Ask me About DET!

"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."

Hmm, not really. I'm saying how on earth anything in DE actually fits reality. How does one deduce that we live on either side of two flat planes which are separated (but not really) because something something aether? Again, how does one deduce that nothing special happens at the equator despite the very opposite appearing to be true? Glib remarks about it logically following from something something aetherial affects is nonsense. There seems an awful lot of connective dots missing from the 'assumption' that aether is space and aether flows and... therefore DE? Can you fill in the blanks? Dare you even try?

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.

I... have no idea what this means. Again, you've gone from A to Z in single step, ignoring everything inbetween. How does starting with the assumption that aether is space and aether flows does any of what you've just said follow? How do you get a flat disc from these assumptions? How do you get dual flat discs from that?

Let's just ignore for now that we still have no idea where anything even is on a DE, therefore we can't actually measure anything.

Also, would you attempt to explain how a sunrise/sunset works because I still have no idea?

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.

Well, much like you, I don't take things too seriously. I simply attempt to inject logic and reason into discussions (if you can call what happens on these forums that) and call people out whom make fallacious arguments. Secondly, I appreciate the fact that, because FE has no basis in reality, that people will rightly deride those who subscribe to such backward nonsense and why shouldn't they? They are ripe for the picking because a belief in a FE was outdated literally millennia ago.

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.

I think the thing you are missing is that every single model* presented on these forums have no internal consistency whatsoever. You seem to think that rambling ad hoc responses to questions constitute a model. Square pegs are continually forced into round holes whenever someone asks a question the model creator never thought of (see JRowe vs equatorial aligned telescopes as an example). They then attempt to say that all of what they posit fits reality whilst simultaneously ignoring reality. Where are the thought experiments in any of that?

In DET's case, the way space works is pretty complicated when you get down to it

Complicated... well, that's one way to put it. Complete bullshit would be another. If I had to guess, JR was reasonable enough to admit that the FE hypothesis was erroneous, thus he came up with the idea of a DE which solves a few FE problems (but really just creates countless more). Everything 'followed' from there, including the convoluted, magical aether which does whatever JR says it does.

Mystery solved, I think! What did I win?

*I use that term very loosely because there are no FE/DE models, just a jumbled mess of contradictory ideas thrown into a blender.

Mensa test or mensa approved IQ test.

So how’d you make sure I myself attend this test? How would you make sure I’d not fake the result ? How’d you know I have not already done this test multiple times and therefore improved my results ? What if I’d score better in the mensa iq test, but worse than her in all other tests ? What if I had inside-knowledge about this test? What would it matter whether I or her scored better? If a Nazi scored highest possible amount of points, would it make him any better? Would it make his arguments more valid ?

Thank you for the link, I’ll look at it later.

Pi's only defined as 2 if you accept measured distances, which FEers never so. The behaviour of aether's actually pretty simple when you get the hang of it. Anything that exists in space will move when that space moves, that's the basic gist. Without any specific questions or examples of your problems I can't explain much.

I thought Jrowe approved those measurements, but I do not know and have no time to search who said that.
I do know the « basic gist ». Problem is, the basic gist doesn’t make sense, as we saw earlier on with our steel beam problem.

Like i said, I was explaining how REers will often be perceived. If that comes across as an insult, that's your problem.

I called what you were doing hypocrite and you cannot deny it was hypocrite.

8 points is not a short thread, it's eight times as much as most topics cover, and who's going to start responding to a wall of text?

So the flatties have time to post THOUSANDS of posts here, but not to respond to three (respectively eight) points in one single thread, where each point is no more than a handful of sentences. They have time to create videos etc. but not time to address three respectively eight points? You have to be kidding me.

Again, you're so hyprocrite. You say my eight/three points were too much, but expect people to read jrowe's model?

A lot of REers don't debate, just providing stock arguments. I never said 'most,' just some.

Right there you said « a lot of ». So hypocrite.

And if discussion isn't possible then, yes, it's a rant. You're putting your view forwards without much room for people to respond.

Discussion is easily possible. Every point can be observed outside if my material does not suffice. Every point can be discussed and could be disproven.
My three/eight points cannot be discussed and are a rant, but Jrowes model can be discussed. You're so hypocrite.

That's an awful ignore function. You can't just erase someone from existence: it's a debate forum, it's worth seeing that someone's posting, even if for no other reason than to not get baffled when someone quotes them.

You can’t  be serious. You’re so hypocrite all the time, I’m not sure whether you do it on purpose or if it’s your nature.  You tell me to use the « ignore » function but say this is a debate forum so we would need to see if someone posts. Seriously?

Your signature quotes Jrowe «The aether thinks you're a li'l bitch.» same time you say « JRowe seems to get it worse than most REers: there was an alt account made once exclusively to mock him». Seriously?


I don't think discussing with a hypocrite would ever lead anywhere.

Quote from: zork on September 13, 2016, 06:45:32 AM

No, its not. You continuously talk like matter and space/aether are separate things. Aether can flow from one place to another and disperse or concentrate with no effects on matter. You can stretch aether thin, conveniently in places where there is no physical matter, and only effect is that matter in one place get closer to another piece of matter in another place. As you said that physical matter occupies place/point inside aether then I assume that there is no aether inside physical matter. It kind of pushes aether out like physical object pushes water out if you put it in water. Its inside water but it exists independently from water and stretching or doing something with water does not affect physical object. I don't see space in that way. If I have cubic meter of empty space or cubic meter of space filled with physical matter its all same space. In one case all space is occupied with nothing in other with matter. If I stretch space then all that is inside space also stretches. It does not affect just space and matter stays unaffected. Matter can't exist without space. You can't do something to the space and leave matter inside space unaffected. Or have you any analogies where you can have matter without space?

When aether flows, the objects occupying those points in space move with it. Of course aether affects matter. That's pretty much fundamental to the model. Stretch aether thin, the matter inside that space will be just as affected when it passes through. If you stretch space thin, the reason we can't notice this directly is because we're affected by it. How do you plan to detect something when our only means of detection exist in space?

So its like it exists but we can't detect it. But we can assume that it exists because some indirect pointers. And these pointers can be whatever we like them to be. Coriolis force for example. Because it exists then there must be aether. And because sun shines there must be aether. And because earth seems to be intact and there is no gap at equator then there must be aether. Nice.

