what exactly do the stars do?

You wouldn't be able to see anything. The key to think about the equator under DET is that space is stretched thin there, so essentially there is no distance. Technically the answer to this is a lack of aether; how can you see something that occupies no space? It'd just continue smoothly on. You can stand with a leg on either side, but how could you notice it? You'd get zero distance dividing one half of your body from the other, the same as ever.

Does that mean that aether behaves that way on all similar disc-like objects?

Thanks for the other explanations.

Does that mean that aether behaves that way on all similar disc-like objects?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. It depends on how you're defining similar.
The Earth formed the way it did because of the low concentration of aether within it. The details are a long story, but that's the reason it's a disc, and the reason for the equator. So, if this is what you mean, then yes, all disc-like objects that formed that same way would have very similar behaviour of aether.
However, if you just mean visibly similar discs, then no, the shape of the object wouldn't affect the behaviour of aether.

You wouldn't be able to see anything. The key to think about the equator under DET is that space is stretched thin there, so essentially there is no distance. Technically the answer to this is a lack of aether; how can you see something that occupies no space? It'd just continue smoothly on. You can stand with a leg on either side, but how could you notice it? You'd get zero distance dividing one half of your body from the other, the same as ever.

Lack of aether does not mean lack of objects. So, I may not see aether, but I see objects, like the edge of the planet.
I'm still not sure if I see this properly.

Lack of aether does not mean lack of objects. So, I may not see aether, but I see objects, like the edge of the planet.
I'm still not sure if I see this properly.

How can an object even exist when there is no space for it to exist in?

Dear Jane.
In another thread you say this (I highlighted text which concerns me):

Quote

How can the sun set over the ocean at a vanishing point which will be at the same distance away in winter and summer, look the same to the eye, but occur about 4 hours later after being overhead at the midday, so be approximately twice as far away. Exact calculations can be done for, say, Cape Town.

Because there isn't a single model where the Sun's path through the sky is the same in winter as it is in summer, in general. So, sure, it'll take a different amount of time to go a different route. The Sun's location at midday in summer, is not the same as the Sun's location at midday in winter.

Do you have such model related to DET?

Dear Jane.
In another thread you say this (I highlighted text which concerns me):

Quote from: Jane on October 22, 2016, 05:36:25 PM

Quote

How can the sun set over the ocean at a vanishing point which will be at the same distance away in winter and summer, look the same to the eye, but occur about 4 hours later after being overhead at the midday, so be approximately twice as far away. Exact calculations can be done for, say, Cape Town.

Because there isn't a single model where the Sun's path through the sky is the same in winter as it is in summer, in general. So, sure, it'll take a different amount of time to go a different route. The Sun's location at midday in summer, is not the same as the Sun's location at midday in winter.

Do you have such model related to DET?

Not sure what your question means. There is no model where the Sun's path in summer is the same as its path in winter, that's plain observable fact. Typical FET explains the variation with a varying radius of motion, DET has the Earth tilting...

Not sure what your question means. There is no model where the Sun's path in summer is the same as its path in winter, that's plain observable fact. Typical FET explains the variation with a varying radius of motion, DET has the Earth tilting...

I understand that you require a model for the Sun's path.
 
Leave that Sun's path model aside. since my question is not about that subject; my question is about DET:
Do you have a DET model, for this explanation:

You wouldn't be able to see anything. The key to think about the equator under DET is that space is stretched thin there, so essentially there is no distance. Technically the answer to this is a lack of aether; how can you see something that occupies no space? It'd just continue smoothly on. You can stand with a leg on either side, but how could you notice it? You'd get zero distance dividing one half of your body from the other, the same as ever.

Do you have a DET model, for this explanation:

Quote from: Jane on October 22, 2016, 05:19:22 PM

You wouldn't be able to see anything. The key to think about the equator under DET is that space is stretched thin there, so essentially there is no distance. Technically the answer to this is a lack of aether; how can you see something that occupies no space? It'd just continue smoothly on. You can stand with a leg on either side, but how could you notice it? You'd get zero distance dividing one half of your body from the other, the same as ever.

That is the DE model.

Quote from: Globetrotter on October 23, 2016, 02:20:29 PM

Do you have a DET model, for this explanation:

Quote from: Jane on October 22, 2016, 05:19:22 PM

You wouldn't be able to see anything. The key to think about the equator under DET is that space is stretched thin there, so essentially there is no distance. Technically the answer to this is a lack of aether; how can you see something that occupies no space? It'd just continue smoothly on. You can stand with a leg on either side, but how could you notice it? You'd get zero distance dividing one half of your body from the other, the same as ever.

That is the DE model.

This is theory. You even don't know if that"model" would work in practice, since you don't have PRACTICAL MODEL. (Similarly you claim there is no model of sun path.)

By the way: I still don't know what is the cause that I'm unable to see anything in your above citation.

This is theory. You even don't know if that"model" would work in practice, since you don't have PRACTICAL MODEL. (Similarly you claim there is no model of sun path.)

