Ask me About DET!

Good luck on your dissertation.  Is it for your Master's or Doctorate degree?  I think dissertation and thesis are reversed in different counties.

Master's, and just finished.

Quote from: jroa on October 13, 2016, 04:39:45 PM

Good luck on your dissertation.  Is it for your Master's or Doctorate degree?  I think dissertation and thesis are reversed in different counties.

Master's, and just finished.

Congratulations, Jane. I'm glad the angry globularists didn't run you off.

I have some questions about the DET. Firstly, I'll set the scene. Please advise if I get anything wrong before the questions.

Let's accept (as per the theory) that aether defines space, which is just the distance between two points. More aether, more distance. Less aether, less distance.

There is a said to be a low concentration of aether inside the Earth (i.e. between the 2 discs). Presumably, if you instantaneously move from the upper hemiplane to the lower hemiplane when crossing the equator, then there is actually no distance between the 2 discs.

On to the questions.

1. How is it possible for the Sun, the moon and all the planets to fit inside this region, given that there is effectively zero distance between the 2 hemi-planes?
2. When moving between hemi-planes, how is it that we never see a brief, blinding flash of light as we pass by the Sun?
3. When moving between hemi-planes, how is it that we never crash into the moon? Or Uranus?
4. Why don't the Sun, the moon and the planets bubble up out of the horizon occasionally? In other words, why are they trapped in this tiny region of space with virtually no distance to exist in?
5. If I exploded a nuclear bomb on the equator, would astronomers on the night-time hemi-plane be able to point their telescopes upwards to the sky and see this blinding flash of light as it spilled over between hemi-planes, and sloshed around the tiny aetheric flow that meanders around the Sun, moon and planets inside the Earth?

Thank you.

There is a said to be a low concentration of aether inside the Earth (i.e. between the 2 discs). Presumably, if you instantaneously move from the upper hemiplane to the lower hemiplane when crossing the equator, then there is actually no distance between the 2 discs.

Negligible, but basically right.

On to the questions.

1. How is it possible for the Sun, the moon and all the planets to fit inside this region, given that there is effectively zero distance between the 2 hemi-planes?
2. When moving between hemi-planes, how is it that we never see a brief, blinding flash of light as we pass by the Sun?
3. When moving between hemi-planes, how is it that we never crash into the moon? Or Uranus?
4. Why don't the Sun, the moon and the planets bubble up out of the horizon occasionally? In other words, why are they trapped in this tiny region of space with virtually no distance to exist in?
5. If I exploded a nuclear bomb on the equator, would astronomers on the night-time hemi-plane be able to point their telescopes upwards to the sky and see this blinding flash of light as it spilled over between hemi-planes, and sloshed around the tiny aetheric flow that meanders around the Sun, moon and planets inside the Earth?

Thank you.

1. Think of it as like an eye-shape. Right in the centre there's an iris which is the centre of where the space flows in, from above and below. The pupil, I guess, would be the Sun. It all exists in a bit where there is space: but around that you have the white, where there's barely any. It's the white that you travel through. There's zero distance around, but a concentration in the middle. Space obviously isn't affected by existing in low concentrations of itself, space doesn't exist in space. Think of, say, dropping an ice cube into a room full of steam. Certainly, you'd get reactions due to temperature (in this case, that's analogous to how space flows), but there's nothing that would prevent a higher concentration of H2O existing in a lower.
2. You aren't in a position to see it for any more than an instant. Humans can't see things that last that little time.
3. Mature  Why would we, I guess, is the only real answer. We don't go through the bit where there is space.
4. There are no forces exerted on them beyond the rotational force of the whirlpool. There's nothing that would make them go in or out (or, if there is, it's balanced).
5. I don't think so. You certainly wouldn't be able to see it on both sides of the equator, because there's no path, and the light and explosion regardless would likely have to take the same path as anyone would when crossing the equator. From what I've seen, the only way to get to the centre of the Earth is to cross the equator at a very high altitude. Otherwise, as it is, you just cross nearer to the 'underside' of the disk.

Quote from: PsychedelicPill on November 17, 2016, 02:33:21 PM

There is a said to be a low concentration of aether inside the Earth (i.e. between the 2 discs). Presumably, if you instantaneously move from the upper hemiplane to the lower hemiplane when crossing the equator, then there is actually no distance between the 2 discs.

Negligible, but basically right.

Quote

On to the questions.

1. How is it possible for the Sun, the moon and all the planets to fit inside this region, given that there is effectively zero distance between the 2 hemi-planes?
2. When moving between hemi-planes, how is it that we never see a brief, blinding flash of light as we pass by the Sun?
3. When moving between hemi-planes, how is it that we never crash into the moon? Or Uranus?
4. Why don't the Sun, the moon and the planets bubble up out of the horizon occasionally? In other words, why are they trapped in this tiny region of space with virtually no distance to exist in?
5. If I exploded a nuclear bomb on the equator, would astronomers on the night-time hemi-plane be able to point their telescopes upwards to the sky and see this blinding flash of light as it spilled over between hemi-planes, and sloshed around the tiny aetheric flow that meanders around the Sun, moon and planets inside the Earth?