I have said countless times already that there is aether inside matter. Matter occupies points in space, so of course those points must be inside the matter. I don't know how I can make this any more obvious. I state something explicitly on multiple occasions, why are you constantly acting as though I'm saying the exact opposite?

That is because you explain like they are different things(like your water and objects example). And that there is conveniently no way to detect any effects of aether but still it does everything. We can only observe some randomly selected phenomenons and if we want then conclude - yes, there is aether there. In short it seems like lazy man's model because if you observe something then you can blame aether and don't have to find out what really caused it.

This of aether as coordinate points. A stationary object is fixed at a fixed location, so at the coordinate points that make up that domain, in space: resting on top of them, say. It exists at those points in space. It isn't somehow excluded from space, I have no idea why you are clinging onto that idea despite being told it's not true on multiple occasions, and the fact it doesn't make any sense.

Because if aether stretches, disperses, compresses etc it should affect matter (or physical world) visibly or in other measurable way. I don't get it how you can say that manipulating the space affects matter but we can't observe it in any way. How do you even know that aether does affect matter if we can't observe it. If this something has absolutely no observable effect on matter then it just does not exist. It can't do anything which affects our observable world.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 13, 2016, 05:34:17 AM

If DET were a celebrity, who would it be?

Patrick Stewart.

Ha, you're waaay off base with that one.

Someone like Lindsay Lohan would be closer.  Though I suspect a better answer would be "someone who was once on Big Brother in the 90s" is the right answer.

OK then, if DET were an animal, which would it be?

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.

I just want to emphasize this point, because it is very well stated and so true.

I have a few DET related questions. (Disclaimer: I didn't read this entire thread cover to cover, and only sped read JRowe's model. If my questions have been answered or are stupid, feel free to flippantly order me to read the rest of the thread.)

Question 1:

I feel like a lot of the hostility towards Jane here seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of what she's doing.  No one is trying to claim that dual-earth is true (well except for the one guy)...she's just saying, how do I explain things using DET as a given.  It's not a big deal--Einstein said "what would happen if I were riding on a light wave?"  We can all jump around and say "but...but that's not possible!"  Who cares?

...

It seems to me that is all she's doing.  And in this context, the only real debate you can make is by using (god help me for saying this) what's in the model.  Calling out the model itself is not debate, it's undermining the debate.  And missing the point.

I would like some clarification on this issue. If I understand correctly, you (Jane) are attempting to explain real world observations using the DET model. Is this correct? (I assume yes). This is a bit different than arguing about a fictional universe, which presupposes fictional observations.

(Edit: But you aren't necessarily trying to prove that DET is correct. Therefore, there is no need to prove that any of this is the correct explanation of observations, just that it is a plausible explanation of observations. Correct?)

Question 2:

I think most people's problem with DET stems from it's rather vague description of aether. Aether seems to be the catch-all mechanic that explains otherwise contradictory observations. How do we get from one side to the other? Aether. How do we see the sun move across the sky in a particular way? Aetheric whirlpools. etc, etc. If we are allowing ourselves to be content with such a vague description of aether, then I have no doubt that it could be used to plausibly explain absolutely any observation.

My question is this: do you think it is possible to build a more concrete mathematical model of how aether behaves? Do you plan on attempting this? (Yes, I realize this would be a rather large undertaking.)

Interestingly, this seems to be a very similar undertaking to what John Davis is trying to do. Build a mathematical model that allows round earth observations to make sense on a flat earth.

Quote from: Jane on September 13, 2016, 04:46:25 AM

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.

I just want to emphasize this point, because it is very well stated and so true.

I have a few DET related questions. (Disclaimer: I didn't read this entire thread cover to cover, and only sped read JRowe's model. If my questions have been answered or are stupid, feel free to flippantly order me to read the rest of the thread.)

Question 1:

Quote from: deadsirius on September 13, 2016, 07:10:23 AM

I feel like a lot of the hostility towards Jane here seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of what she's doing.  No one is trying to claim that dual-earth is true (well except for the one guy)...she's just saying, how do I explain things using DET as a given.  It's not a big deal--Einstein said "what would happen if I were riding on a light wave?"  We can all jump around and say "but...but that's not possible!"  Who cares?

...

It seems to me that is all she's doing.  And in this context, the only real debate you can make is by using (god help me for saying this) what's in the model.  Calling out the model itself is not debate, it's undermining the debate.  And missing the point.

I would like some clarification on this issue. If I understand correctly, you (Jane) are attempting to explain real world observations using the DET model. Is this correct? (I assume yes). This is a bit different than arguing about a fictional universe, which presupposes fictional observations.

(Edit: But you aren't necessarily trying to prove that DET is correct. Therefore, there is no need to prove that any of this is the correct explanation of observations, just that it is a plausible explanation of observations. Correct?)

Question 2:

I think most people's problem with DET stems from it's rather vague description of aether. Aether seems to be the catch-all mechanic that explains otherwise contradictory observations. How do we get from one side to the other? Aether. How do we see the sun move across the sky in a particular way? Aetheric whirlpools. etc, etc. If we are allowing ourselves to be content with such a vague description of aether, then I have no doubt that it could be used to plausibly explain absolutely any observation.

My question is this: do you think it is possible to build a more concrete mathematical model of how aether behaves? Do you plan on attempting this? (Yes, I realize this would be a rather large undertaking.)

Interestingly, this seems to be a very similar undertaking to what John Davis is trying to do. Build a mathematical model that allows round earth observations to make sense on a flat earth.

The model says satellites are stratellites.   Janes says the evidence for stratellites is the same as satellites which is complete rubbish:

A satellite is in outerspace.  It can remain aloft indefinately/sufficiently long time.   

A stratellite is in inner space.  It cannot remain aloft indefinately/it has a limited life before refueling etc.

We know how fast the satellites are travelling because we have doppler information.  They cannot be travelling 5 miles per second in the atmosphere.

So which is it?  Is it science fiction or is it supposed to be describing reality?

The model says satellites are stratellites.   Janes says the evidence for stratellites is the same as satellites which is complete rubbish:

A satellite is in outerspace.  It can remain aloft indefinately/sufficiently long time.   

A stratellite is in inner space.  It cannot remain aloft indefinately/it has a limited life before refueling etc.

