Ok, apparently I can only take this in small doses. Had a holiday anyhow.
Anyway, MSc and de-stress holiday over, back to this!
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?
I'm not at all sure what you're saying here. To take your example of tracing back effects, take gravity. The effect of an object falling is down to the larger mass of the Earth. The new effect would be the larger mass, so what causes the mass, where did it come from... That seems to be the effect-tracing you're talking about. That's perfectly possibly with aether, we can trace back through the meaning of space and the origin of space (whatever that may be), I'm just not doing so because it's not really relevant.
The experiments simply note effects. Like, at the equator, we would observe how aether stretches, the effect being the ability to cross what might seem to be a larger distance.
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?
The point is that we do only observe effects. Yes, effects have causes, but you can't directly detect the cause, you detect the effects of those causes. As I asked before, if you disagree please give an example of how we can see a cause rather than the effect.
If we see a light, then we certainly deduce that there is a light source, but we
only see the light.
Again, the properties of aether are given, and these in turn give the effects. I have listed the behaviour before now. I pointed this out in the post you responded to. WHy are you now saying they haven't been given?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67964.msg1822051#msg1822051No, 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.
Experiments can't omit every possibly alternative explanation. They narrow down the options, certainly, but it's impossible to even list every possible explanation for an observation, much less disprove them all.
You can do experiments with aether. What is the justification for your claim otherwise? Aether, being an entity defined to do certain, specific things, and without any room for ad hoc additions, is perfectly testable. Indeed, JRowe gives tests in the model overview.
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.
[/quote]
Why do you believe there is teleportation going on in that picture?
I don't. Teleportation is instantaneously travelling over a non-negligible amount of space, or the transmission of matter as data, or some such thing. This doesn't happen.
On Jrowes model, if you step over the equator you'd do an insta-180-degree flip.
Yes and no. It's a perfectly smooth path, if you trace it out on the diagram. Yes, at the start and finish you're oriented differently, but it's hardly a flip.
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.
Context. You said "They can't be internally consistent if you apply them to real-world phenomena." I simply pointed that out. They're a contradiction in terms. Internally consistent means internal to the model: applying it to something external, well, it's hardly internal is it? Feel free to compare to the real world, but if you're doing so you need more of an argument than "Well they're wrong aren't they?"
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?
It's just a matter of perspective, at the risk of sounding like a cliche.
First, the light from the Sun is carried by the same currents that allow us to cross the equator, as I said. The Sun is a spotlight, so light only comes from one side. If an unlit face is carried up, there's no light. The rotation of the Sun means the direction the lit face is going varies; as the lit face rotates out of view, that's what causes the sunset; a light source cut off bottom-up.
This appears to happen at the horizon because of, well, perspective. It happens in the distance, where the distance from Sun to Earth appears far smaller, so we just can't see the gap between the two.
There's no magic, it follows from the fixed and unaltering properties of aether and the set-up of the Earth.
nah... Jane is begging for it. She is enabling morons like jrowe with their utterly idiotic rubbish. It is one thing to entertain an alternative minority explanation for an observable phenomena, but FEers want us to accept an entirely new universe - one that doesnt behave like ours. How many times can you listen to these clowns tell us that ships dont go over the horizon or that you can see curvature before you start questioning their mental health? Even and ignorant buffoon can see things and accept that what they see is actually there.
Most of these people need help of the intense psychiatric kind.
You don't need to accept it, it's just a fun challenge to need to think in terms of it.
Please, don't act like you care about them getting 'help,' even if I was somehow enabling it, it's rather hypocritical to pretend you care about their wellbeing when your default seems to be throwing insults. I doubt that qualifies as 'psychiatric help.'
I'm not going to convince anyone who doesn't believe already, because seriously it takes more than a few sentences for someone to rethink their entire worldview. Most of what I do just comes from hopefully making what JRowe says more accessible. I'm adding nothing new, and do you really think RET is so fragile that a perfectly convinced REer could be pulled away from it?
On the flipside, maybe you could argue I'm lending support to FEers, except I make no claims that I believe this, I don't defend the most popular model, and even if I somehow was acting exactly like a typical convinced FEer it hardly matters because they were hardly going to be convinced otherwise anyway.
If anything, I'm helping you. If you want to convince FEers otherwise, you need to actually be able to disprove their worldview, and you can only disprove their worldview if you know what it is: ie, take the time to learn it.
But, sure, keep on with your insults, because they're obviously making a huge difference.
Anyway, sorry for taking so long, and thank you to the people who see the point in this, and aren't constantly insulting.