Thank you.

1. Think of it as like an eye-shape. Right in the centre there's an iris which is the centre of where the space flows in, from above and below. The pupil, I guess, would be the Sun. It all exists in a bit where there is space: but around that you have the white, where there's barely any. It's the white that you travel through. There's zero distance around, but a concentration in the middle. Space obviously isn't affected by existing in low concentrations of itself, space doesn't exist in space. Think of, say, dropping an ice cube into a room full of steam. Certainly, you'd get reactions due to temperature (in this case, that's analogous to how space flows), but there's nothing that would prevent a higher concentration of H2O existing in a lower.
2. You aren't in a position to see it for any more than an instant. Humans can't see things that last that little time.
3. Mature  Why would we, I guess, is the only real answer. We don't go through the bit where there is space.
4. There are no forces exerted on them beyond the rotational force of the whirlpool. There's nothing that would make them go in or out (or, if there is, it's balanced).
5. I don't think so. You certainly wouldn't be able to see it on both sides of the equator, because there's no path, and the light and explosion regardless would likely have to take the same path as anyone would when crossing the equator. From what I've seen, the only way to get to the centre of the Earth is to cross the equator at a very high altitude. Otherwise, as it is, you just cross nearer to the 'underside' of the disk.

Thanks for the rapid response!

I'll focus on the eye analogy for the time being to keep any discussion more focussed (pardon the pun).

So, the Sun is like the pupil, and the iris is a region of low concentration of aether. Let's assume several pupils, to represent the moon and planets.  Each of these pupils also represents a concentration of aether, otherwise the sun/moon/planets would have negligible size (since aether and distance are effectively equivalent). But where we have a high concentration of aether (pupils/planets) in a larger region of negligible or low-concentration aether (iris/space between the Earth discs), the DET model states that the aether should flow from the planets into the gap between the discs.

Quote from DET:

Thus, aether is now rigorously defined. There is no property beyond this. It is space, and it flows from high concentrations to low.

As stated, it is a rigorous definition: aether is space and it flows from high concentration to low. In other words, the space where the planets exist must flow out into the gap between the Earth's discs. So two things must be happening: the disc gap is filling up with aether, and the planets and sun must be shrinking as their aether concentration falls due to this fundamental effect.

There is at least one rather serious consequence to this. We should be able to detect the presence of aether when crossing the equator, since movement is not going to be instantaneous. How can it be, when the planets have been leaching aether into the gap since the very day the Earth/Sun/Planets were formed? This follows from a fundamental principle of the DET, as quoted above. So, when we cross the equator, it should take a measurable amount of time, since it takes time to move through this space, as it has a distance. We should also be able to catch a glimpse of what exists in the Gap, since movement is no longer instantaneous. There is aether/space/distance for us to have to move through.

I've crossed the equator twice in my life, and on neither occasion did I notice a slowing down of time. Neither did I suddenly see the Sun, moon and planets along with the undersides of the 2 discs.

Thoughts?

I've crossed the equator twice in my life, and on neither occasion did I notice a slowing down of time.

Lmao.

Quote from DET:

Quote

Thus, aether is now rigorously defined. There is no property beyond this. It is space, and it flows from high concentrations to low.

As stated, it is a rigorous definition: aether is space and it flows from high concentration to low. In other words, the space where the planets exist must flow out into the gap between the Earth's discs. So two things must be happening: the disc gap is filling up with aether, and the planets and sun must be shrinking as their aether concentration falls due to this fundamental effect.

There is at least one rather serious consequence to this. We should be able to detect the presence of aether when crossing the equator, since movement is not going to be instantaneous. How can it be, when the planets have been leaching aether into the gap since the very day the Earth/Sun/Planets were formed? This follows from a fundamental principle of the DET, as quoted above. So, when we cross the equator, it should take a measurable amount of time, since it takes time to move through this space, as it has a distance. We should also be able to catch a glimpse of what exists in the Gap, since movement is no longer instantaneous. There is aether/space/distance for us to have to move through.

I've crossed the equator twice in my life, and on neither occasion did I notice a slowing down of time. Neither did I suddenly see the Sun, moon and planets along with the undersides of the 2 discs.

Thoughts?

I'm don't take Psychedelic Pills, so I find some of this weirdness hard to visualise.

JRowe claims he just "simply appends one common-sense property, it's not a major change".

But, his "it's not a major change" is the very thing precluded by Einstein in his concept of "ether".

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on August 14, 2016, 06:00:38 PM

'My' aether simply appends one common-sense property, it's not a major change.

Yes, and that is the crux of the whole matter. Einstein did have a bit to say about ether.

Quote from: Albert Einstein

Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter.
              ...........................................................
But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Rather than "your aether" being "not a major change", the "one common-sense property" you add is completely contrary to the whole concept of "Einstein's ether".

That is why I and so many others demand evidence of the validity of your claims.

