Ask me About DET!

Ok, since adopting the model (after public vote), I think I've gotten a decent grasp of DET, if not perfect. Easiest way to improve is to ask questions, and to try and write it up in an understandable way, so...
Yep, let's give this a go. What do you want to know?

For those unfamiliar with DET, it's JRowe's model described here.

Ask a question about the model, pose an objection you have to FET, I'll try to answer with respect to this model. May not be great to start with, but hopefully it'll develop.

That's an interesting thread. I don't think that the poster realizes that Einstein built special relativity on the questions raised by the Michelson-Morley (sp?) experiment, that pretty much spelled the death knell for aether theory. If the aether exists then it is awfully tricky to describe. Up to now, no modern theory has found a need to invoke anything like it.

Not saying it doesn't exist, but it would be a most curious form of .. Matter? .. Energy?
Sorry, didn't read beyond point 1. But ignore me. I don't really care either way.

Sure, its default assumption as there are differences in hemipheres. But why can't aether move in ways that earth is split at poles and center of stars rotation is where aether exits? Or I am sure someone can think out why it can be at 45 degrees for example.

Needlessly complicated for starters, and wouldn't work under the pre-existing definition of aether.

1.   Good question. I don’t know. I’d say an assumption is something that is neither observable nor proveable. I agree with you. But something based on an assumption is still an assumption, even though it is not necessarily a new assumption. Still, e.g. assuming that there is aether doesn’t mean that this aether can flow nor that it flows. So, in this case I’d say there are two assumptions made, (i) aether exists and (ii) aether does flow.
2.   Yep, and that’s the funny thing about aether. It would simultaneously flow everywhere and nowhere. The aether-paradoxon I’ll call it from now on.
Anyway, the aether wouldn’t need a „route“ or something to flow there. There wouldn’t be really a border between „nothing“ and „something“. "Nothing" is just the abscence of something, it's no phyiscal place since there is no space/aether.
What would happen: I’d imagine it as an explosion where the whole aether would instantly "explode" as it flows into nothing and creates something. So, aether is somehow god, one could say.
3.   You are treating aether like it’s water. But it isn’t, aether is SPACE. What you are describing would mean that an iron bar would stop the flow of aether. Or in other words, space(=iron bar) would stop the flow of space(=aether).
4.   I think you realize yourself how ridiculous this sounds.
Anyway, have you ever thought what low and high concentration of aether would mean?

1. I think the two assumptions are more 'aether forms concentrations' and 'those concentrations flow.' Aether exists without those two properties regardless: it's just space. It is accepted that those are assumptions, but all sciences relies on taking certain things as axiom.
2. Again, I don't think your definition really makes sense. Part of the model seems to be that space exists regardless stretching out in all three dimensions. This idea of nothing really doesn't make sense, either it's a nothing that can be filled and would cease to be nothing, or there is no way for aether to flow to it. Even accepting the odd idea though, it would be easy to handwave an 'edge' to space and aether slowly dissipating into that nothing, it's just so far away that it hasn't reached us yet.
3. It's only about movement. We know full well that force prevents movement, and whichever reference frame you're in part of the iron bar would be trying to move, while the rest is stationary and simultaneously exerting a force. I really don't understand what your objection is. It's not "Iron bar beats aether," it's "the force exerted by the bonds in the iron means said iron is under enough force to move back along the points in space that are flowing." Think of it like a conveyor belt. If the conveyor belt is smooth, you can rest something half on it, and half on a table next to it, and it'd barely be affected. Speed up the conveyor belt, and there'd be more of an effect. Make the conveyor belt coarser, there'd be more of an effect: make the non-moving surface coarser, there'd be less of one. Put a giant wall in the way and nothing would get past it. It's the same principle: the space that an object occupies moves, but forces are perfectly capable of making the object occupy different points in space.
4. There's a difference between sounding ridiculous and sounding different.
High and low concentrations are simple, regardless. The analogy he uses is that if, under relativity, space is a blanket, under DET it's an elastic blanket. Stretch it, we notice it gets thinner: that's a low concentration. It's just a gauge of how, well, concentrated space is. A high concentration means more space means more distance. Low means less.

