Only One

I am sick of putting up with your dishonesty. Either say what is actually wrong with the answers and the model you have been given rather than pretending they don't exist, or leave.

2. This one is easier to test, and is based on the existence of the whirlpools above the Earth. These will affect both the refraction of light in the vertical direction, and the downwards force caused by gravity.
Vertical refraction will increase with altitude, due to peering through more air. Gravity will decrease with altitude: under DET, this is due to fewer whirlpools pushing down. It will be possible to verify that the alteration will occur discontinuously: instead of a smooth progression, we will observe jumps at the altitude of each whirlpool.
The test itself would be simple. If you have the means to measure refraction or gravity, and you can notice a change to several significant figures between ground level, and a set altitude, then if you slowly ascend, a jump in the amount of refraction or gravity should be visible.
This will be easier to test with gravity. The downwards force should remain more or less constant, except at the jumps.

This is easy as many performed such an experiment. You can watch youtube videos thanks to technology.
Search for high altitude videos. Pick one you prefer, the best is uncut. Watch as the balloon rise. Watch for jumps or smoothness of the elevation. If you don't see jumps, then DET is invalid as you stated.

I am sick of putting up with your dishonesty. Either say what is actually wrong with the answers and the model you have been given rather than pretending they don't exist, or leave.

You shout dishonesty, yet you are the one who is dishonest.
What is actually wrong with the answers have already been said. Don't pretend ignoring it.

"Watch for jumps or smoothness of the elevation. If you don't see jumps, then DET is invalid as you stated."
What on earth are you talking about? Can you somehow see gravity now?

"What is actually wrong with the answers have already been said. Don't pretend ignoring it."
You have said NOTHING beyond "You're wrong," or "That doesn't make sense," and you NEVER say why. You have nothing beyond blind assertion. How am I meant to explain a problem when you refuse to say what the problem is?! Grow the fuck up you whining, drivelling coward.

Okay, now you are insulting.

read again. aether nature is the problem with the theory and how you interpret it. i wrote this multiple times, yet you ignore it.

Why would I waste time with a bullshit artist? I am sick of penguins like you who can manage nothing more than wasting time and acting superior because they can spew bullshit and lie and lie confident in the fact that no one's going to fucking dare correct a round earther. Every fucking one of you is pathetic.

IF YOU ARE SO SECURE IN YOUR MODEL WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF HONEST DEFENSE?!

Aether is not a problem you miserable penguin, it is well defined and logical and your bullshit misrepresentation and lies and complete lack of any justification for your claims have nothing to do with DET.

Please give an everyday phenomena that the Round Earth cannot explain, but the DE can.

A bullshit question and you know it. Everyday phenomena are well-known, no model would have gotten off the ground if it didn't have an explanation shoehorned in.
Counter-question: name an everyday phenomenon DET cannot explain.

How people move seamlessly from one hemisphere to the next.

What is wrong with the DE explanation, or are you just asserting, the same as ever?
Nothing special happens at the equator.

Then how does a person get from one disc to the next. They are separated by a distance at least greater than the sun's radius.

No, they're separated by no distance at all. It might benefit you to actually try and learn the model you're claiming to be able to disprove. This is basic logic here. Do you see why I'm so sick of this bullshit?

They don't look like they aren't seperated.

well, well, well. if someone gives you something you call "real" argument, you start insulting and run away and don't give any answer. that is wrong with your theory. you can't defend it. i have ni theory, so i have nothing to defend. i'm just an everyday observer. not round earther as you assume. yes, you assune, again. logic fails here, so does with aether. if it is so logical, give at least so.e formulas to work with to prove your statements.

Learn. The. Fucking. Model.

I am more than happy to defend it, I am NOT happy to repeat myself to every moron that decides to spew assertion and bullshit over the threads. When an answer is explicitly given in the overview, it is all too clear that you're just too lazy to read it. And if that's the case why should I waste time to repeat myself to someone too lazy to listen?

"If you can't explain it to a 6-year-old, you don't understand it yourself"

-Albert Einstein

(You seem to rely on his mathematics alot, so you can't contradict him.

I HAVE EXPLAINED IT YOU MISERABLE penguin. FUCK OFF IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO READ.

You know where the model is. You know where you cam read it. WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I WASTE MY TIME WRITING IT ALL UP YET AGAIN JUST TO PLEASE SOME LAZY LITTLE penguin?!

You actually haven't explainned it. You shoved your website in my face and it doesn't make any sense. So please explain it to me.

How is travel between hemispheres instantanious.

Penguins these days becoming more and more powerful. I heard there are some military bases on South where they are being trained by HAMAS Al-Kassam brigades.

I would not deal with them.