But JRowe doesn't care for the thoughts of such as Einstein.
He seems able to drag more out of his head than Einstein did over decades,

As you say, any comments?

I'll focus on the eye analogy for the time being to keep any discussion more focussed (pardon the pun).

So, the Sun is like the pupil, and the iris is a region of low concentration of aether. Let's assume several pupils, to represent the moon and planets.  Each of these pupils also represents a concentration of aether, otherwise the sun/moon/planets would have negligible size (since aether and distance are effectively equivalent). But where we have a high concentration of aether (pupils/planets) in a larger region of negligible or low-concentration aether (iris/space between the Earth discs), the DET model states that the aether should flow from the planets into the gap between the discs.

There's only one 'iris.' Ok, the pupil inclusion wasn't that smart, I'll admit. The iris/white aspect was the key to the analogy. You could imagine an alien eye with multiple pupils, or it all breaks down. There's only one concentration of aether in the middle, and everything's in that.

As stated, it is a rigorous definition: aether is space and it flows from high concentration to low. In other words, the space where the planets exist must flow out into the gap between the Earth's discs. So two things must be happening: the disc gap is filling up with aether, and the planets and sun must be shrinking as their aether concentration falls due to this fundamental effect.

Objects wouldn't shrink if you removed aether. If you think of aether as a sea of coordinate points, then any object occupies a set amount of coordinate points. Stretch those points out, it still occupies the same amount of points. So technically you'd get the more dramatic effect of the Sun making the Earth explode.
Sadly that's only in a B-movie. While it's true that the high concentration does flow outwards (specifically, out the sides of the Earth), it's constantly being replenished by the flow from above and below, that's heading for the low concentration. As such, the low concentration remains roughly the same, as all the aether in it immediately passes on.

As you say, any comments?

Well, it's not exactly the same. Not much else to say beyond that. It uses Einstein as a base, but then goes off in a new direction. The idea of space flowing wasn't needed for the Theory of Relativity, just as the idea of the speed of light in vacuum being a universal speed limit wasn't needed for Newton.

There's only one 'iris.' Ok, the pupil inclusion wasn't that smart, I'll admit. The iris/white aspect was the key to the analogy. You could imagine an alien eye with multiple pupils, or it all breaks down. There's only one concentration of aether in the middle, and everything's in that.

Thanks for the clarification.

Objects wouldn't shrink if you removed aether. If you think of aether as a sea of coordinate points, then any object occupies a set amount of coordinate points. Stretch those points out, it still occupies the same amount of points. So technically you'd get the more dramatic effect of the Sun making the Earth explode.
Sadly that's only in a B-movie.

According to the DET, aether defines space, and space is specifically defined as the measure of distance. More aether = more space = greater distance. I made the assumption that the converse is also true: less aether = less space = less distance. It sounds as if you're saying that less aether = same distance, which I'm sure isn't what you mean.

While it's true that the high concentration does flow outwards (specifically, out the sides of the Earth), it's constantly being replenished by the flow from above and below, that's heading for the low concentration. As such, the low concentration remains roughly the same, as all the aether in it immediately passes on.

This is a direct contradiction of the 'law' I quoted previously:-

Thus, aether is now rigorously defined. There is no property beyond this. It is space, and it flows from high concentrations to low.

Space (which is specifically defined as distance, not a coordinate system), flows from high concentrations to low. No mention of aether/space flowing from low concentration to high. Please can you explain how the aether that is flowing in (from above and below), heading for the low concentration (your words), immediately passes on to the high concentration where the Sun is? I don't understand how that process happens given the definition above.

It makes more sense that the aether flowing toward the low concentration simply increases the aetheric concentration in that area, rather than somehow passing through or around the low concentration area, straight to the high concentration "planet zone". JRowe is quite clear on this in his definition of aether: he observes a universal tendency for things to move from high concentration to low, and gives the examples of pressure and diffusion. What you're describing is the polar opposite of diffusion, and directly contradicts the DET.

According to the DET, aether defines space, and space is specifically defined as the measure of distance. More aether = more space = greater distance. I made the assumption that the converse is also true: less aether = less space = less distance. It sounds as if you're saying that less aether = same distance, which I'm sure isn't what you mean.

The key thing to remember, I think, is that objects have a set size. They always occupy a certain distance; manipulating space won't alter the mass of an object. You can remove the aether from an object, but it still needs to occupy the same amount of space, so what will seem to happen if you observe this from an ideal perspective, is that the object will grow.
If you have a lot of densely packed coordinate points, then an object could use up all, say, ten of them. If the density of the coordinate points is lessened, if one spreads out, then an object will still need to occupy a tenth coordinate point.
It's true that less aether=less distance, but there still has to be somewhere for matter to go.

Coordinate points are the easiest way to think of this space. They are a gauge of distance, too. A distance would be a certain amount of said points, in a certain direction. More points equals more distance, etc.