I don’t want a perfect diagram. Even if a whole globe doesn’t fit on a toy globe, a toy model of a globe can still be manufactured. So to say: Show me a toy DE
May I ask you : Which university are you attending ? I’d of course understand if you don’t want to say it.

Overall Jrowes model is really the work of a maniac. His model tries really hard to explain things, but there is no underlying logic in it as we have it with globe earth. There is no way, anything could be calculated, any orbits, any eclipse, you couldn’t even calculate sunset or sunrise. It’s all just „aether!“ without any logical foundation. Read my thread about the bird-shaped world. His model includes about the same amount of logic as my model does. You could invent simply ANY model that jumps into your mind and defend it by creating/inventing more and more. Still, this model wouldn’t be correct or make any sense ; it’d just be a (useless) thought experiment.

He's given several partial diagrams, such as:
http://i.imgur.com/udJzK5B.jpg
None of them are going to be complete though, for the reasons I gave before.
Aether is actually defined, that's what makes this model different. There are plenty of theoretical ways to calculate those things; know the rate of rotation of a few adjacent whirlpools, know the altitudes they're at, you could extrapolate overall behaviour and you'd have a good gauge of everything from the Sun to the stars.

For distances, they may say they are wrong, but let them try to say it to real geodesist, or navigator, or meteorologist, or astronomer...
Finally, it shows we have more conspirators around than ordinary people.

For gravity, I don't rely on forum's search routines.
Try on Google.
Search for something like "flat earth society cavendish experiment".

Those people are said to be simply mistaken. Not many people actually map out large scale distances, a lot of work is done assuming RET.
I gave one response to the Cavendish experiment before. They say it doesn't apply to all objects, just the limited sample used in the experiments.

That's an interesting thread. I don't think that the poster realizes that Einstein built special relativity on the questions raised by the Michelson-Morley (sp?) experiment, that pretty much spelled the death knell for aether theory. If the aether exists then it is awfully tricky to describe. Up to now, no modern theory has found a need to invoke anything like it.

Not saying it doesn't exist, but it would be a most curious form of .. Matter? .. Energy?
Sorry, didn't read beyond point 1. But ignore me. I don't really care either way.

Aether is just a word. Einstein actually used it early-on to refer to spacetime, in an effort to appeal to the sensibilities of the time. It was phased out, but that's the idea. The aether under the DE model isn't the luminiferous aether disproven by Michelson-Morley.
It's said to just be the fabric of space (much like relativity applies to), with the added property of being able to form concentrations.

Quote from: zork on September 09, 2016, 10:05:23 AM

Sure, its default assumption as there are differences in hemipheres. But why can't aether move in ways that earth is split at poles and center of stars rotation is where aether exits? Or I am sure someone can think out why it can be at 45 degrees for example.

Needlessly complicated for starters, and wouldn't work under the pre-existing definition of aether.

Definition of aether is that it is space. With additional properties. Definition of aether does not imply that equator should be special place. But there comes in my opinion another problem. It seems to me that aether is defined as space but not as all space but space without solid matter. Because there is aether above earth, inside/below earth and no aether in place where two discs apparently meet. They meet apparently because there is no aether there. But solid matter also occupies space and I guess we can say is space. I think the definition of aether is incomplete and can't be defined as just space.

Definition of aether is that it is space. With additional properties. Definition of aether does not imply that equator should be special place. But there comes in my opinion another problem. It seems to me that aether is defined as space but not as all space but space without solid matter. Because there is aether above earth, inside/below earth and no aether in place where two discs apparently meet. They meet apparently because there is no aether there. But solid matter also occupies space and I guess we can say is space. I think the definition of aether is incomplete and can't be defined as just space.