We know how fast the satellites are travelling because we have doppler information.  They cannot be travelling 5 miles per second in the atmosphere.

So which is it?  Is it science fiction or is it supposed to be describing reality?

A) I am pretty sure that DET assumes that relativity isn't a thing, so you will need to rethink anything having to do with the doppler effect related to light.
B) What equipment is needed to measure this doppler effect? Can an amateur do it on a reasonable budget? To give this model a chance, you pretty much have to assume that any information coming from any authority figure is suspect. I know the whole global-conspiracy-spanning-every-government-and-major-company thing is unlikely, but you just have to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: C) Perhaps the upper atmosphere is traveling 5 miles per second? Something something, aetheric whirlpools, something. *shrug*

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 13, 2016, 09:16:14 AM

The model says satellites are stratellites.   Janes says the evidence for stratellites is the same as satellites which is complete rubbish:

A satellite is in outerspace.  It can remain aloft indefinately/sufficiently long time.   

A stratellite is in inner space.  It cannot remain aloft indefinately/it has a limited life before refueling etc.

We know how fast the satellites are travelling because we have doppler information.  They cannot be travelling 5 miles per second in the atmosphere.

So which is it?  Is it science fiction or is it supposed to be describing reality?

A) I am pretty sure that DET assumes that relativity isn't a thing, so you will need to rethink anything having to do with the doppler effect related to light.
B) What equipment is needed to measure this doppler effect? Can an amateur do it on a reasonable budget? To give this model a chance, you pretty much have to assume that any information coming from any authority figure is suspect. I know the whole global-conspiracy-spanning-every-government-and-major-company thing is unlikely, but you just have to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: C) Perhaps the upper atmosphere is traveling 5 miles per second? Something something, aetheric whirlpools, something. *shrug*

Depending upon the angle the satellite comes across the sky at,    the radio ham will have to adjust the frequency by some known amount for that angle and satellite.  Plenty of stuff on youtube about it.  There is no equipment needed other than a radio.  Radio hams even have their own satellites in orbit.  Recent ones are released by the ISS so are almost the same height and velocity.

Then of course for GPS it is not possible to receive wrong information about satellite position and calculate your own position.  Fairly obviously.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 13, 2016, 09:36:36 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 13, 2016, 09:16:14 AM

The model says satellites are stratellites.   Janes says the evidence for stratellites is the same as satellites which is complete rubbish:

A satellite is in outerspace.  It can remain aloft indefinately/sufficiently long time.   

A stratellite is in inner space.  It cannot remain aloft indefinately/it has a limited life before refueling etc.

We know how fast the satellites are travelling because we have doppler information.  They cannot be travelling 5 miles per second in the atmosphere.

So which is it?  Is it science fiction or is it supposed to be describing reality?

A) I am pretty sure that DET assumes that relativity isn't a thing, so you will need to rethink anything having to do with the doppler effect related to light.
B) What equipment is needed to measure this doppler effect? Can an amateur do it on a reasonable budget? To give this model a chance, you pretty much have to assume that any information coming from any authority figure is suspect. I know the whole global-conspiracy-spanning-every-government-and-major-company thing is unlikely, but you just have to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: C) Perhaps the upper atmosphere is traveling 5 miles per second? Something something, aetheric whirlpools, something. *shrug*

Depending upon the angle the satellite comes across the sky at,    the radio ham will have to adjust the frequency by some known amount for that angle and satellite.  Plenty of stuff on youtube about it.  There is no equipment needed other than a radio.  Radio hams even have their own satellites in orbit.  Recent ones are released by the ISS so are almost the same height and velocity.

Then of course for GPS it is not possible to receive wrong information about satellite position and calculate your own position.  Fairly obviously.

That leaves us with A and B. So... aether I guess. Too vague to disprove and too vague to be useful. I'll wait for Jane's answer about whether she plans on coming up with a more concrete description of aether.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 12, 2016, 04:08:17 PM

Jane is just too stupid to realise what she is talking about obviously has no basis in reality whatsoever. 

I am unable to understand why you would say she is not stupid. 

.. stupidity

It is just ...monsterously stupid

...very very stupid.

I would think people who clearly struggle with abstractions or nuance would be more careful about throwing around insults like "stupid" and "retarded". Just my unsolicited observation.

That's just two posts out the one thousand you've blessed us with...  and to a fellow globularist, no less! What is wrong with you people?

I haven't read every post in this thread and only skimmed through the model, but I have some (stupid) questions too. To start, since aether=space, I'll just call it space to avoid confusion.
1 - Definition of movement and concentration. I cannot imagine how space itself can have either.
2 - The equator. If I understood correctly there's no space at the border of the disk, but there should be some in the middle where the sun is. By the properties of space, there's then a radial flow towards the equator. How come there's still no space there despite this?

Aether does not exactly equal space. Aether is space with additional properties which enable all other fancy stuff as needed.

Hmm, not really. I'm saying how on earth anything in DE actually fits reality. How does one deduce that we live on either side of two flat planes which are separated (but not really) because something something aether? Again, how does one deduce that nothing special happens at the equator despite the very opposite appearing to be true? Glib remarks about it logically following from something something aetherial affects is nonsense. There seems an awful lot of connective dots missing from the 'assumption' that aether is space and aether flows and... therefore DE? Can you fill in the blanks? Dare you even try?

Firstly, you don't need to deduce nothing special happens at the equator. That's the natural assumption: that nothing special happens. The equator point makes sense if you look from an in-model perspective.
If a low concentration forms (the necessary origin assumption, like "The matter at the Big Bang exists,") then dust would be carried on flows of aether towards this. The flow would result in a low concentration left behind in the wake of the inwards flow, and so on, that's what creates the disk, and creates it in this format. The edge of the disk is the edge of the original low concentration, where the remaining low concentration inside the Earth is 'exposed.'

I... have no idea what this means. Again, you've gone from A to Z in single step, ignoring everything inbetween. How does starting with the assumption that aether is space and aether flows does any of what you've just said follow? How do you get a flat disc from these assumptions? How do you get dual flat discs from that?

Let's just ignore for now that we still have no idea where anything even is on a DE, therefore we can't actually measure anything.

Also, would you attempt to explain how a sunrise/sunset works because I still have no idea?