Space (which is specifically defined as distance, not a coordinate system), flows from high concentrations to low. No mention of aether/space flowing from low concentration to high. Please can you explain how the aether that is flowing in (from above and below), heading for the low concentration (your words), immediately passes on to the high concentration where the Sun is? I don't understand how that process happens given the definition above.

It makes more sense that the aether flowing toward the low concentration simply increases the aetheric concentration in that area, rather than somehow passing through or around the low concentration area, straight to the high concentration "planet zone". JRowe is quite clear on this in his definition of aether: he observes a universal tendency for things to move from high concentration to low, and gives the examples of pressure and diffusion. What you're describing is the polar opposite of diffusion, and directly contradicts the DET.

Remember that, whenever space flows, a low concentration's left in its wake. If memory serves, JRowe uses the analogy of a water box with a divider down the middle. If the left of the box is filled to the top, and the right's left empty, then if you pull out the divider the water will slosh to the side, then slosh back in a wave, because it doesn't know exactly how much is required to fill the low concentration. Everything goes all at once, and then has to fill in what's left behind.
The idea with aether is that to fill an adjacent low concentration, all of the immediately adjacent high concentration will flow into it. This of course means there's a new, much lower concentration that needs to be filled, and it will be immediately.
So what you get inside the Earth is a higher concentration surrounded by a negligible (crucially, not zero) concentration. That high concentration flows out to the sides; meanwhile there's a constant flow in from above and below, and for the instant there's a zero concentration due to the outwards flow, said concentration has to be filled in.
Zero concentrations can't really exist for anything more than infinitesimally small amounts of 'space' and time. The basic consequence is that once the flow of aether ends up in a cycle, of sorts, where every low concentration gets filled in by a high, and the wake of such a flow also gets filled in, without needing to appeal to any other source of aether, it's not really going to be disturbed or pushed from that 'equilibrium.'

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.

Ok...your flat earth pal states after some preamble that includes agreeing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.....sort of.....and agreeing that an area of what we call space exists.....and he then goes on to pick up on Turinn's work on diffusion, which I might add has been much reworked since its publication in 1952. For those that are unfamiliar with Turin or his work should know he was first and foremost a brilliant mathematician. He is best known for cracking the famous Nazi enigma code.
In his diffusion work he theorised how in a biological system composed of two different interacting molecules, called morphogens, could establish chemical gradients through a “reaction-diffusion system.” Its to be honest pretty complex stuff but a good example of how fairly complex 'abstract mathematics' can be brought to bear on how a biological system can behave over time. For example it can be used to show how patterns form in nature, tigers stripes, leopard spots or the way in which sunflower seeds arrange themselves. In the case of sunflower seeds he was particularly interested in the way this arrangement linked to the Fibonacci series.....you know..0 1 2 3 5 8 13......etc.

Your Pal then states:-

Thus, aether is now rigorously defined. There is no property beyond this. It is space, and it flows from high concentrations to low.

This reminds me of old adventure stories when the hero is tied up and about to meet his end......when all of a sudden.....with a giant leap he was free! No indication of how it was achieved....you just had to accept it......it's the same with the above statement regarding what your pal likes to call the aether.

How on earth can that be described as rigoureslly described? Where is his proof? Einstien has a compelling set of equations that he put forward that accurately describes space time. Where are your pals supporting equations that demonstrate this flow he is on about? All we have is a loosely connected series of unrelated statements that go no way to proving the aether or anything else for that matter.

In fact on the one hand he quibbles about the 2nd. Law of thermodynamics, which I bet he doesn't understand properly....few do a bit like quantum physics...easy to type but hard to get your mind around.....and then he gives himself freedom with no supporting evidence to make his claim regarding the existence of aether......if you follow what your pal says there is NO inherent logic.

Your pal then says, again with no supporting proof, :-

That is all there is to aether. Something known to exist, with a known law applied to it. Remember this definition, and know and understand it fully. It is vital.

How is it known to exist...has he been into space? Has he swam around in it.? Has he seen or touched it?

At the first hurdle the 'model' falls. As usual for flat earthers they skip around detail of their own theories glossing over things while throwing in a few scientific terms to give a bit of credibility for the gullible and those that are poorly educated.....wow he uses big complex words like thermodynamics....he must be right.

My challenge to you and you pal Jane is to present some firm evidence experimental, mathematical, or even observational that points toward the existence of the aether existing rather than because he says so. If you fail to do this then his theory can be filed under 'B' for bin.

The key thing to remember, I think, is that objects have a set size. They always occupy a certain distance; manipulating space won't alter the mass of an object.

This is completely counter to what is stated in the DET. Aether is equivalent to space (or the fabric of space), which JRowe defines as the distance between 2 points A and B. More aether, the greater the distance between them. I made no reference to mass in my posts, when referring to size I am specifically referring to the physical dimensions of an object (length, breadth, height), since by definition, that is directly related to concentration of aether.

You can remove the aether from an object, but it still needs to occupy the same amount of space, so what will seem to happen if you observe this from an ideal perspective, is that the object will grow.

