Only One

There is only one Flat Earth model that accurately explains the constellations and their rotation. There is only one Flat Earth model that explains the varying length of days as you move north and south. There is only one Flat Earth model that explains the detectable variations in the coriolis force and why hurricanes are limited. There is only one Flat Earth model that can explain geothermal energy, only one Flat Earth model that can explain magnetism, and only one that can explain the composition of the stars, planets, moon and Sun.
And there is only one model for the shape of the Earth that explains all of these observations while minimizing new invention and convenient assumptions.

Only Dual Earth Theory is both scientific and feasible.
With only aether defined to possess two intuitive properties, everything we see and everything we know follows. No other model does this.

There is only one accurate model for the shape of the world, and it is Dual Earth Theory. The world is flat and DET is the only accurate description.
You just need to look at the fear with which round earthers will respond to this post to see that they know it too.

There is only one truth, and it is the Flat Earth model known as Dual Earth Theory.

What about John's Non-Euclidean Model?

Sorry to tell you this, but DE is total bullshit. It creates more problems than solves..

how stars/planets/asteroids are moving around Earth? They do so for sure and it is different from the perspective effect of dawn (will discuss it later).



Stars are going beyond the horizon and rise on the opposite side. How do we know that? Well, induction. If we are looking at Polar Star it spins around north pole making a tiny arc. Then we can go farther and look on next star which spins around north pole. Then next ... until we get to the first star that 'touches' horizon. Then all stars far then this star will make arcs that are more and more beyond the horizon. It is obvious for me that the whole sky is just spinning around the rotation axis that goes from the polar star and to south (no star there to mark the end).

Now, there is an interesting effect: If you will stand at the North Pole and take a picture of star treks, you will see that the stars do not sunk beyond the horizon:

Instead they are spinning around Polar Star which will be above your head.

if you go to a south a bit, for example in Norway you will see that the Polar Star is a bit lower to the horizon and stars are spinning around it, going beyond the horizon and rising on the opposite side:


The farther you go from North Pole the lower the Polar Star is and the more stars are going around Earth Plane. Eventually on equator you will see this:

The Polar Star is on the horizon and all of the stars sunk in the horizon and rise on opposite side.

If you go further to south, closer to the Earth Rdge, Polar Star will not be visible. It will be under the horizon. Still the stars are spinning around Polar Star:


When you finally reach the Edge of Earth (no matter on which side), you will see the same picture, like you were standing on a North Pole: the stars above are circling around some point above your head and no star hitting horizon.

Why is that? We have to find an explanation to this phenomenon, like in Globular Earth Theory where this simply a result of a globe.

Perfect examples of the fear with which round earthers regard DET. One does not engage and tries to change the topic, one makes an assertion of falsehood and refuses to back it up, and one goes on a long tirade while being too lazy to click the link plainly visible in my sig and to simply read the model.

If the world really was round, you'd expect them to be capable of being able to defend themselves on honest grounds. So few even make a pretense of honest discussion though. Why is that?

Somebody is too lazy to learn physics and models that DO ACTUALLY WORK. And have much less difficulties with the observations.

So yeah, how stars rotation is explained?? Huh?

You have the ability to learn the model. Now it is your choice. It is not possible under any scientific model to explain one lone section and have it make sense without also explaining the forces and theory underpinning it. I have no desire to spend hours writing up every aspect to explain how the stars rotate and how the two-pole system makes sense (as you will immediately note other seeming difficulties) so I say as I did before.
You have the choice to simply click a link and read the model. You will find every point I brought up in my original post addressed. Demanding I repeat myself is transparent dishonesty. You know where you can learn the model, if you choose not to this is a problem with you, not with me.

But of course, round earthers are not interested in learning, they would rather mock that which they don't understand.

OK OK.
I go read now your model.
But then I'll come with questions.
And I hope you will stand it. Not like Flat Earthers.

Perfect examples of the fear with which round earthers regard DET. One does not engage and tries to change the topic, one makes an assertion of falsehood and refuses to back it up, and one goes on a long tirade while being too lazy to click the link plainly visible in my sig and to simply read the model.

If the world really was round, you'd expect them to be capable of being able to defend themselves on honest grounds. So few even make a pretense of honest discussion though. Why is that?

Sorry, but after reading DET, it's still too ridiculous to argue with.

Neutrino, questions are welcomed. There's an FAQ as a companion to the model.