The definition doesn't directly, but the consequences do. There's no way for it to work otherwise.
No, aether's all space. Objects occupy points in aether. It just happens that empty space also exists. There is aether where the discs meet, the lack of aether between them just means there's no distance between them. That's not special, aether is space/distance, so the lack of it would mean objects either side of it automatically meet, I think you got cause and effect mixed up. The model relies on it also being occupied space though, hence why objects occupying points in space are carried along on its flow.

It's just a gauge of how, well, concentrated space is. A high concentration means more space means more distance. Low means less.

So, instead of saying between point a and b is a low distance and drawing them close together, you draw them further apart and then call for "Low aether concentration" in between them. It's another fundamental problem in this model that shows how ridiculous it is.


To all other points: You still treat aether like it was water or air. You cannot apply basics of force etc when space itself is moving. Again, its not like water was pushing on the bar. The bar itself (the space where the bar is) is moving. No force to counteract that; the bar just moves.

About the aether paradoxon: "...it's a nothing that can be filled and would cease to be nothing" that's the whole point and why it's a paradoxon. Since space can be stretched I might aswell stretch space so much that there is no aether (=no distance), thus causing aether to flow into there. As this could happen everywhere, aether would just explode (or implode?).
The model just doesn't make any sense.

1. So, instead of saying between point a and b is a low distance and drawing them close together, you draw them further apart and then call for "Low aether concentration" in between them. It's another fundamental problem in this model that shows how ridiculous it is.

2. To all other points: You still treat aether like it was water or air. You cannot apply basics of force etc when space itself is moving. Again, its not like water was pushing on the bar. The bar itself (the space where the bar is) is moving. No force to counteract that; the bar just moves.

3. About the aether paradoxon: "...it's a nothing that can be filled and would cease to be nothing" that's the whole point and why it's a paradoxon. Since space can be stretched I might aswell stretch space so much that there is no aether (=no distance), thus causing aether to flow into there. As this could happen everywhere, aether would just explode (or implode?).
The model just doesn't make any sense.

1. The point of the model is just that space varies. Two objects can be fixed, but space between them can distort/become thicker. It's not a matter of deciding that two nearby objects have a low concentration between them.
2. You're misunderstanding. The crux is, essentially, the bar isn't moving. It occupies the same points in space, that's what aether is, so movement along the flow of aether is really just staying stationary. The presence of the rest of the bar is what exerts the force. This is what causes movement.
It just comes down to this: the points in space that an object occupies move when aether flows (those two things are basically synonymous). A force exerted by other objects, or other parts of the same object, cause it to occupy different points in space.
The latter can't be questioned, that's just what forces are. So if the points in space an object occupies move, that object can still be made to occupy different points in space. it's like running on a treadmill: the points you occupy are moving in one direction, but something makes you move in the other.
Aether can't exert a force, it's not a mass. But how can moving the points in space an object occupies have a visible effect on the object, when the object is being made to constantly occupy different points?
3. How do you intend to stretch space like that? I really don't understand where this objection comes from. Something that doesn't make sense is not necessarily a paradox, it's just incoherent. Either nothing can be filled and so it's just your garden-variety low concentration, or it can't be in which case aether wouldn't flow there because there's nowhere to flow. There's no paradox.

We have a completely different understanding of what aether is and how it would work. There is no sense of further discussions since we have a totally different view of how aether would interact with e.g. a bar or actually any solid. I think I have made my understanding clear, and so have you.

Anyway, I'll just quote myself

His model tries really hard to explain things, but there is no underlying logic in it as we have it with globe earth. There is no way, anything could be calculated, any orbits, any eclipse, you couldn’t even calculate sunset or sunrise. It’s all just „aether!“ without any logical foundation. Read my thread about the bird-shaped world. His model includes about the same amount of logic as my model does. You could invent simply ANY model that jumps into your mind and defend it by creating/inventing more and more. Still, this model wouldn’t be correct or make any sense ; it’d just be a (useless) thought experiment.