Again, this seems counter to the actual theory, and doesn't follow logically. Aether is simply the amount of 'space', or the distance between 2 aribtrary points. The DET is quite explicit on this. It uses it to explain how we instantaneously cross the equator (no aether = no distance to travel). It follows logically that if you remove the aether from a region of space where previously the distance between 2 arbitrary points A1 and B1 was L metres, then in the aether-free (or aether negligible) zone A2 - B2 < L, and may even tend to zero (the DET dioesn't specify what happens in this case, but we can infer it tends to zero from the discussion on what happens at the equator.

If you have a lot of densely packed coordinate points, then an object could use up all, say, ten of them. If the density of the coordinate points is lessened, if one spreads out, then an object will still need to occupy a tenth coordinate point.

That makes more sense in terms of the DET (reduction of aetheric density = reduced distance), but is different to your first reply when you said objects have a set size and always occupy a certain distance. If you take your first answer as correct, then the aether is reduced to the status of an arbitrary (variable) coordinate system, since objects always have the same size. The DET, however, states otherwise: you reduce aether, you reduce space, which is the same as distance.

It's true that less aether=less distance, but there still has to be somewhere for matter to go.

We seem to be homing in on a fundamental flaw in DET, or at least how it is being interpreted.

It makes more sense that the aether flowing toward the low concentration simply increases the aetheric concentration in that area, rather than somehow passing through or around the low concentration area, straight to the high concentration "planet zone".

I agree, but a logical consequence is that this agreed increase of aetheric concentration means that there is an increase in the distance between the upper-hemiplane and the lower-hemi-plane. So now, when you cross the equator and move from the upper to lower hemi-plane, instead of the transition being instantaneous, there is a measurable time delay. The consequences of this are, we should be able to see the region in between the 2 planes as we transition. Worse than that, our bodies will be ripped in 2 pieces if we straddle the equator.

Since this does not happen, it appears there is another fundamental flaw in the present description of the DET.

So what you get inside the Earth is a higher concentration surrounded by a negligible (crucially, not zero) concentration. That high concentration flows out to the sides; meanwhile there's a constant flow in from above and below, and for the instant there's a zero concentration due to the outwards flow, said concentration has to be filled in.
Zero concentrations can't really exist for anything more than infinitesimally small amounts of 'space' and time. The basic consequence is that once the flow of aether ends up in a cycle, of sorts, where every low concentration gets filled in by a high, and the wake of such a flow also gets filled in, without needing to appeal to any other source of aether, it's not really going to be disturbed or pushed from that 'equilibrium.'

None of this explains why the gap zone with negligible aether never increases its concentration, despite the presence right in its middle of a zone of high concentration aether.

This is one fundamental internal inconsitency of DET: according to the definitions and descriptions, aether should flow from the "Sun/Planet" zone into the "neglible aether zone", but a clear consequence of that is the diffculty previously described at the equator.

How is it known to exist...has he been into space? Has he swam around in it.? Has he seen or touched it?

Yeah. You're in space right now. That's not the tricky part of the model. I'm going to guess he's been swimming at some point in his life, and it's exceedingly hard to do that without occupying space.
Sure, equations are lacking, but the basic entity is described. If you can't work out how to develop equations from the description, why should anyone else be able to?
The idea is simple enough. He uses the principle of diffusion, and multiple analogues, and claims that as this covers all observed systems, whether matter or energy, it must be a law. If it is a law, he concludes it applies to space.
The mention of Turing is basically just an aside; things that obey the law don't necessarily even out.

My challenge to you and you pal Jane is to present some firm evidence experimental, mathematical, or even observational that points toward the existence of the aether existing rather than because he says so. If you fail to do this then his theory can be filed under 'B' for bin.

Go to the fourth section of the overview. The evidence takes a while to explain, but the idea is that he takes this principle, he determines what the consequences of it would be, should it exist, and then notes that this is in line with what it is we observe. Ultimately, that's what scientific evidence comes down to.

This is completely counter to what is stated in the DET. Aether is equivalent to space (or the fabric of space), which JRowe defines as the distance between 2 points A and B. More aether, the greater the distance between them. I made no reference to mass in my posts, when referring to size I am specifically referring to the physical dimensions of an object (length, breadth, height), since by definition, that is directly related to concentration of aether.

It's not counter to it. The point is that the size of an object is dependent on how much space it occupies; if it starts occupying more space then that just defies the laws of physics. An object always occupies the same amount of space. If this space is stretched thin, then when viewed from an external perspective, the space it occupies is longer. However, if lots of space is packed together, then an object still only occupies the same amount of space; said amount isn't as much as what's there.
He explains it as the following:

JRowe:
A classical analogy in relativity is to imagine space as a blanket: under DET, imagine this blanket is composed of some stretchy fabric, such as woven elastic.
An object will be, say, the size of five adjacent lines of elastic. If you pinch and pull the fabric, the number of lines will not alter: however, when compared to another five lines of elastic, it is possible for an object to appear longer (by comparison) than another, same-sized object.