Kido, I await the time you're able to give any reason for your claim. For now, it just seems like cowardice. The model is quite simply strong. It works, so round earthers leave behind honest discussion and debate and resort to ridicule and incredulity and obvious fallacies.

Okay. What happens when i am standing on the "edge" of the upper disc and i am watching towards the lower disc?
also, what if i am standing one leg on upper disc, one leg on lower disc?
how can i observe the duality of the flatness of the earth?
what happens if i release a high altitude balloon on the equator? can i see both worlds at all?
one claim is.. god said the world can be all seen from a very high mountain. what would i see? are there any observable, measureable properties that can make me "feel" the dual earth? what about radio waves moving from one disc to the other? how are they affected by aether?

Consider actually reading the model rather than carving one snippet out from any context whatsoever. Nothing special happens at the equator: we move, and light moves, through space as it does everywhere else.
I don't care what God said, I'm concerned with science. There is en entire section devoted to the evidence for the model, complete with experiments that could falsify DET.

So nothing answered, thank you.

Your explanation is rife with contradiction. Your entire reasoning behind accepting DET hinges upon Occam's Razor. You claim DET is preferable because it makes only 1 assumption  (which is actually 2 assumptions)
1. That AETHER (haven't heard that word since 1870) represents space and
2. that aether accumulates

What you fail to mention is, how do you know this? You claim evidence is an observation that is line with your theory. When have you (or anybody else for that matter) observed an "aether whirlpool"? How do you know that it accumulates? How do you presume to know all of these properties of a substance that nobody has measured?

Sorry JRowe...  I can't help it.
Look into pasts posts.
The Aether imparts this wisdom into his mind.  His claim.

Still love ya buddy.

Sorry JRowe...  I can't help it.
Look into pasts posts.
The Aether imparts this wisdom into his mind.  His claim.

Still love ya buddy.

I'd like to see that thread, so I can get the full context. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. However he has made thousands of posts. Do you know about when he said this?

Kido, I have answered your question. you choose not to read it. I am not going to explain my model at your whim when you have the means to simply click a link and read about it. The length of a post required to explain all those observations in addition to the naturally arising follow-up questions, and the demands for evidence you'll no doubt give is ridiculous. I see, like most REers, you favor an argument from exhaustion. When you feel able to be logical, the model is there, the answers are there, click and read and stop with the wilful dishonesty.
Your questions are answered. if you're too lazy to click a link, why should I waste time repeating myself? If you won't read it there, why do I have any reason to think you'll read it here?
The fact I did in fact give an answer in my last post, and you just ignored it, serves to prove my point. If you're so confident in your model why are you unable to honestly defend it?

BillNye, the notion that aether is space is not an assumption, it is a definition. This is explicitly stated. Why do REers struggle with this concept? if it makes you happy, just call it space, I just prefer not to because, when discussing with honest people, it makes discussion far easier.
The evidence is given in the last section: we never observe any mechanism, we only observe the consequences, so the question is which model better explains observations. Natural continuations from the definition of aether (a basic definition with a universal law appended and one reasonable assumption) provide the basis for aetheric whirlpools, and they proceed to explain what we see. It is that simple; that's how science works. Under your model, people claim the LIGO provided evidence of black holes: how, if a deduction from a theoretical underpinning and observation of predicted consequences is somehow not sufficient as evidence?

Ignore Mikey's misrepresentations, he seems to think referencing ancient posts from when I was severely ill, which I have repeatedly decried since then, is any kind of honest addition to a conversation.

And there is only one model for the shape of the Earth that explains all of these observations while minimizing new invention and convenient assumptions.

Uhm no, the number of convinient assumptions is vast, though it is hidden in various descriptions.

Only Dual Earth Theory is both scientific and feasible.

Uhm, no. I've just read parts 1 and 2 of DET and that reminded me how ridiculous was the aether flow.

With only aether defined to possess two intuitive properties, everything we see and everything we know follows. No other model does this.

The description of aether flow contains lots of holes that haven't been fixed since months, when I 1st time pointed out simple errors.

Aether flow remains impossible.

There were no holes, you simply insisted on forcing your flawed understanding onto the model despite repeated correction. I note that you're unable to provide even a single example.
All four parts work together. if you've only read half of the theory you cannot even pretend to know what you're talking about.

I read all few monts ago and by a quick look I see no substantial changes in the description of the flow.