There is aether where the discs meet, the lack of aether between them just means there's no distance between them. That's not special, aether is space/distance, so the lack of it would mean objects either side of it automatically meet, I think you got cause and effect mixed up. The model relies on it also being occupied space though, hence why objects occupying points in space are carried along on its flow.

  So, we have two objects occupying space which is aether but the place where two volumes of aether touch each other is the place where there is no aether? This is the kind of thing where my imagination fails. Its like saying there is space inside space which isn't space.

We have a completely different understanding of what aether is and how it would work. There is no sense of further discussions since we have a totally different view of how aether would interact with e.g. a bar or actually any solid. I think I have made my understanding clear, and so have you.

Anyway, I'll just quote myself

Quote

His model tries really hard to explain things, but there is no underlying logic in it as we have it with globe earth. There is no way, anything could be calculated, any orbits, any eclipse, you couldn’t even calculate sunset or sunrise. It’s all just „aether!“ without any logical foundation. Read my thread about the bird-shaped world. His model includes about the same amount of logic as my model does. You could invent simply ANY model that jumps into your mind and defend it by creating/inventing more and more. Still, this model wouldn’t be correct or make any sense ; it’d just be a (useless) thought experiment.

Two views aren't automatically equally valid. I've spent a fair bit of time actively learning what he's said, this is the DE model.
I responded to that before.

Aether is actually defined, that's what makes this model different. There are plenty of theoretical ways to calculate those things; know the rate of rotation of a few adjacent whirlpools, know the altitudes they're at, you could extrapolate overall behaviour and you'd have a good gauge of everything from the Sun to the stars.

  So, we have two objects occupying space which is aether but the place where two volumes of aether touch each other is the place where there is no aether? This is the kind of thing where my imagination fails. Its like saying there is space inside space which isn't space.

There aren't two blobs of aether, there's only one. I'm not sure where your view comes from. There's one huge field of aether, the level of concentration just varies, and as a result in some locations aether flows. For example, after a long semi-tricky chain of events, it turned out that there'd be a circular plane of low concentration. Aether flows from above and below it: that's just the direction it moves. You get this basic pattern:

The low concentration (not a total lack of aether, just a very, very small amount) exists, and there's a flow around it, above and below. (Just flip the above image to get the below). There aren't two overlapping volumes, just one and a flow. In fact, right in the centre of the Earth, there's a higher concentration of aether because it's flowing in from two directions before it can flow out. The actual means by which the concentrations vary is pretty intuitive: a high concentration A flows to a low concentration B. As a result, the concentration at A drops. (that latter step is the reason why there's a whole cycle of motion: the aether flows to fill the dropped concentration at A).

With all that aether incoming (where from?),
and only a bit outgoing with low concentration,
where the rest disappears?

~~~~~

BTW:

Back in early 80's, (I was member of Academic Rocketing and Astronautics Club)
I heard one guy talking about possible cause of gravity to be "ecranisation of neutrinos".

He thought neutrinos could possibly provide isotropic pressure in all ways,
but nearby mass will reduce (screen) pressure from that side and force will be
produced to push object toward that nearby mass.

~~~~~

This author didn't explain much in that direction.
He didn't take into account external isotropic radiation of neutrinos.
(Or of aether, if we draw the analogy.)
Maybe with good reason, but we need independent confirmation of his claims.

He says:

"Dark matter is the "missing mass" that is keeping galaxies together.
Dark energy is something completely different.

Neutrinos do have gravity so like all other matter in the galaxy,
they contribute to the gravity holding the galaxy together.
However, taking into account all known matter, including stars, gas, dust,
planets, black holes, neutrinos, and so on; there is still a lot of "missing" mass.
So there is something else in addition to the known matter, and that's what we call dark matter.