I don't think it's contrary to the theory to explain it like this.
At the equator, the small amount of space means that when you stand there, a leg on either side, you go all the way through the centre of the Earth. The small amount of space means that, if you're viewing this from somewhere outside the Earth, or looking at it on one of his diagrams, you seem to fill up more room than you would in a regular concentration.
Compare it to the Sun. if you stand at the equator, you're wider than the Sun and all the planets. If you start adding more aether to the inside of the world, though, this wouldn't happen. There'd be no instantaneous crossing, so you'd have to walk it, and in doing so you'd become smaller than the Sun.

That makes more sense in terms of the DET (reduction of aetheric density = reduced distance), but is different to your first reply when you said objects have a set size and always occupy a certain distance. If you take your first answer as correct, then the aether is reduced to the status of an arbitrary (variable) coordinate system, since objects always have the same size. The DET, however, states otherwise: you reduce aether, you reduce space, which is the same as distance.

I was unclear, sorry; when I said that objects always occupy a set distance, the distance is still variable relative to other distances under the laws of DET. JRowe's elastic analogy above, I hope, demonstrates what I meant.

I agree, but a logical consequence is that this agreed increase of aetheric concentration means that there is an increase in the distance between the upper-hemiplane and the lower-hemi-plane. So now, when you cross the equator and move from the upper to lower hemi-plane, instead of the transition being instantaneous, there is a measurable time delay. The consequences of this are, we should be able to see the region in between the 2 planes as we transition. Worse than that, our bodies will be ripped in 2 pieces if we straddle the equator.

Since this does not happen, it appears there is another fundamental flaw in the present description of the DET.

None of this explains why the gap zone with negligible aether never increases its concentration, despite the presence right in its middle of a zone of high concentration aether.

This is one fundamental internal inconsitency of DET: according to the definitions and descriptions, aether should flow from the "Sun/Planet" zone into the "neglible aether zone", but a clear consequence of that is the diffculty previously described at the equator.

The problem is that the increase in concentration only exists for an instant in time.
Normally there would be a total low concentration inside the Earth, from what I've gathered. The only reason space exists there, is that it flows in 'faster' than it flows out, because it's heading to the centre from all directions. That's what forms the 'iris' concentration.
The low concentration is basically lowering itself at about the same rate as the higher concentration flows in. The current system of concentrations is more or less fixed, because any alterations are immediately corrected for as more aether flows to any newly created low concentration.

Here's an honest question--though one I'm not sure I'm capable of asking in a way that makes sense.  it's something that I've never quite been able to put my finger on with DET.

You make reference to aether being sort of like our conception of "space"--a "sea of coordinate points".  And that objects occupy a set range of these coordinate points, meaning as the aether flows, contracts, expands, so do the objects, thus maintaining distance and relative sizes, etc.  (please correct me if this is not right).

This all more or less makes sense to me but where I get lost is the disc surface of the earth.  The aether is understood to be flowing from "above", down through the surface of earth.  My question is--why isn't the surface of earth flowing with it?

I'm picturing this "sea of coordinate points" flowing through the ground, and you, and me...and it seems like that would imply we're occupying successively different sets of coordinates within the aether, aka we and the surface are "moving up" with respect to the aether, which is supposed to be analogous to space.

1.  Does this make sense or am I totally off base?
2.  Would this (if it's true) result in some effect similar to Universal Acceleration?
3.  What is it about us and the surface of the earth that prevents it from simply flowing along with the aether towards the center?

No Jane that won't do. I asked you a very specific point regarding your pals claim to have proven the existence of the aether, based on the words used in his model, and I use that term loosely.

You said, and I quote.

Sure, equations are lacking, but the basic entity is described. If you can't work out how to develop equations from the description, why should anyone else be able to?
The idea is simple enough. He uses the principle of diffusion, and multiple analogues, and claims that as this covers all observed systems, whether matter or energy, it must be a law. If it is a law, he concludes it applies to space.
The mention of Turing is basically just an aside; things that obey the law don't necessarily even out.

Your correct equations are indeed lacking as is anything else that proves the existence of what your pal refers to as the aether. He appears to have convinced himself it exists and then rummaged around for some scientific principles to throw in to make it sound credible to those with little or no education. You claim multiple analogues, I must have missed those, other than a reference to the second law of thermodynamics, which I have to admit I don't see how that in a way relates to the aether existence, and his reference to Turins work......where were the rest?

How must it be a law? Nothing must be. When it boils down to it he is saying because a system exists in biololigy, diffusion, it must also relate to space.....why.....no evidence just a claim... That's quite a jump...it ain't clever, and it sure ain't science. Normally when one makes a claim you support it with evidence not just words.

He then uses this nonesense to go and try and explain the creation of the universe from dust! It's so ludicrous as to be laughable....it flys in the face of so many credible and proven scientific principles.......this just can't be taken seriously....

How does he explain the cosmic microwave background radiation that points to the early universe being very very hot..... but not dusty......at such temperatures even atoms would not exist......too much energy for dust!

