Don't bother with AaK, I tried explaining it to him. It's actually a good illustration with what benefits there are to thinking in terms of another model; it's not an RE/FE issue, it's one of understanding. Often in debate you try to fit what the other person says into your preconceptions, rather than understanding what they think on their terms.
For example, I've explained to AaK that this is a thought experiment and mental exercise, thinking in terms of another model. It doesn't make the model right, it doesn't alter reality, it doesn't mean I'm saying reality's irrelevant, all it means is that some models can answer some questions, and it takes a little effort to find out which.
If you treat FET like a puzzle rather than an affront against nature, you can actually enjoy being here rather than getting mad at the stupidest things.
But he has certain preconceptions: that anything not 100% connected to reality is an abomination, anything that's speculative and done solely for the purpose of fun is a waste of time, everything must adhere 100% to the scientific method even if it's not meant to be a scientific discussion (or: that anything must be a scientific discussions), and so he tries to fit what I say into that framework, even when I've explained it's not the case.
Instead of taking things way too seriously, it's worth just indulging in a mental exercise like this. The benefits are nothing to do with the shape of the Earth,
Even from a perspective strictly based from disproving, you need to understand what it is before you can try to disprove it. You can't think in terms of a different model, you need to immerse yourself in that model, think about what it contains and what it implies on the grounds of it alone, and then try to find a contradiction within itself or with reality. That is the only way to find a contradiction, and so disprove a model. You can't hang around on the outside and claim to have found a contradiction if you haven't taken the time to think about what would actually happen in the model.
For example, I'm fairly sure there's a disproof of DET with the Coriolis force, but to actually realise it you'd need to do a lot of thinking in terms of the model.
Jane is such a hypocrite...
Which is a statement that needs more than a few quotes without explanation (and I'd point out most of the bits where I insulted REers I was pointing out how it looks to FEers, which is a fact). Sure, I'm a bit harder on REers, because they're the ones that claim to be better, claim to be smarter... Not really hypocritical to ask you act like it.
That does not make it any better.
It just makes it silly to single out FEers.
Except that those are by far more valid points than what I have posted. For knowing the answer to those points you need to have way, WAY more knowledge than understanding why what I have posted is bullshit. Honestly, I’d not be able to answer the one with speed of light myself. And no „general relativity“ is as good an answer as „but the earth is round so you’re wrong“…
Except relativity is an actual response to the question, rather than just a "You're wrong." And no, those arguments were about as bad as the FE ones, even the UA one because it's addressed in the FAQ. The only people who would use such an argument are those that come into a forum, refuse to learn anything about what goes on there, and insist they're brilliantly original thinkers and no one's ever thought like they have before.
You cannot really block anyone.
I seem to have managed it just fine. 'Edit profile,' 'Modify profile,' 'ignore list.'
DET SECTIONWhere is the teleportation in this picture?
https://goo.gl/images/8kUY8D
Right down the middle. What do you think 'teleportation' looks like? Light's affected too.
Apparently, nothing special happens at the equator. Also apparently, one can deduce that the world is in fact a two-sided disc with the sun & moon (and whatever else) in the middle of the discs and the discs are separated (but not really) to allow the space for the sun & moon (but not really) and when you cross the equator (but not really) you are instantly teleported (but not really) through the center of the discs, across the sun & moon (and whatever else), without noticing anything. That's some... amazing deduction right there! I'd bet my life that JRowe has never even been to the equator in his lifetime, but still he deduced all of this somehow (but not really)!
Feel free to explain any of this Jane because IMO nothing you've regurgitated thus far makes any sense to me whatsoever.
On another note, I understand some of your objections about how some RE'ers conduct themselves on this site, but I can't understand why you think anything on this site or the very idea of the FE itself deserves anything else but derision. Subscribing to such absurdities should be met with nothing but derision because the alternative to this is actually sitting down and debating such nonsense, thus giving the idea of a FE actual credence. You may like intellectual exercises, but what you're doing is nothing of the sort. If nothing else, it's stretching your imagination muscle... slightly.
Aak is right in the fact that hypothetical conjecture and thought experiments are based on the real world, not imaginary ones ie. denpressure & FE/DE. You're basically asking people to speculate about the world of Harry Potter.
"Here's the model, explain!" doesn't really help. That's not a question. "It's ridiculous," is not a valid addition to any discussion if you're not providing details of why. Your argument at the moment comes down to "It's different."
If you start with the precepts, and acknowledge reality, then that model is more or less what follows. You'd get a flat disc, we observe stars rotating in opposite directions but the Sun moving in one... Etc.
FET doesn't have credence. A chat on an internet forum isn't going to change that. If you signed up to a forum for the sole purpose of deriding and insulting people then I couldn't care less about your opinion, frankly. As for speculating about the world of Harry Potter, people do that. It's fun too. FET just offers more material, because it gives rules and gives a claim and you can have some fun working on how it all connects. It's actually a fair challenge. In DET's case, the way space works is pretty complicated when you get down to it.
We don't get anywhere with this because there seems to be different definitions for space. Space is space, all things occupy space. There can't be matter without space. But you want to convince me that there is place inside space where space does not exist. Or that empty space is one thing but if you place matter inside empty space then the place where there is matter does not contain space anymore. It does not make sense however you put it.
Like I said, there
is no place where space doesn't exist. I've said that several times so far, there's just a place where it's stretched very thin. Put matter through that, it doesn't vanish, it's just extended through it. You're focusing on something that doesn't happen at any point in the model.
JRowe's analogy is woven elastic. Imagine a grid pattern, and an object that is the size of five strands of elastic. The size of the object doesn't change, but you can stretch space out so that the gaps between the strands are far larger. The object will still occupy five strands, but those five strands could seem far longer from ane xternal perspective.
That's all that's going on with high/low concentrations of space. That's it.