Actually, the most likely candidate for the unknown dark matter is
a particle that is very much like the neutrino. The neutrino is extremely
difficult to detect because it does not interact via the electromagnetic force,
and is sometimes called "hot dark matter".

The dark matter that makes up most of the universe is probably
"cold dark matter" -- weakly interacting particles like the neutrino,
but each particle is much more massive and moves much more slowly,
and they are even more difficult to detect than neutrinos."

Haha, this is a great idea. When I am less busy I'll drop by and participate. For now, here is my cop-out question:

Are you going to stick strictly to JRowe's model, or will you construct your own "Jane's Duel Earth Theory" (JDET)? Or will you just add minor fixes/clarifications/specifics?

Two views aren't automatically equally valid. I've spent a fair bit of time actively learning what he's said, this is the DE model.

The model hasn't got any validity. We have a different interpretation of the same thought experiment.

Quote from: zork on September 09, 2016, 02:03:24 PM

  So, we have two objects occupying space which is aether but the place where two volumes of aether touch each other is the place where there is no aether? This is the kind of thing where my imagination fails. Its like saying there is space inside space which isn't space.

There aren't two blobs of aether, there's only one. I'm not sure where your view comes from.

I counted two discs as two objects but anyway if you insist one aether you are still saying that aether is everything but inside aether there is place where there is no aether. I can get idea of lower contsentration and higher contcentration but I don't get the idea that if aether fills everything then every point in this aether filled place can be a point where there is no aether. Or to make it shorter, how is possible to detect/assume absence of aether inside aether? Or how can aether be absent inside aether?

the main question I have is this:

why, when the creator of the theory, realised that the flat earth theory didn't work, did he not just accept the obvious fact that the earth is in fact a globe? creating a new theory, is in fact doing the exact same thing

my second question was not dealt with by him either;
satellites irrefutably exist, the evidence being photographs by amateurs, gps, and also the fact you can see and track them

but they don't exist in this theory

meaning this theory can be instantly dismissed as under testing, it fails


it doesn't matter WHAT the evidence is, it disproves said theory


leading onto my last question:
why is he not being attacked by FE's for claiming their theory is wrong?

why is he not being attacked by FE's for claiming their theory is wrong?

Even them see him as a maniac.

With all that aether incoming (where from?),
and only a bit outgoing with low concentration,
where the rest disappears?

The same amount comes out as goes in. It flows down to the flow concentration, then goes out to the sides to fill the low concentration left in the wake of the movement.

Haha, this is a great idea. When I am less busy I'll drop by and participate. For now, here is my cop-out question:

Are you going to stick strictly to JRowe's model, or will you construct your own "Jane's Duel Earth Theory" (JDET)? Or will you just add minor fixes/clarifications/specifics?

For now I'm just going to work on understanding what the current model states. If necessary I'll posit extra details to answer questions, but so far it's not been too necessary.

The model hasn't got any validity. We have a different interpretation of the same thought experiment.

There is only one DE model, you can't invent your own.

I counted two discs as two objects but anyway if you insist one aether you are still saying that aether is everything but inside aether there is place where there is no aether. I can get idea of lower contsentration and higher contcentration but I don't get the idea that if aether fills everything then every point in this aether filled place can be a point where there is no aether. Or to make it shorter, how is possible to detect/assume absence of aether inside aether? Or how can aether be absent inside aether?