Yes, I went quickly, because you're asking for a ridiculously long essay and I have no desire to write it when I have no idea what your specific issues are.
The dual flat disc arises because dust is carried to the top and bottom of the low concentration.
As for sunrise/set, do you understand the equator? It's connected to that, but I can't do much unless you understand that principle first.

Secondly, I appreciate the fact that, because FE has no basis in reality, that people will rightly deride those who subscribe to such backward nonsense and why shouldn't they? They are ripe for the picking because a belief in a FE was outdated literally millennia ago.

Because joining a forum for the exclusive purpose of insulting and mocking and deriding is such a monumentally juvenile and idiotic way to act it deserves precisely zero respect.

I think the thing you are missing is that every single model* presented on these forums have no internal consistency whatsoever. You seem to think that rambling ad hoc responses to questions constitute a model. Square pegs are continually forced into round holes whenever someone asks a question the model creator never thought of (see JRowe vs equatorial aligned telescopes as an example). They then attempt to say that all of what they posit fits reality whilst simultaneously ignoring reality. Where are the thought experiments in any of that?

That's not how it works. Most models I've seen are fairly internally consistent, the problem being you need to take the time to actually learn and understand what's being said, rather than rejecting it automatically on the basis that it's wrong. For example: can you provide such a contradiction with DET?

I thought Jrowe approved those measurements, but I do not know and have no time to search who said that.
I do know the « basic gist ». Problem is, the basic gist doesn’t make sense, as we saw earlier on with our steel beam problem.

There was no steel beam problem. Your response amounted to "I think my separate view of space is right, and your view which solves the problem is wrong, and I'm not going to say why."

So the flatties have time to post THOUSANDS of posts here, but not to respond to three (respectively eight) points in one single thread, where each point is no more than a handful of sentences. They have time to create videos etc. but not time to address three respectively eight points? You have to be kidding me.

How many of the users on this site make the videos? Thousands of posts over several years doesn't mean that much. You seem to be treating FEers as some sort of hive mind as well, but they're only individuals. They'd click the thread open, see a list of points, the responses to each one would take quite a while to explain, and all fo which that they've discussed before, how do you think they'd react?

Again, you're so hyprocrite. You say my eight/three points were too much, but expect people to read jrowe's model?

No, I don't. I mean, if people are going to make claims about it, then yes I expect them to have read it because that's just common sense, but I don't expect everyone to read it if they don't want to.

Right there you said « a lot of ». So hypocrite.

'A lot of' does not mean 'most.' It means 'a lot.' There are a huge number of REers on this site.

You can’t  be serious. You’re so hypocrite all the time, I’m not sure whether you do it on purpose or if it’s your nature.  You tell me to use the « ignore » function but say this is a debate forum so we would need to see if someone posts. Seriously?

Your signature quotes Jrowe «The aether thinks you're a li'l bitch.» same time you say « JRowe seems to get it worse than most REers: there was an alt account made once exclusively to mock him». Seriously?

I don't think discussing with a hypocrite would ever lead anywhere.

Maybe you could stop bandying insults about, stop assuming the people you talk to are wrong, and start thinking about it. I say you have to see that someone has posted for several reasons, not that you need to debate with them. And my signature is a vaguely amusing quote, not a serious point, and I was sure to keep the link to the source there so people can see the context. It's right above a blatant parody of jroa, too.

So its like it exists but we can't detect it. But we can assume that it exists because some indirect pointers. And these pointers can be whatever we like them to be. Coriolis force for example. Because it exists then there must be aether. And because sun shines there must be aether. And because earth seems to be intact and there is no gap at equator then there must be aether. Nice.

 That is because you explain like they are different things(like your water and objects example). And that there is conveniently no way to detect any effects of aether but still it does everything. We can only observe some randomly selected phenomenons and if we want then conclude - yes, there is aether there. In short it seems like lazy man's model because if you observe something then you can blame aether and don't have to find out what really caused it.

 Because if aether stretches, disperses, compresses etc it should affect matter (or physical world) visibly or in other measurable way. I don't get it how you can say that manipulating the space affects matter but we can't observe it in any way. How do you even know that aether does affect matter if we can't observe it. If this something has absolutely no observable effect on matter then it just does not exist. It can't do anything which affects our observable world.

You're conflating multiple points. The water analogy was solely about how much aether is between touching objects, nothing else. I don't know why you're trying to apply it to something else.
And we can detect aether, you gave an example of how we can do so, we just can't detect one specific situation directly. I mean, I can't detect the light coming off, say, a cat behind me, but I'm perfectly capable of, say, hearing it. We can detect the movement of aether, but think about the stretching. If you walk into stretched space, then you yourself would stretch to the exact same extent, because the coordinates in space you occupy will be stretched. How do you plan to detect that? What sense or sensory equipment do you imagine that will somehow transcend the fact it exists in space, and so its perceptions will be altered? What do you expect to detect?
We can only detect it relative to other areas of space. That's how we feel the movement of aether (eg: gravity), relative to the Earth.
The reason aether is blamed is because it makes sense as an explanation.

Quote from: Jane on September 13, 2016, 07:03:13 AM

Patrick Stewart.

Ha, you're waaay off base with that one.

Blame Sokarul.

OK then, if DET were an animal, which would it be?

Platypus.
It looks completely ridiculous and may kill you painfully.

I would like some clarification on this issue. If I understand correctly, you (Jane) are attempting to explain real world observations using the DET model. Is this correct? (I assume yes). This is a bit different than arguing about a fictional universe, which presupposes fictional observations.

(Edit: But you aren't necessarily trying to prove that DET is correct. Therefore, there is no need to prove that any of this is the correct explanation of observations, just that it is a plausible explanation of observations. Correct?)

A plausible explanation's a good goal, but not necessary, I'm just trying to think in terms of the model, and working from that starting point determine how it would address various points.

I think most people's problem with DET stems from it's rather vague description of aether. Aether seems to be the catch-all mechanic that explains otherwise contradictory observations. How do we get from one side to the other? Aether. How do we see the sun move across the sky in a particular way? Aetheric whirlpools. etc, etc. If we are allowing ourselves to be content with such a vague description of aether, then I have no doubt that it could be used to plausibly explain absolutely any observation.

My question is this: do you think it is possible to build a more concrete mathematical model of how aether behaves? Do you plan on attempting this? (Yes, I realize this would be a rather large undertaking.)