This all more or less makes sense to me but where I get lost is the disc surface of the earth.  The aether is understood to be flowing from "above", down through the surface of earth.  My question is--why isn't the surface of earth flowing with it?

Remember that the Earth is a two-sided disc under this model. Wherever you are, the aether flows down from above you, but the direction 'above' is in depends on which disk you stand on.
The flow of aether down does push the Earth, but it pushes it into a disc that's being pushed in the opposite direction. The net force on the Earth is zero, because it gets cancelled by the flow coming the other way.

No Jane that won't do.

I told you where the evidence was. "No that won't do," is a pointless reply. The idea behind this "Ask me!" thread is that you're meant to pay attention to the answers, rather than assume they're wrong without responding to them.

Your pal then says, again with no supporting proof, :-

That is all there is to aether. Something known to exist, with a known law applied to it. Remember this definition, and know and understand it fully. It is vital.

How is it known to exist...has he been into space? Has he swam around in it.? Has he seen or touched it?

In fairness to JRowe, I think he's saying that aether consists of space (which is known to exist), with a known law applied to if (the diffusion principle). He is claiming this as his definition, which he goes on to use in the rest of his theory, which he then says explains observable phenomena in our solar system.

Unfortunately, the definition is so loose that the aether seems to be able to have whatever properties and behaviours are necessary in order to explain observable phenomena. Negligible aether between the 2 Earth hemi-planes, except for a large spheroid of concentrated aether where the sun, moon and planets live, yet not one tiny bit of this aether leaches into the "aether vacuum" that is necessary to stop equator crossings being extremely unusual, in direct contradiction to one of the few "laws" present in the DET - aether flows from high concentration to low (just not inside the Earth).

I think Jane is putting up a stirling effort in trying to defend the indefensible, but there comes a point when all the hand-waving in the world isn't going to cover up the glaring inconsistencies and problems with DET (and that's without even starting on space travel being impossible!)

Jane

I think we should agree to disagree about what happens to the aether inside the Eatrh as we'll just go round in circles.

I'd like to discuss something else that many people will be familiar with, and see how the evidence for it stacks up both with respect to GET and DET.

Satellite dishes.

Take a satellite and point it to a several published coordinates in the sky, and you'll receive a television transmission. Under GET, these satellites are in geostationary orbit 22,300 miles over the equator. The angle you need to point the satellite at relative to the horizon is a function of your latitude. If you're on the equator (0 degrees latitude), you point it straight up (90 degrees). There are online calculators for how to set up your dish depending on where yo're located, and what satellite you want to point to.

http://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-uk-ireland.htm

As a mathematician, I'm sure you can appreciate the maths behind all this.

Here's a satellite dish at the South Pole:-



And some satellite dishes at the equator:-



I spent some time looking at satellite dishes at various locations around the Earth of Google Earth, plugged in the coordinate data to the website, and you can visually see that the dish angles comport with what they are predicted to be. The 2 images above are extreme examples.

This is fully known and understood in GET, with overwhelming supporting evidence. You don't need to be a satellite engineer to understand it, you just need a dish, as millions across the globe (sorry, Earth!) do. There are many online images of satellite dishes at different locations in the world. This is very good evidence that the TV transmissions are coming from particular places in the sky, where satellites are said to orbit in GET.

How is all this explained by DET, which precludes space travel, and satellites? Given that satellite dishes must point to the heavens, would that mean that the source of the transmissions is located inside the Earth? If so, presumably they must be in the region whether the Sun and Moon are located (since they can't exist where there is negligible aether). How did they get there without traversing the "forbidden zone" of negligible aether? How does DET predict the specific angles that satellite dishes must be pointed at in order to receive a signal?

Unfortunately, the definition is so loose that the aether seems to be able to have whatever properties and behaviours are necessary in order to explain observable phenomena. Negligible aether between the 2 Earth hemi-planes, except for a large spheroid of concentrated aether where the sun, moon and planets live, yet not one tiny bit of this aether leaches into the "aether vacuum" that is necessary to stop equator crossings being extremely unusual, in direct contradiction to one of the few "laws" present in the DET - aether flows from high concentration to low (just not inside the Earth).

I just need to focus on this bit for a moment, because there aren't really loose properties of aether. It is pretty limited to what it does. There's concentrated aether right at the middle of the flow, because it's being 'fed' by multiple inwards flows. It goes in faster than it goes out, while if you head to the whites of the eyes, there's only the inwards flow of the immediately adjacent hemiplane, and less aether that'll be flowing to it anyway just by angle. The centre of the Earth is basically a focus for where all the aether of the world passes through, it should have a higher concentration.
Aether does flow form high concentrations to low, but it's like I said, that includes flowing to the low concentration that's left when a concentration moves on. It's fine if you don't think that'll happen, but you can't really say the law doesn't apply inside the Earth. It does, and it is used there, just in a way you apparently don't agree with.