It still has:
1) discontinuities
2) points where it goes inside the earth and outside of it at the same time
3) points where the flow doesn't move (one of them being inside dual disc)
4) the property opposite to what one finds when measuring their weight on poles and the equator (the flow pushes you harder on poles than on the equator)
5) the property it behaves uniforlmy, i.e. it doesn't change itself by anything even though so much stuff is moving inside dual disc
6) places where the flow cannot go back to the inside dual disc
7) low concentration inside dual disc, so the distances are small, yet so much stuff is there.

I might skipped something but that is just what I figured after reading the model again.

I suggest reading about mathematical flows. You'd learn that you've described hyperbolic behaviour of the flow inside dual disc, which forces fixed point. Etc etc.

There are points where the flow doesn't move because two opposite flows are meeting, such as inside the Earth. There is a low concentration almost everywhere there, but there is still some near the center as the point where all the flows meet. More than one thing happens inside the Earth. That's 2, 3, 7 addressed.
1 is not a problem. Discontinuities exist in real life. You can create one just by turning a tap in your kitchen sink on, it's called a hydraulic jump. Aether is ultimately defined by a wave equation, such shocks are expected.
I have no idea what 5 or 6 are meant to mean, 5 is too unclear to mean anything much less pose a problem, and 6 seems to be an error though I can't say for sure as it's too vague. 4 is wrong: the downwards force is known to be stronger at the poles.

I will post my remarks in seperate posts.

1.

The point is hopefully, therefore, simple to grasp. When the aether flows in, it will leave a low concentration in its wake.

Please explain this further more. If there is a low concentration of aether somewhere inside of it, then it will flow from all directions to it. The surrounding high concentration will lower somewhat, but as the low concentration is negligible in outspread compared to the high concentration part, then it will have negligible effect on the whole aether high concentration. Why would it leave a low concentration along it's path?
Anyway what is this small "crack" that prevents the immediate flow and equalization of high and low concentration of aether?

2.

We see aether flowing down, to the low concentration. Then we see it flowing to the low concentration to the sides (that resulted from an earlier inwards flow), and flowing back up to fill the low concentration left by the initial descent. This repeats, over and over, for there is nothing to reduce the force.

This seems to be against the law described above in the aether section, and the second law of thermodynamics. This assumes that aether can never reach equilibrium. So the flow of aether is somewhat a perpetum mobile, which itself is against the second law of thermodynamics.

Untill these are answered correctly, further reading of the Theory is pointless as all the theory depends on these.

"Please explain this further more. If there is a low concentration of aether somewhere inside of it, then it will flow from all directions to it. The surrounding high concentration will lower somewhat, but as the low concentration is negligible in outspread compared to the high concentration part, then it will have negligible effect on the whole aether high concentration. Why would it leave a low concentration along it's path?
Anyway what is this small "crack" that prevents the immediate flow and equalization of high and low concentration of aether?"
I'm not entirely sure what this objection means. For the flow of aether to reverse direction would clearly take slightly longer than for 'stationary' aether to fill in the gap. The key thing to grasp is that aether isn't intelligent: it doesn't fill in a gap with exactly the amount needed to fill it, all the nearby aether flows in meaning there is naturally a low concentration left behind any movement.
In practise there is no 'crack' because it all happens rapidly and smoothly, but to explain the mechanism it was useful to put it in those terms.

"This seems to be against the law described above in the aether section, and the second law of thermodynamics. This assumes that aether can never reach equilibrium. So the flow of aether is somewhat a perpetum mobile, which itself is against the second law of thermodynamics."
Aether is not a mass. It does not take energy to flow, the second law is not applicable in this case. Further, it is worth noting that even a generalization of the law would only prevent the movement from increasing without cause. With nothing to 'slow' aether, it would be a far greater violation for it to stop for no reason.
Hypothetically it is possible that the flow is indeed slowly evening out, but the scales on which that would occur are so immense it isn't particularly relevant.

How can it flow if it does not have mass or anything measurable?
How can it's immeasurable flow have any effect on anything that has mass?

Even so if these flaws are accepted, how does it affect the whole "universe", if there is any?
Shouldn't all the matter in the universe flow towards the center of the low concentration? Like all stars, all galaxies, everything should flow towards the earth so collapsing with everything?
How does the theory explain the observable receding galaxies in space/aether?

"How can it flow if it does not have mass or anything measurable?
How can it's immeasurable flow have any effect on anything that has mass?"
Flow is the best possible word to describe it. I can't be held responsible for the limitations of language. However, aether is space, and mass occupies points in space. It doesn't really have an effect on mass, all matter is stationary with respect to the point in space that they occupy, it's just that the relationship between those points may vary.