Interestingly, this seems to be a very similar undertaking to what John Davis is trying to do. Build a mathematical model that allows round earth observations to make sense on a flat earth.

Aether is actually defined as far as the model goes, so it isn't just a generic appeal. You don't need an exact value of the constants of gravity to see that orbits make sense, and that people can stay on the Earth's surface, and that the Solar System would form... Sure, it helps, but you don't need the maths to understand. Aether is understood in the model, so it's not a vague catch-all, it's a defined resource that is just relevant in many situations. In-model, it's no more bizarre than gravity being able to answer a lot of questions.
A mathematical description might be possible, but I suspect we'd be left with a horrendous PDE, and those are a serious pain to work with. It wouldn't help much. If memory serves, JRowe did so, but it'd be PhD level plus to analyse.
I've managed a possible mathematical model of John's non-Euclidean FE, if you're interested in that though.

I am pretty sure that DET assumes that relativity isn't a thing, so you will need to rethink anything having to do with the doppler effect related to light.

DET accepts Relativity, I think, it's part of the evidence for space not just being there, but having properties.

I haven't read every post in this thread and only skimmed through the model, but I have some (stupid) questions too. To start, since aether=space, I'll just call it space to avoid confusion.
1 - Definition of movement and concentration. I cannot imagine how space itself can have either.
2 - The equator. If I understood correctly there's no space at the border of the disk, but there should be some in the middle where the sun is. By the properties of space, there's then a radial flow towards the equator. How come there's still no space there despite this?

1. Concentration is easiest to express via analogy. If space, under relativity, is viewed as a blanket, then under DET it's an elastic blanket. It can be stretched thin (low concentration) or compressed (high). Movement's just the closest possible term. Trying to picture it directly is pretty much trying to visualise something 4-D, analogy's best. Movement I think of as the movement of coordinate points on a graph.
2. The point where the Sun is, isn't the point where we cross the equator. I made a diagram on the first page, from JRowe's illustration of the Earth: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67964.msg1820264#msg1820264
There's no flow upwards because the low concentration is formed by the flow inwards. The flow from it is out to the side.

Aether does not exactly equal space. Aether is space with additional properties which enable all other fancy stuff as needed.

If you want to be pedantic, yes, but you need to think of it as space as a first step to even have a chance of grasping any of it.

I can't bear your hypocritical bullshit no longer.

I could respond to all your points one more time, but what good would it do?

I'm out.

I could respond to all your points one more time, but what good would it do?

The irony hurts.

Firstly, you don't need to deduce nothing special happens at the equator. That's the natural assumption: that nothing special happens. The equator point makes sense if you look from an in-model perspective. If a low concentration forms (the necessary origin assumption, like "The matter at the Big Bang exists,") then dust would be carried on flows of aether towards this. The flow would result in a low concentration left behind in the wake of the inwards flow, and so on, that's what creates the disk, and creates it in this format. The edge of the disk is the edge of the original low concentration, where the remaining low concentration inside the Earth is 'exposed.'

Let us not try and draw comparisons with real scientific theories like the Big Bang with JRowe's ad hoc DE. They are not even close to being comparable.

Onto your 'explanation'... the only thing I got from it was something along the lines of: aether flows, stuff happens, something dust aaaand presto, you got yourself a DE with a sun, moon and planets on the 'inside' of a DE! If you think I'm being overly dismissive, please try reading your explanation back to yourself aloud. Notice how, despite the assumptions, there is no coherent connection between one assertion to the next? Apparently aether is space and can not only interact with matter, but can actually form planets and suns but can't actually be detected/measured. Do I have that right?

Yes, I went quickly, because you're asking for a ridiculously long essay and I have no desire to write it when I have no idea what your specific issues are.

Weird. You say what I'm asking would take a ridiculously long essay to explain then in the next breath say you have no idea what my specific issues are? Which is it?

As for sunrise/set, do you understand the equator? It's connected to that, but I can't do much unless you understand that principle first.

Oh, I understand the equator thing all right. It makes no sense of course, but I understand it much like I understand how Neo can do what he does in the Matrix.

Apparently, if I stood right on the equatorial line, one half of my body would be on the northern disc and my other half on the southern disc. And, because of something something aether concentration something something no-space, no one notices anything. My body also simultaneously traverses the space between the discs where I would pass by the sun, moon and planets (without noticing of course) when crossing the equator. You know, I used to think that bendy light was fantastic in its stupidity, but JR's aether takes the proverbial cake! Not only can it flow and concentrate, it can simulate gravity and bend light from one side of the world to the other, all without anyone noticing!

As for the sunrise/sunset, I would like to hear your explanation for this because once upon a time I was able to get JR to expound on it briefly, so I am curious if your explanation is remotely comparable to the one he gave me (as charmingly incoherent as it was).

Because joining a forum for the exclusive purpose of insulting and mocking and deriding is such a monumentally juvenile and idiotic way to act it deserves precisely zero respect.

Who said anything about it deserving respect? I said I understood it.

Secondly, the idea of a FE and its proponents also deserve the same amount of respect ie. zero.

Lastly, welcome to the internet. Are you new here?

That's not how it works. Most models I've seen are fairly internally consistent, the problem being you need to take the time to actually learn and understand what's being said, rather than rejecting it automatically on the basis that it's wrong. For example: can you provide such a contradiction with DET?

Well, firstly I take exception to your use of the word model for reasons you would already appreciate.

Not only that, the FE/DE models can never be internally consistent if they are trying to describe real-world phenomena because... well, they're wrong, aren't they? I mean, if you start with the premise that all of these models describe a fictional world, I suppose it's just harmless pontificating. When, however, one tries to shoehorn this nonsense into the real world, that's when objections get raised.

Here's a much more interesting and challenging (IMO) idea for you Jane: Try creating a non-RE model that is a) internally consistent, b) describes real-world phenomena and c) is falsifiable.

Lastly, contradictions with DE? Well, since no one can actually seem to understand the properties of aether which is this model's answer to everything, it's hard to even get a grasp on anything concrete let alone find contradictions in vague, hand-waving walls of text.

