidence and reliably repeatable measurements of reality.
I'll make this point clearer. The orbital motions are not simply derivatives of some arbitrary presuppositional stance that merely express some
ergo of that view. They are
observational facts in reality that
conclude, alongside every other proof therein, that the Earth is indeed Round. The Orbital Movements are in themselves a
form of observational evidence of reality, further indicating the validity of the proposition that the Earth is Round. Remember my very first paragraph about argument form and epistemology? This is the same thing. The evidence leads to the conclusion and given the argument is also logically valid and sound, and the belief is justified, then the belief is a
justified true belief; and we have real knowledge, vis: knowledge of reality.
As far as Aether is concerned, it simply (as of yet) fails to hold validation due to a lack of soundness in several of the criteria defining
justified true belief. I am not saying your belief isn't
real (that's a different thing). I am saying that it just
doesn't work as an argument for reasons hopefully expressed pretty clearly by now, by proxy. Put simply, unjustified beliefs cannot confer justification on other beliefs. So Aether simply cannot be used to extrapolate upon as proof of the earth being Flat. Continuing to talk about it or engaging with derivative presumptive conjecture is meaningless before it has been validated as a
real thing. In contrast to the concepts that
have been proven to be real and have been integrated into the standard physical models of scientific fact because of that. See the difference?
We can measure the affect of Aether on the motion of celestial objects by measuring their interaction in the same way that "rounders" say that they can measure the affect of gravity. We know how Aether works (and the Aetherial whirlpool) by observation.[/i]
We can't. What you're doing when we measure reality is measure the physical properties of physical objects, and extrapolating quantitative relationships thereof. Gravity is a relational property of observed reality. It isn't a thing in itself but a relationship between physical objects. the correct term is
gravitational attraction. It describes a relationship. Aether is claimed to be a
substance, which requires to be found, identified, and studied. When we measure "gravity" we are measuring the
relationship between physical things. Not a physical thing. this is a fundamental difference.
Aether works like a fluid- which light or other objects must pass through. You ask me about aether- I ask you about gravity- what is it.
You will probably respond it is the distortion of space time continuum caused by the mass of (very large) objects.
Correct. It is the curvature in space-time under the influence of Mass.
I ask "What is space time continuum that is being distorted"
Depending on which "theory" a rounder subscribes to the answer might be "it consists of quanta vibrating on a string"
And I ask what causes this quanta to vibrate?
String "theory" is a [pretty outlandish] hypothesis that can never be tested on the basis that the predictions are far too minuscule in scale to ever be tested. It is by definition a philosophy. It has very little to do with General relativity besides some of it's implications may explain gravity in accordance with general relativity. Though it functionally has no relation or implication on Einstein's field equations ~ the actual meat of the theory that have been used to make all the predictions that have since been proven, and the equations that describe the curvature of space-time when under the influence of mass.
I wouldn't have mentioned string theory at all. I would have given you the correct answer: The
thing that space-time
is, is
causality. The order in which things interact. It's really that simple. It's an expression of relation between physical objects in physical space and time, well, in
space-time. Without going in to too much detail. When object's worldline geodesics are expressed as vectors in non-euclidean geometric space as an expression of space-time, Causality is the resultant definition factor in arbitrary relativistic reference frames. Beyond this, I'd, at least have to send you lots of educational videos and articles on the web before I could extrapolate further.
And you might respond "energy"
and I ask what is the source of this energy
And you don't know and I say "it must be majik"
So this last stance is an aspiration to phenomenological insubstantiability. I simply say to that ~ Reductio ad absurdum[3]
Phew. I am pooped!
[1]
http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum[/list][/list]