May I ask you a question? Why reinvent the globe?

Explained in the model. And that's all you're getting. You know it makes sense, you're only baiting, and wasting time. That's all you're capable of. You were caught out on blatant lies, and now you're hastily backpedalling to try and act reasonable in the hope round earthers will trust you because god forbid they ever question one of their own.

But you've been caught in your lies, you refused to read the model, and now you demand I rewrite the entire thing solely for your benefit without explaining why it doesn't make sense with any more than a vague assertion. You're wasting time, because you're a troll: because every round earther is. You come here for a good little chortle about FET and once your worldview gets threatened and your stock arguments fail, you hide behind lies and fallacies like an argument from exhaustion.
There is a whole forum, and you don't even need an account. if you want to be walked through it, pop over, but to do it honestly I simply ask that you phrase clear, and specific questions. Not "Explain this," and not "Define aether." One at a time, one question per post, we can go through the whole model if that will make you happy. Start from the first sentence, end at the last.

So, your first post would be simply the first line you believe does not make sense, followed by an explanation of why you think it does not make sense.
Then, I can clarify, and we can move on.

That is my challenge to you. if your argument is genuinely that the overview does not make sense, then put your money where your mouth is, and we can go through it together.
Or, instead, if you're just wasting time as you've been doing throughout all of our exchanges, then goodbye.

You keep saying people have not read what you posted about your model, but it seems to me they have.  I have already told you the portions I have read and find the answers unsatisfactory.  The evidence you provide you are right is you saying you are.

I will say again I have as much evidence to support my two hypotheses in this thread as you do to support DEH.  We can observe the sun moving and when I jump I come back down.  Both observations I can make.  The same thing you have.

If you think people are having trouble understanding your model I suggest go back and clarify some points like how we get to one side from the other.  From what I have seen and read at your site it certainly seems to be a rather large gap between both planes.  You continue to claim people do not understand, which suggest you are not communicating your ideas effectively.

There is a large gap in the illustration, but no distance in reality, as explained in the properties of aether.
I cannot explain the bits that are unclear when people refuse to give me sections or explanations as to what's unclear.

So are the sun and moon inside the earth?

it is unclear which property of aether explains the non-distance of the planes.

So are the sun and moon inside the earth?

yes, and planets. they are projected through the nongap of the panes and this is logical you must see.

OSG: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67601.msg1806613#msg1806613

Kido, it is based on the based aether is space. As only a very low concentration of aether connects each end of the Earth, functionally there would be no distance, because distance cannot exist without space.
The planets are more complicated, though again they follow simply. Projections are the easiest way to think about it, technically they are inside and outside at the same time. When you understand the basics, then it'll make more sense. It is logical, however: an argument from incredulity does not make it otherwise. Why do round earthers critique flat earths for that tactic, and then do the exact same thing themselves? If you can give no actual problem, in light of the model, then it is logical.

The part where planets are inside the earth and outside at the same time actually makes perfect sense to me.

no, it is not logical, due to nature of as you described aether, that it forms a flat disk you described. in real nature, spheres would be created as everything tends to equilibrium. disk is not equilibrium by any means. sphere is. please give examples of real world to prove or disprove

The part where planets are inside the earth and outside at the same time actually makes perfect sense to me.

you are getting the idea then. they are projected through nonspace mass

"no, it is not logical, due to nature of as you described aether, that it forms a flat disk you described. in real nature, spheres would be created as everything tends to equilibrium. disk is not equilibrium by any means. sphere is. please give examples of real world to prove or disprove"
You can't compare apples and oranges. Aether doesn't form a flat disc, the low concentration is ultimately ball-shaped (a hemisphere above and below the disc), though the lowest part is sort or a circle. The issue is that we are dealing with motion, not a physical object. The motion of aether does indeed form a sphere (as you can see from the diagrams, rotating 360 degrees to allow for the third dimension), however there is a necessary impact from the initial shape, meaning one direction is less prominent, causing the disc-shape within.
It would be a ball if not for this extra detail. Much like, under RET, the Earth would have formed as as perfect ball before rotational forces stretched it out. If we waited long enough, it would tend to a disc because it is slowly expanding at the equator. Aether, essentially, moves faster. Yes, there are other forces at play: gravity in the RET case, and the predefined nature of aether in the DET case, but this I hope should at least give you the gist.
Technically a disc is a ball, only in two dimensions. The key is the question of why a two dimensional shape results, and the important thing to do here is to remember that while dust follows the flow it also interacts with other masses, and is not the exact same as aether.

I have explained this multiple times now. If you have an objection, please for once give it in more detail than "You're wrong because it forms a ball." Say, at what point, you believe my reasoning breaks down, and why.