What? There is a model of the sun path, I gave it, I never claimed the opposite. It's down to the Earth tilting, though the precise details would take ages to go into as they relate to the Sun (the trickiest part of the model to explain) and the behaviour of space above the Earth.
Not sure what extra you require for a practical model, too.

By the way: I still don't know what is the cause that I'm unable to see anything in your above citation.

The low concentration within the Earth is how the Earth formed; it's said that, like everything else, space flows from high concentrations to low. This is said to be a universal law, that everything follows (it's easily observed in pressure systems, as well as heat and energy thanks to the second law of thermodynamics). Space flows towards the low concentration, and brings dust that occupies space in it. Fast forward a long time, space beginning to move in a constant cycle as it overcompensates (too much flows in to fill the concentration, so some must flow out again, and flow horizontally as well as the concentration is unlikely to be a perfect sphere...), the Earth would form around said low concentration. Eventually the shape would become a flat disc, the dust carried to that point and held in place by the flow above and below.
I did rush a few details there, to focus on your specific question: the cause for the low concentration at the equator is basically just down to definition. Because of the low concentration, the Earth formed with its edge meeting the low concentration, which gives the lack of distance at the equator.
As for how the low concentration originally formed, that's unknown. It's an origin question, like "What caused the big bang?" We don't know, we just know what follows.

Quote from: Globetrotter on October 23, 2016, 04:52:53 PM

This is theory. You even don't know if that"model" would work in practice, since you don't have PRACTICAL MODEL. (Similarly you claim there is no model of sun path.)

What? There is a model of the sun path, I gave it, I never claimed the opposite. It's down to the Earth tilting, though the precise details would take ages to go into as they relate to the Sun (the trickiest part of the model to explain) and the behaviour of space above the Earth.
Not sure what extra you require for a practical model, too.

Quote

By the way: I still don't know what is the cause that I'm unable to see anything in your above citation.

The low concentration within the Earth is how the Earth formed; it's said that, like everything else, space flows from high concentrations to low. This is said to be a universal law, that everything follows (it's easily observed in pressure systems, as well as heat and energy thanks to the second law of thermodynamics). Space flows towards the low concentration, and brings dust that occupies space in it. Fast forward a long time, space beginning to move in a constant cycle as it overcompensates (too much flows in to fill the concentration, so some must flow out again, and flow horizontally as well as the concentration is unlikely to be a perfect sphere...), the Earth would form around said low concentration. Eventually the shape would become a flat disc, the dust carried to that point and held in place by the flow above and below.
I did rush a few details there, to focus on your specific question: the cause for the low concentration at the equator is basically just down to definition. Because of the low concentration, the Earth formed with its edge meeting the low concentration, which gives the lack of distance at the equator.
As for how the low concentration originally formed, that's unknown. It's an origin question, like "What caused the big bang?" We don't know, we just know what follows.

I see further discussion makes no sense unless you define what you mean under the notion of "model" which you are using here, on this forum.

I will attempt to summarize. Jane is explaining the Dual Earth Theory from a FE'r point of view. She does not believe the theory to be true, as she holds the round earth as truth.
I think it confuses many people on here, because she appears to defend FE.
I hope I got that correct.

I will attempt to summarize. Jane is explaining the Dual Earth Theory from a FE'r point of view. She does not believe the theory to be true, as she holds the round earth as truth.
I think it confuses many people on here, because she appears to defend FE.
I hope I got that correct.

Why are you such a buzz kill?  Are you the kind of person who would go to a children's party so you can tell the little ones how the magician is doing the tricks?  Perhaps you run around the mall at Christmas time telling all of the kiddies that Santa does not exist?  You are a horrible person, and you should feel horrible about yourself. 

I see further discussion makes no sense unless you define what you mean under the notion of "model" which you are using here, on this forum.

Model just means the combination of all the various concepts and subsequent applications inherent in a theory. Just think of it as built out of information rather than matter.

Quote from: IonSpen on October 24, 2016, 07:47:57 AM

I will attempt to summarize. Jane is explaining the Dual Earth Theory from a FE'r point of view. She does not believe the theory to be true, as she holds the round earth as truth.
I think it confuses many people on here, because she appears to defend FE.
I hope I got that correct.

Why are you such a buzz kill?  Are you the kind of person who would go to a children's party so you can tell the little ones how the magician is doing the tricks?  Perhaps you run around the mall at Christmas time telling all of the kiddies that Santa does not exist?  You are a horrible person, and you should feel horrible about yourself. 

Horrible person? I'm sorry, was my statement inaccurate? Is this forum about finding truth, or something else?

 "This site is for serious scientific discussion and debate among adults."  - jroa

Quote from: IonSpen on October 24, 2016, 07:47:57 AM

I will attempt to summarize. Jane is explaining the Dual Earth Theory from a FE'r point of view. She does not believe the theory to be true, as she holds the round earth as truth.
I think it confuses many people on here, because she appears to defend FE.
I hope I got that correct.

Why are you such a buzz kill?  Are you the kind of person who would go to a children's party so you can tell the little ones how the magician is doing the tricks?  Perhaps you run around the mall at Christmas time telling all of the kiddies that Santa does not exist?  You are a horrible person, and you should feel horrible about yourself. 