And we can detect aether, you gave an example of how we can do so, we just can't detect one specific situation directly. I mean, I can't detect the light coming off, say, a cat behind me, but I'm perfectly capable of, say, hearing it. We can detect the movement of aether, but think about the stretching. If you walk into stretched space, then you yourself would stretch to the exact same extent, because the coordinates in space you occupy will be stretched. How do you plan to detect that? What sense or sensory equipment do you imagine that will somehow transcend the fact it exists in space, and so its perceptions will be altered? What do you expect to detect?
We can only detect it relative to other areas of space. That's how we feel the movement of aether (eg: gravity), relative to the Earth.

No, we can't detect aether. We can only detect some effects and without other explanation assume that the reason is aether. There is no way to somehow directly detect aether. Same goes for the movement of aether. And if I am in stretched aether then yes, I can't detect it but there surely must be cases where aether is stretched/compressed elsewhere and I should be able to observe it. But there is no such occurrences which can be observed.

The reason aether is blamed is because it makes sense as an explanation.

  Yes, its easy way out.

Let us not try and draw comparisons with real scientific theories like the Big Bang with JRowe's ad hoc DE. They are not even close to being comparable.

It's an analogy. They don't have to be the exact same for there to be a shared principle.

Onto your 'explanation'... the only thing I got from it was something along the lines of: aether flows, stuff happens, something dust aaaand presto, you got yourself a DE with a sun, moon and planets on the 'inside' of a DE! If you think I'm being overly dismissive, please try reading your explanation back to yourself aloud. Notice how, despite the assumptions, there is no coherent connection between one assertion to the next? Apparently aether is space and can not only interact with matter, but can actually form planets and suns but can't actually be detected/measured. Do I have that right?

Weird. You say what I'm asking would take a ridiculously long essay to explain then in the next breath say you have no idea what my specific issues are? Which is it?

Connected issues: I gave a rushed explanation because general questions take huge amounts to answer. Specific questions are tractable. Just saying "Explain the model," is a general question, and takes a ridiculously long essay to explain. "Explain this part," is actually doable, because it's a specific issue.
The interaction of aether and matter, for one example. This is one aspect of creation, but takes some explaining. It's all to do with relative location. If matter is stationary (assuming the idealised case of being under no force and having never been under force: perfectly at rest) then it is stationary with respect to aether. If you view aether as a set of coordinate points, then that matter will occupy the same coordinate points. With no force acting on it, it will remain perfectly stationary.
However, the coordinate points it occupies move. This isn't really an interaction, no force is exerted on the object (it takes mass to exert a force), the object is technically stationary relative to aether. However, if some other object at some other point of aether is subject to a different flow, then the objects will seem to be moving relative to each other.

See the issue with general questions now? That's what's required to explain the basic underpinning to formation. After that there's dust, flow direction, flow cause, and the set-up of the whole Earth as a result.

Oh, I understand the equator thing all right. It makes no sense of course, but I understand it much like I understand how Neo can do what he does in the Matrix.

Apparently, if I stood right on the equatorial line, one half of my body would be on the northern disc and my other half on the southern disc. And, because of something something aether concentration something something no-space, no one notices anything. My body also simultaneously traverses the space between the discs where I would pass by the sun, moon and planets (without noticing of course) when crossing the equator. You know, I used to think that bendy light was fantastic in its stupidity, but JR's aether takes the proverbial cake! Not only can it flow and concentrate, it can simulate gravity and bend light from one side of the world to the other, all without anyone noticing!

As for the sunrise/sunset, I would like to hear your explanation for this because once upon a time I was able to get JR to expound on it briefly, so I am curious if your explanation is remotely comparable to the one he gave me (as charmingly incoherent as it was).

So, you don't understand it then. Repeating details isn't understanding, it's the mechanism that matters, not just what happens. That's like saying you know the details of a combustion engine because something something chemicals and the car moves. That isn't understanding.
If you do in fact understand the equator, then the extension is simple enough. Look at the overall diagram JRowe drew, and trace out the path of a person at the equator. Then trace out the path of a plane. Then you get to include the Sun, subject to the same flow, that comes out on top. Like everything else in the model, it's a spotlight, so it only shines in one direction. As it rotates (the whirlpools that are used to explain several other aspects enter into it here too) the light from it gets blocked.

Secondly, the idea of a FE and its proponents also deserve the same amount of respect ie. zero.

So, people who're wrong about something deserve no respect?

Lastly, welcome to the internet. Are you new here?

The way it is doesn't mean the way it should be.

Not only that, the FE/DE models can never be internally consistent if they are trying to describe real-world phenomena because... well, they're wrong, aren't they? I mean, if you start with the premise that all of these models describe a fictional world, I suppose it's just harmless pontificating. When, however, one tries to shoehorn this nonsense into the real world, that's when objections get raised.

Here's a much more interesting and challenging (IMO) idea for you Jane: Try creating a non-RE model that is a) internally consistent, b) describes real-world phenomena and c) is falsifiable.

Lastly, contradictions with DE? Well, since no one can actually seem to understand the properties of aether which is this model's answer to everything, it's hard to even get a grasp on anything concrete let alone find contradictions in vague, hand-waving walls of text.

You specified internally consistent, so quite why you're now comparing it to the real world is beyond me. That's a separate discussion.
I understand aether just fine. It just takes a little effort. Tell you what, if you're interested, let's go by JRowe's model. The first section's on aether, let's focus on that. If there are parts you don't find clear, or are uncertain about, point them out. Don't just do your usual "None of it makes sense," take the time to write out specific, actually answerable questions.
Generally the only issues are from people who try to over-complicate it, or purposefully try to not understand.

No, we can't detect aether. We can only detect some effects and without other explanation assume that the reason is aether.

That's literally the only way we detect anything. We detect an effect, and then make an assume about the cause based on prior knowledge.

There is no way to somehow directly detect aether. Same goes for the movement of aether. And if I am in stretched aether then yes, I can't detect it but there surely must be cases where aether is stretched/compressed elsewhere and I should be able to observe it. But there is no such occurrences which can be observed.

The stretching of aether only notably occurs at the equator. The only major low concentration is inside the Earth. Movement's the only part that can be reasonably detected. Though technically the equator would count as an example.

Quote from: Jane on September 13, 2016, 02:54:26 PM

The reason aether is blamed is because it makes sense as an explanation.

  Yes, its easy way out.