The discs aren't aether. They're two objects, resulting from two flows that meet, but there's still only one 'volume' of aether.
Technically there is no point of 'no aether' just an incredibly low concentration. The amount's just negligible so we say there's none there.
JRowe's analogy, if you want a way to visualise it, is that if space is a blanket under relativity, under DET it's an elastic blanket. If you stretch it, it gets thinner at some points, while appearing thicker at others: low vs high concentrations of elastic/aether. It's everywhere, but not uniformly so. if you lay two stretches of aether side by side, they might cross the similar distances from an external perspective (eg: walking the diameter of the Earth vs taking a step across the equator) but from inside they'll seem different.
He's also used the example of a spring. Travelling along the coils, the distance never changes, but you can always stretch and compress it.

the main question I have is this:

why, when the creator of the theory, realised that the flat earth theory didn't work, did he not just accept the obvious fact that the earth is in fact a globe? creating a new theory, is in fact doing the exact same thing

my second question was not dealt with by him either;
satellites irrefutably exist, the evidence being photographs by amateurs, gps, and also the fact you can see and track them

but they don't exist in this theory

meaning this theory can be instantly dismissed as under testing, it fails


it doesn't matter WHAT the evidence is, it disproves said theory


leading onto my last question:
why is he not being attacked by FE's for claiming their theory is wrong?

There are objects in the sky, but this doesn't mean they're in space. What we observe are stratellites; in-atmosphere equivalents that serve much the same purpose.
The DET model is better than the RE model because it relies on fewer assumptions.
When would FEers find the time to talk among themselves given how many REers insist they answer their questions? FEers are typically less driven to convert, too. Some do criticise aspects, Sandokhan's been very vocal about disliking UA for one, but they hardly have the time for detailed debate.

any evidence for 'stratellites'?
or is that just another wild guess?

any evidence for 'stratellites'?
or is that just another wild guess?

Evidence is the same as the evidence for satellites.

There is only one DE model, you can't invent your own.

Since the De model is just a thought experiment, not based on real life experiments, everyone that reads this dual earth model has his own interpretation of it which is equally (in)valid as the other interpretations.

Since we cannot test out or verify how moving space would behave and how it would affect matter, we can all just guess.

couple more..

what's that dome shaped thing over and above the discs? what's it made of and what's the evidence to support it?

also, do you now believe this as fact or are you just helping others understand something you personally disagree with?

Since the De model is just a thought experiment, not based on real life experiments, everyone that reads this dual earth model has his own interpretation of it which is equally (in)valid as the other interpretations.

Since we cannot test out or verify how moving space would behave and how it would affect matter, we can all just guess.

It is based on real life experiments, as a means to explain the real world.

couple more..

what's that dome shaped thing over and above the discs? what's it made of and what's the evidence to support it?

also, do you now believe this as fact or are you just helping others understand something you personally disagree with?

The dome shape is an outline of a flow of aether. Multiple whirlpools form at increasing altitudes, the flow originating beneath the Earth, and arcing upwards until the flow from all directions meets. It follows from the definition of aether, and the evidence is in how gravity decreases depending on altitude, and how not all stars are the same distance away.
People voted for a model for me to figure out and argue for, this was it.

leading onto my last question:
why is he not being attacked by FE's for claiming their theory is wrong?

Why should he be attacked for having a different theory? He doesn't go into UA threads claiming UA is wrong, or infinite plane threads... etc. He has his own theory, which is a bit difficult to understand, but we wouldn't attack him for it. We actually welcome people who have a different way of looking at things.  It's usually REers who think they need to attack people!

because he's disagreeing with most of the flat earth theory..

its an absurd theory, again, made up on the spot by someone who realised the flat earth theory doesn't work..
the standard reaction would be acceptance of facts, not creating a new theory

how can anyone actually believe they've just 'thought up' the correct answer? especially when so much physical evidence goes against it?

You guys are mental

You guys are mental

Or you are being successfully trolled. 

You're the one wanting to attack people for having a different theory! That's what's really mental.

You're the one wanting to attack people for having a different theory! That's what's really mental.

that's a bit rich coming from you

and no, what's mental is creating a new theory because the standard flat earth theory doesn't work

so, instead of doing the obvious, accepting the flat earth theory doesn't work therefore accepting the globe earth is correct.. the mental part is thinking 'I know, I'll make one up then tell everyone its correct, I'll believe it myself, then I'll try to convince people, without using any testable evidence, to believe it too'

yeah, I'M mental!

there's irrefutable evidence of our planet being a globe, you're simply ignoring it and using already disproven facts AS evidence..

cognitive dissonance

It is based on real life experiments, as a means to explain the real world.