"Even so if these flaws are accepted, how does it affect the whole "universe", if there is any?
Shouldn't all the matter in the universe flow towards the center of the low concentration? Like all stars, all galaxies, everything should flow towards the earth so collapsing with everything?
How does the theory explain the observable receding galaxies in space/aether?"
All matter would come towards the Earth, within a certain distance (however whirlpools are functionally barriers for that sort of behaviour, as the dominant behaviour become parallel to the Earth's surface). However, you'd also get a 'thickening' of the aether above us as more flows, so the distance to the most distant objects will seem to increase.

Have you teleported to the Starship Enterprise yet?

Why are you so afraid of DET?

Why do you make up a model that requires teleportation?

However, aether is space, and mass occupies points in space. It doesn't really have an effect on mass, all matter is stationary with respect to the point in space that they occupy, it's just that the relationship between those points may vary.

If all matter is stationary, how can various points recede compared to each other?
If aether flow doesn't have effect on mass, than how can it have effect on mass, creating the feeling of not falling down, holding things together, etc. ? Everything you can observe in real life.

All matter would come towards the Earth, within a certain distance (however whirlpools are functionally barriers for that sort of behaviour, as the dominant behaviour become parallel to the Earth's surface). However, you'd also get a 'thickening' of the aether above us as more flows, so the distance to the most distant objects will seem to increase.

If all matter would come towards the Earth, within a certain distance, how come we don't observe it all the time? Like falling stars all the time, larger objects, etc.?


Anyway, in a 3D aether, why did dust concentrate to two disks, rather than a globe? If aether would really flow to this low concentration point, which is in the centre of Earth, in a 3D space/aether it would collect all dust from every side, which would create a sphere. Nothing explains the creation of flat disks in a flowing aether from the definition of aether (1. point of the theory).

Also, are the other observable objects in aether (stars, galaxies, planets) all have low concentration points of aether, or only Earth does? If they do, why don't we observe flat disks in space, but spheres?

No teleportation happens. Sokarul, I am sick of telling you this. You insist on bastardisation because you can't cope with a working model. Nothing special happens at the equator, you know this, you have been told it multiple times. Why are you so scared you must resort to obvious lies?

"If all matter is stationary, how can various points recede compared to each other?
If aether flow doesn't have effect on mass, than how can it have effect on mass, creating the feeling of not falling down, holding things together, etc. ? Everything you can observe in real life."
Stationary with respect to the point they occupy in space. You can be stationary with respect to a train, but not with respect to what's outside. Reference frames are needed to define stillness or motion. What we observe in reality is mass interacting with mass. The Earth below us is caught between two flows, so a stationary object with respect to aether will move towards it, for example.
Flow is a good analogy. Take a waterfall: taking a reference frame in which a particle is stationary would have the Earth rushing up towards it, which is what happens from the perspective of the aether. From the perspective of the ground, which we are in, the particle is falling towards it.
The easiest way to think of it is to picture the aether as free flowing water, where each molecule is a coordinate point in space. A stationary object would occupy a fixed coordinate point, so it follows the motion of said coordinate point. The object itself, however, does not move. When the water flow hits another water flow, the object might strike another: this is mass interacting with mass.

"If all matter would come towards the Earth, within a certain distance, how come we don't observe it all the time? Like falling stars all the time, larger objects, etc.?"
You'd have to get to the star part of the model to see the details, suffice to say they're in what are known as aetheric whirlpools: natural formations where the dominant motion is parallel to the Earth's surface. There is an upwards flow to fill the low concentration left in the wake of the downwards flow which maintains this (again, the details are given in the relevant section: you've only read the definition of aether, the applications take more work).

"Anyway, in a 3D aether, why did dust concentrate to two disks, rather than a globe? If aether would really flow to this low concentration point, which is in the centre of Earth, in a 3D space/aether it would collect all dust from every side, which would create a sphere. Nothing explains the creation of flat disks in a flowing aether from the definition of aether (1. point of the theory).
Also, are the other observable objects in aether (stars, galaxies, planets) all have low concentration points of aether, or only Earth does? If they do, why don't we observe flat disks in space, but spheres?"
I'd recommend continuing reading. The former's answered in the FAQ, the latter requires you to understand the make-up of stars and planets in the DE model. If you are ok with the definition of aether now, then the rest should follow easily.