Yes, I quite understand. We can't have these horrible people telling the flat earth kiddies that EiRaG^[1] and revealing the tricks and illusions that these flattists use to delude those impressionable enough to take the YouTube bait dangled^[1] in front of them.

That would never do. Only a horrible person would do such a thing.

[1] EiRaG = Earth is Really a Globe.

[2] Please note that I did not accuse you of "The Society" of "dangling the YouTube bait".

What exactly do stars do? 

They twinkle.  I think that's the point. 

What exactly do stars do? 

They twinkle.  I think that's the point. 

I think most of us learned that at a very you age. I guessed you missed out on:
But some of us do have more seeking minds and think they might be more than just "lights in the sky".

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

Quote from: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 04:43:12 PM

What exactly do stars do? 

They twinkle.  I think that's the point. 

I think most of us learned that at a very you age. I guessed you missed out on:

Twinkle, twinkle, little star, How I wonder what you are! Up above the world so high, Like a diamond in the sky. When the blazing sun is gone, When he nothing shines upon, Then you show your little light, Twinkle, twinkle, all the night. Then the traveller in the dark Thanks you for your tiny sparks; He could not see which way to go, If you did not twinkle so. In the dark blue sky you keep, And often through my curtains peep, For you never shut your eye Till the sun is in the sky. As your bright and tiny spark Lights the traveller in the dark, Though I know not what you are, Twinkle, twinkle, little star.

But some of us do have more seeking minds and think they might be more than just "lights in the sky".

          

Quote from: Marciano on January 09, 2016, 09:18:51 PM

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

          

There is such a thing as "over-complicating" things.

They're just lights in the sky. That's pretty vague if you ask me. It's like asking how does an internal combustion engine work, and answering "burns fuel".
Weak.

Quote from: rabinoz on October 28, 2016, 03:02:20 PM

Quote from: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 04:43:12 PM

What exactly do stars do? 

They twinkle.  I think that's the point. 

But some of us do have more seeking minds and think they might be more than just "lights in the sky".

          

Quote from: Marciano on January 09, 2016, 09:18:51 PM

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

          

There is such a thing as "over-complicating" things.

Maybe, but those "little lights in the sky" were what Ole Rømer used to be the first to show that the velocity of light was not infinite.

Rømer's determination of the speed of light
Rømer's determination of the speed of light was the demonstration in 1676 that light has a finite speed, and so doesn't travel instantaneously. The discovery is usually attributed to Danish astronomer Ole Rømer (1644–1710),[note 1] who was working at the Royal Observatory in Paris at the time.

By timing the eclipses of the Jupiter moon Io, Rømer estimated that light would take about 22 minutes to travel a distance equal to the diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun. This would give light a velocity of about 220,000 kilometres per second in SI units, about 26% lower than the true value.

His figure of 220,000 km/s was low because the distance to the sun (and hence Jupiter) was not accurately known at the time.

So, it took another of those "little lights in the sky", Venus transiting the sun this time, in 1769 to measure the distance to the the sun to a much better accuracy.

Interesting and informative things, these "little lights in the sky", and you in your ignorance ask "How much can we expect to ever know about them?"  Well now your know a couple of things.

rabinoz, I'm sorry for off-topic, but this is fascinating:

rabinoz, I'm sorry for off-topic, but this is fascinating:

It's as relevant as "Macaroni's" (or whatever) "little lights in the sky"!

Narcberry says that FE gives only simple answers and has no inconsistencies, unlike RE.

That's right, Ion.

Quote from: IonSpen on October 18, 2016, 12:01:32 PM

Narcberry says that FE gives only simple answers and has no inconsistencies, unlike RE.

That's right, Ion.

In other words, you still don't realise that "those little lights in the sky" disproves the North Pole centred model of the Flat Earth.

Yes, Ion say "Narcberry says" - but that statement carries no weight at all without evidence to back it up.

You claim "FE gives only simple answers and has no inconsistencies".
What utter rubbish, when you can't explain the simplest things we see around us!

You claim "no inconsistencies", then just explain to me how
          I can see the sun rise over 20° SOUTH of East, when at the time of the sunrise the "Flat Earth" sun is nearer the North East and
          I expect to see the sun set over 20° SOUTH of West, when at the time of the sunset the "Flat Earth" sun would be nearer the North West.
No, I don't want to hear about "bendy light".

If you complain that is "off topic",
         then explain the stars rotating clockwise about the South Celestial Pole, and no "Celestial Gears" grating around up there!

Narco's statement couldn't be any farther from the truth, I agree.

Narco's statement couldn't be any farther from the truth, I agree.

You would know about statements not being any farther from the truth, am I right? 

Quote from: IonSpen on November 16, 2016, 05:02:55 PM

Narco's statement couldn't be any farther from the truth, I agree.

You would know about statements not being any farther from the truth, am I right?

So you have no answer to "what exactly do the stars do?"

So you have no answer to "what exactly do the stars do?"

Ooh! I know this one!