Jrowe is using some real-world observation that suit the model's needs to then create absurde theories to explain those. You could make up 10000 different models like Jrowe's... still none of them would make any sense or would be more than a thought experiment nor would any of them represent reality. And, if one really believes those thought experiments are true, (as Jrowe does) I think one needs psychological help.

Quote from: zork on September 10, 2016, 01:52:28 AM

I counted two discs as two objects but anyway if you insist one aether you are still saying that aether is everything but inside aether there is place where there is no aether. I can get idea of lower contsentration and higher contcentration but I don't get the idea that if aether fills everything then every point in this aether filled place can be a point where there is no aether. Or to make it shorter, how is possible to detect/assume absence of aether inside aether? Or how can aether be absent inside aether?

The discs aren't aether. They're two objects, resulting from two flows that meet, but there's still only one 'volume' of aether.

  Discs occupy space, e.g. aether If solid objects are not included then aether is not space, its so called empty space between two or more objects. Or even not that because air occupies space on earth. Aether is then more like vacuum. And if there is no aether between edges of two disc then its like closed space and how all aether and sunlight and whatever gets out from the middle of two discs.Just skips over no aether place?

Technically there is no point of 'no aether' just an incredibly low concentration. The amount's just negligible so we say there's none there.

Another point to threat it as vacuum.

because he's disagreeing with most of the flat earth theory..

its an absurd theory, again, made up on the spot by someone who realised the flat earth theory doesn't work..
the standard reaction would be acceptance of facts, not creating a new theory

how can anyone actually believe they've just 'thought up' the correct answer? especially when so much physical evidence goes against it?

You guys are mental

Insulting and saying "Evidence goes against it," without saying what that evidence is doesn't exactly achieve much.

Jrowe is using some real-world observation that suit the model's needs to then create absurde theories to explain those. You could make up 10000 different models like Jrowe's... still none of them would make any sense or would be more than a thought experiment nor would any of them represent reality. And, if one really believes those thought experiments are true, (as Jrowe does) I think one needs psychological help.

All real world observations are said to be accounted for, it's not a partial thing. If that's true, then it would by necessity reflect reality.
What exactly is meant to be achieved by accusations of poor mental health?

  Discs occupy space, e.g. aether If solid objects are not included then aether is not space, its so called empty space between two or more objects. Or even not that because air occupies space on earth. Aether is then more like vacuum. And if there is no aether between edges of two disc then its like closed space and how all aether and sunlight and whatever gets out from the middle of two discs.Just skips over no aether place?

Like I said, aether is all space, not just empty space. Why are you pushing the idea that it's not all space? That's not the case, it doesn't matter what it would mean if it was. There is absolutely no reason to somehow create a divide between empty space and occupied space. That isn't how, well, anything works. It's just space, and under this model without gravity I don't think there's any way for the space to tell whether it's occupied or not. the definition of aether is all space.

There's no aether near ground level at the equator. If you look at a diagram, you've got an eye-like design: there's a negligible concentration on the outside, then you've got a pupil in the centre which isn't touched if all you're doing is crossing the iris/white. That pupil's where some space exists, but it can't be reached by crossing the equator near ground level. The flow that passes through it only comes out much higher up.

Quote from: Jane on September 10, 2016, 06:29:50 AM

Technically there is no point of 'no aether' just an incredibly low concentration. The amount's just negligible so we say there's none there.

Another point to threat it as vacuum.

What?
Again, aether is all space, not a vacuum. You can't twist the theory to make it apply to only empty space. I've given you the answer, I'm not sure why you're trying to push that idea.

If we cross the equator, shouldn't we get a flash of light through the center of the earth where the sun actually is?