Stop it. If you're going to ask questions about the model, at least actually pay attention to them. Aether isn't some magic catch-all, it's specifically defined under the model. It can't be made to do anything you imagine, it can only do a finite set of things. The 'stretching' just comes from it being able to form concentrations, and the movement just comes from those concentrations moving from high to low. That's it. So we observe points where two adjacent paths from A to B have a varying lengths because the amount of space in each is different (from the concentrations), and we observe space moving and so the objects in space moving in a steady, predictable fashion based upon one specific rule.
That is all. There's no easy way out, no magic fix-all, just a limited resource with limited applicability. There's no ad hoc, no new properties added as required. It's a simple and defined concept that just happens to be relevant in a number of situations, exactly like gravity. Treating the fact aether is used as an answer to multiple questions as a flaw is about as meaningful as criticising gravity for answering why the Earth orbits the Sun (and so seasons and the other planets), why the Earth formed, why we stay on the Earth's surface, tides...
So long as the relevant concept is actually defined and not handwaved as required, it's not an easy way out or any kind of cheat.

Quote from: zork on September 14, 2016, 02:20:53 AM

No, we can't detect aether. We can only detect some effects and without other explanation assume that the reason is aether.

That's literally the only way we detect anything. We detect an effect, and then make an assume about the cause based on prior knowledge.

  I beg to differ. At first we detect effect and then we go and figure out what causes it and then we detect cause directly. In case of aether that is not possible. Only thing you ever see is effect. You never can see the thing that causes it. Never. An that is the problem. Its kind of definition of the God.

Quote

There is no way to somehow directly detect aether. Same goes for the movement of aether. And if I am in stretched aether then yes, I can't detect it but there surely must be cases where aether is stretched/compressed elsewhere and I should be able to observe it. But there is no such occurrences which can be observed.

The stretching of aether only notably occurs at the equator. The only major low concentration is inside the Earth. Movement's the only part that can be reasonably detected. Though technically the equator would count as an example.

  Again. No. You can't detect aethers movement. Not even on equator.

Quote

Quote from: Jane on September 13, 2016, 02:54:26 PM

The reason aether is blamed is because it makes sense as an explanation.

  Yes, its easy way out.

Stop it. If you're going to ask questions about the model, at least actually pay attention to them. Aether isn't some magic catch-all, it's specifically defined under the model. It can't be made to do anything you imagine, it can only do a finite set of things. The 'stretching' just comes from it being able to form concentrations, and the movement just comes from those concentrations moving from high to low. That's it. So we observe points where two adjacent paths from A to B have a varying lengths because the amount of space in each is different (from the concentrations), and we observe space moving and so the objects in space moving in a steady, predictable fashion based upon one specific rule.
That is all. There's no easy way out, no magic fix-all, just a limited resource with limited applicability. There's no ad hoc, no new properties added as required. It's a simple and defined concept that just happens to be relevant in a number of situations, exactly like gravity. Treating the fact aether is used as an answer to multiple questions as a flaw is about as meaningful as criticising gravity for answering why the Earth orbits the Sun (and so seasons and the other planets), why the Earth formed, why we stay on the Earth's surface, tides...
So long as the relevant concept is actually defined and not handwaved as required, it's not an easy way out or any kind of cheat.

  Its defined as a thing which you can't detect and which assumedly causes certain things but they also can be caused by other things. There can be other explanations but as you have aether then there is - stop! No reason to go further. And you don't need to add additional properties. Aether may be somewhat defined but effects of the aether are not. As it flows constantly but you can't actually detect it then you just can do your ad hoc and attribute effect to the aether or movement of aether. Because you can't detect aether but only effects and all effects are yet unknown. They can be whatever you want them to be.

Firstly, you don't need to deduce nothing special happens at the equator. That's the natural assumption: that nothing special happens.

In the real world the equator is special.   So the model fails right there unless the special things are explained by the model.

The model is supposed to be a description of something real

  I beg to differ. At first we detect effect and then we go and figure out what causes it and then we detect cause directly. In case of aether that is not possible. Only thing you ever see is effect. You never can see the thing that causes it. Never. An that is the problem. Its kind of definition of the God.
  Again. No. You can't detect aethers movement. Not even on equator.

Equator was about stretching, movement's detected everywhere else. And like I said, the effects are all we can ever detect of something. Even looking directly at something, all you're seeing is the effect it has on light. Science just means we perform specific experiments to see if other predicted effects exist. You can't detect a cause directly, that's basically the definition of a cause: all you detect are the effects.
You can just sometimes predict what you expect to see ahead of time, if that cause was accurate. You're still only ever detecting effects.
What cause do you imagine we directly observe? Give an example of such an experiment.

  Its defined as a thing which you can't detect and which assumedly causes certain things but they also can be caused by other things. There can be other explanations but as you have aether then there is - stop! No reason to go further. And you don't need to add additional properties. Aether may be somewhat defined but effects of the aether are not. As it flows constantly but you can't actually detect it then you just can do your ad hoc and attribute effect to the aether or movement of aether. Because you can't detect aether but only effects and all effects are yet unknown. They can be whatever you want them to be.

It's defined as something with specific properties. You're just saying we can't detect something because we detect the effects, but all we are capable of detecting are the effects of something. If something doesn't have any effects, it doesn't affect the world in any way and it's impossible to observe. All we can see are effects. How do you expect to see something without seeing its effects?
Sure, it could be caused by other things, that's true of literally everything. So?
The effects of aether are defined because aether is defined. Did you not read my post? I listed the behaviour, and so the only effects, that can result from it.

Quote from: zork on September 14, 2016, 07:46:52 AM

  I beg to differ. At first we detect effect and then we go and figure out what causes it and then we detect cause directly. In case of aether that is not possible. Only thing you ever see is effect. You never can see the thing that causes it. Never. An that is the problem. Its kind of definition of the God.
  Again. No. You can't detect aethers movement. Not even on equator.

Equator was about stretching, movement's detected everywhere else. And like I said, the effects are all we can ever detect of something. Even looking directly at something, all you're seeing is the effect it has on light. Science just means we perform specific experiments to see if other predicted effects exist. You can't detect a cause directly, that's basically the definition of a cause: all you detect are the effects.
You can just sometimes predict what you expect to see ahead of time, if that cause was accurate. You're still only ever detecting effects.
What cause do you imagine we directly observe? Give an example of such an experiment.