How is all this explained by DET, which precludes space travel, and satellites? Given that satellite dishes must point to the heavens, would that mean that the source of the transmissions is located inside the Earth? If so, presumably they must be in the region whether the Sun and Moon are located (since they can't exist where there is negligible aether). How did they get there without traversing the "forbidden zone" of negligible aether? How does DET predict the specific angles that satellite dishes must be pointed at in order to receive a signal?

The only way to get 'inside' the Earth to a meaningful extent, short of drilling down, would be reaching incredible altitudes like the Sun. That's impossible, under DET, as passing through the thicker aetheric whirlpools higher up would tear anything apart in the transition.
Satellite dishes are, like with typical FET, replaced with in-atmosphere equivalents, or stratellites. If you angle a dish, then the satellite it points to could be anywhere along one particular line. Under DET and FET, the satellite's just a bit lower down.

Quote from: PsychedelicPill on November 19, 2016, 06:00:41 AM

How is all this explained by DET, which precludes space travel, and satellites? Given that satellite dishes must point to the heavens, would that mean that the source of the transmissions is located inside the Earth? If so, presumably they must be in the region whether the Sun and Moon are located (since they can't exist where there is negligible aether). How did they get there without traversing the "forbidden zone" of negligible aether? How does DET predict the specific angles that satellite dishes must be pointed at in order to receive a signal?

The only way to get 'inside' the Earth to a meaningful extent, short of drilling down, would be reaching incredible altitudes like the Sun. That's impossible, under DET, as passing through the thicker aetheric whirlpools higher up would tear anything apart in the transition.
Satellite dishes are, like with typical FET, replaced with in-atmosphere equivalents, or stratellites. If you angle a dish, then the satellite it points to could be anywhere along one particular line. Under DET and FET, the satellite's just a bit lower down.

The highlighted sentence doesn't comport with observational evidence.

To receive communications from a particular satellite at the pole, you point the dish parallel to the ground. At the equator, you point it parallel to a plane going straight up. (These are approximations since the satellite isn't at infinity, but good enough for this discussion.

Here's the basic set up according to GET. Works just fine.



And according to DET... how does it work exactly?



So, where exactly are these floating TV transmitters according to DET? How come they seem to be unaffected by weather and winds, and stay in the same place?

And according to DET... how does it work exactly?

They'll just be pointed to different satellites/stratellites.

So, where exactly are these floating TV transmitters according to DET? How come they seem to be unaffected by weather and winds, and stay in the same place?

They could still be affected to a small extent, so long as they stay within a certain area. Afraid I have to use the good old conspiracy standby answer though: it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy if the blueprints and details were available to the public.

Quote from: PsychedelicPill on November 19, 2016, 07:49:57 AM

And according to DET... how does it work exactly?

They'll just be pointed to different satellites/stratellites.

This is when fantasies such as DET unravel quite rapidly. Real world phenomena have to be hand-waved away.

With all these satellites/stratellites in the sky you should be able to point your dish pretty much anywhere to pick up a particular broadcast. But you have to point to specific locations to pick up a particular satellite. The many websites and apps give different configuration instructions depending on your location. Enter the wrong information, and your dish will most likely point at fresh air.

I'm calling JRowe out on this one. GET is the only theory that satisfactorily explains all of the observational evidence regarding satellite transmissions. DET doesn't even come close, and falls at the first hurdle.

They could still be affected to a small extent, so long as they stay within a certain area. Afraid I have to use the good old conspiracy standby answer though: it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy if the blueprints and details were available to the public.

This good old conspiracy standby may be old, but it isn't good. Conspiracists seem to think the world consists of "the public", and a completely different set of people who contribute to maintaining the conspiracy, "the conspirators". They try to make the conspiracy sound plausible by pointing to a small number of conspirators, with not a single whistle-blower among them, compartmentalised so that they don't know they are part of a conspiracy.

Someone, somewhere had to design and make all these alleged stratellites. Clearly not just one person, but tens of thousands of people, across many disciplines, over many decades, from many different countries with differing ideologies. They all had to be secretly educated on how the world actually works (DET not GET) so that they could design systems that would work properly. Which of course means that all the countries involved would also need a secret education programme to train these engineers.

Once properly educated in DET (with not a single mention of this by a single soul since the first satellite went into orbit nearly 60 years ago), they then had to figure out not only how to design a system of satellites that would provide global communication and entertainment, but would do it in such a way that it perfectly mimicked what people would expect to see if the world was actually a sphere. For example, they would have to devise some system that would detect where in the world a satellite dish was, and only allow it to receive transmissions from stratellites that would be visible from that location if the world was actually a sphere. Then they'd have to devise some kind of cloaking technology to stop the stratellites from being visible through telescopes, again location dependent.

I'm beginning to think JRowe hasn't really thought this through! Can I claim victory?

I'm beginning to think JRowe hasn't really thought this through! Can I claim victory?

On that count, sure. I've spent more time figuring out how more physical phenomenon can exist on the model, I know a cursory overview of the conspiracy stuff but not to the same extent. There might be better responses, I just don't know them.