  So, what effects someone can observe at equator?
Even when you say that all we can observe is effect we can go always deeper and find the next thing which caused effect. And next, and next, and next, and ... . With aether your journey is quite short and you are stopped dead after saying - its aether. And as you brought up experiments then what experiments you can do in relation with aether? Drop the ball? Anything else?

Quote from: Jane on September 14, 2016, 07:10:10 AM

  Its defined as a thing which you can't detect and which assumedly causes certain things but they also can be caused by other things. There can be other explanations but as you have aether then there is - stop! No reason to go further. And you don't need to add additional properties. Aether may be somewhat defined but effects of the aether are not. As it flows constantly but you can't actually detect it then you just can do your ad hoc and attribute effect to the aether or movement of aether. Because you can't detect aether but only effects and all effects are yet unknown. They can be whatever you want them to be.

It's defined as something with specific properties. You're just saying we can't detect something because we detect the effects, but all we are capable of detecting are the effects of something. If something doesn't have any effects, it doesn't affect the world in any way and it's impossible to observe. All we can see are effects. How do you expect to see something without seeing its effects?

The effects of aether are defined because aether is defined. Did you not read my post? I listed the behaviour, and so the only effects, that can result from it.

  If there is effect I expect to see something that causes it. There is a light and there is a light source. There is someone/something who lit the light. There is someone/something who made someone/something to lit light. And so on. But you are adamant that we only can see effect and its absolutely impossible to go on with the next step and see/detect the thing which caused the effect. I can't understand that.
 And again. All effects of aether are not defined anywhere. You just list some assumed effects and defining aether does not define effects of aether. Or how for example defining electricity defines effects of electricity?

Sure, it could be caused by other things, that's true of literally everything. So?

No, its not. That is where experiments come in play. You do experiments and determine that something is caused by something. And that it can't be caused by something else. You can't do experiments with aether.

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.

Quote from: User324 on September 13, 2016, 01:39:43 AM

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.

Quote

That does not make it any better.

It just makes it silly to single out FEers.

Quote

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.

Quote

You cannot really block anyone.

I seem to have managed it just fine. 'Edit profile,' 'Modify profile,' 'ignore list.'



DET SECTION

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2016, 08:16:30 PM

Where 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.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on September 13, 2016, 12:17:10 AM

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.

Quote from: zork on September 13, 2016, 01:29:50 AM

  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.

I'm on my phone so I can't edit out all the extra words.

Why do you believe there is teleportation going on in that picture?

On Jrowes model, if you step over the equator you'd do an insta-180-degree flip.

Ah wait, I wanted to stay out of the thread

I already mentioned straddling Equator and stopping half way over...

Quote from: User324 on September 13, 2016, 03:11:08 PM

I could respond to all your points one more time, but what good would it do?

The irony hurts.

Haha  doesn't it?
Bless you for putting yourself in the line of fire.  It's amusing to see people unable to look from another point of view turn on you even after explaining that you don't believe the theory and are only responding to incoherent criticism of it. They can't separate that in their minds either. This site really is an interesting,  if disturbing,  look at the human psyche.

Well, I'd respond to the points you made about DE but you ended up saying:

You specified internally consistent, so quite why you're now comparing it to the real world is beyond me. That's a separate discussion.

Ok, so it's my bad. We're not meant to compare any of this to the real world. We're meant to discuss it like kids might quibble over details about the world of Harry Potter. I would object to this because it doesn't seem to be what's happening here, but I'll just let it go.

I think I'll just focus on sunrise/sunset, given aether is in this model is a can of worms I don't want to even bother with; I'll let others do that.

If you do in fact understand the equator, then the extension is simple enough. Look at the overall diagram JRowe drew, and trace out the path of a person at the equator. Then trace out the path of a plane. Then you get to include the Sun, subject to the same flow, that comes out on top. Like everything else in the model, it's a spotlight, so it only shines in one direction. As it rotates (the whirlpools that are used to explain several other aspects enter into it here too) the light from it gets blocked.

Why does the sun disappear from the bottom up and appear from the top down in sunset and sunrise respectively? On both occasions, the sun appears to be blocked by a physical object ie. the earth. Is it just a coincidence that it just appears the earth is cutting off/blocking the sunlight, when in fact it's just a whirlpool(?) doing it? I wonder why this doesn't happen at any point in the sky, rather than say the horizon. Do you understand where I'm coming from with this?

I wonder if you could be bothered to draw a diagram of this? I'm not even going to object to aether performing magic here, given I understand the parameters of our discussion now.

So, people who're wrong about something deserve no respect?

Sigh... reductio ad absurdum much? People who subscribe to an outdated, backwards belief in the face of mountains of empirical evidence deserve no respect, especially when they're intellectually dishonest about the existence of said evidence. Being ignorant about something is one thing, but a belief in a FE doesn't even come close to that given the information/data/photographs/videos readily accessible to just about anyone.

So, yes, they deserve no respect, especially considering such people can and do sway other gullible people to abandon reason.

This site really is an interesting,  if disturbing,  look at the human psyche.

Agreed. It's interesting to see the mentality from time travelers thrust forward thousands of years into the future, decreeing everything they don't understand as fake, wrong or a conspiracy... because reasons!

Good times.

Quote from: Jane on September 13, 2016, 03:49:45 PM

Quote from: User324 on September 13, 2016, 03:11:08 PM

I could respond to all your points one more time, but what good would it do?

The irony hurts.

Haha  doesn't it?
Bless you for putting yourself in the line of fire.  It's amusing to see people unable to look from another point of view turn on you even after explaining that you don't believe the theory and are only responding to incoherent criticism of it. They can't separate that in their minds either. This site really is an interesting,  if disturbing,  look at the human psyche.

I agree, some of the personal attacks against Jane have most certainly been disturbing, for want of a better word.

To some roundies it seems, FE is the equivalent of a red flag to a bull, they start snorting, stomping and then headbutt anything close enough to be in range of their horns.

The most compelling evidence I have seen against the orthodoxy is how disproportionately angry RE posters get in these situations.

This site really is an interesting,  if disturbing,  look at the human psyche.

I know: where grown men come and pretend they think the earth is flat to wind up people.  Weird, isn't it?