DET: Come at me

  • 22 Replies
  • 2581 Views
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
DET: Come at me
« on: February 08, 2017, 11:39:18 AM »
There seem to be a few newcomers to the forum. Dual Earth Theory is my Flat Earth model, and is the most successful alternative Earth model for its ability to address problems such as circumpolar stars and the Coriolis force, as well as 24 sunlight at each pole.

As is often the case, the model itself is complicated to learn. If you are interested in debating FET, or FET as a theory, please take the time to read and understand. It is a model met with much abuse and mocking, but I have attempted to make several threads now to pinpoint what issues exactly people have with the model, and inevitably they turn into pages of abuse with no substance. I'm sure you can find the past threads with the search function.

The point of this thread is twofold.

1. If you are interested, then the model is here:
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/3/dual-earth-theory-overview
And has an accompanying FAQ here:
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/4/dual-earth-theory-faq
Please read. Go section by section; don't move onto the second until you understand the first, etc. There are four total, three about the model, one on the evidence. They build on one another.
If, after finishing a section, you cannot work out how some part of the explanation works, or believe part of it is unclear, then post here. As I've said, please go one section at a time. Don't move onto the second section if you do not feel confident in the first section, for example. Each one is heavily based on what comes before.
The REers who delight in mocking should be glad of this thread. Now you can deliver your objections clearly.
Specify the section you're referring to, and give your problems. I'll reply to hopefully clarify. Please do specify the section. This is both to make reading easier, and to weed out the users who are just going to spam a list of cliche and dealt-with objections to waste time and never return.

2. The second purpose, beyond answering your questions, is to show the more recent members of the forum how many REers behave. I am sure it won't be long before we see the mindless abuse and empty mocking and outright lies. If you wonder why many FEers are less active, or choose not to be regular on this forum, that's why.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15417
  • Djinn
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2017, 11:57:19 AM »
I'm a little confused.  I thought Jane was the resident expert in DET.

Are you further refining her ideas?
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2017, 11:58:49 AM »
A better map/diagram would be helpful.
I think most people get tripped up when it comes to the equator, and then even more so with the sun, moon and stars & planets, etc.
If you would take the time to explain using a proper diagram you might get your idea across more soundly.
You also must depend on "aether" anytime things are otherwise unexplainable.
Lastly, the sun above the tropics of cancer & capricorn originating from the center is kinda tough to buy.
These are just a few of my observations. I wish you no ill intent.

Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2017, 12:49:41 PM »

2. The second purpose, beyond answering your questions, is to show the more recent members of the forum how many REers behave. I am sure it won't be long before we see the mindless abuse and empty mocking and outright lies. If you wonder why many FEers are less active, or choose not to be regular on this forum, that's why.

As a new member.  I think I'm perfectly capable of determining how other posters behave without your help.  Thank you very much. it happens to be part of this forum's charm.

I've reviewed your whole site and I have problems with the 'don't go to a new section until you understand the previous section'.  It comes off a little like 'you don't like it because your not smart enough to understand it so let me explain it some more'.

Having said that, I'm still working through your model.  I don't have any questions for you yet.
The world is a sphere, but I don't hold that against it.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2017, 01:08:09 PM »
Quote
I'm a little confused.  I thought Jane was the resident expert in DET.

Are you further refining her ideas?
It has always been my model and I'm fairly sure you know that. Jane's a round earther who seems to be the best at grasping it.

Quote
I've reviewed your whole site and I have problems with the 'don't go to a new section until you understand the previous section'.  It comes off a little like 'you don't like it because your not smart enough to understand it so let me explain it some more'.
That's included because the sections are arranged in a specific order, so that what happens in the later sections follows on from what's explained in the earlier. Trying to understand section 2 without understanding section 1 would be like doing calculus if you don't know how to count. More often than not, the objections people have to later sections just seem to come about because they didn't do any more than skim the earlier ones. I'm just trying to avoid that happening again.

Quote
A better map/diagram would be helpful.
I think most people get tripped up when it comes to the equator, and then even more so with the sun, moon and stars & planets, etc.
If you would take the time to explain using a proper diagram you might get your idea across more soundly.
You also must depend on "aether" anytime things are otherwise unexplainable.
Lastly, the sun above the tropics of cancer & capricorn originating from the center is kinda tough to buy.
These are just a few of my observations. I wish you no ill intent.
The sun, moon and planets follow on from the equator. As far as a diagram goes, it is physically impossible to draw such a thing in 2-D. If there is a part of the text-based explanation that you don't understand, please let me know. I could give an illustration with four pins, a piece of card and an elastic band, but it's exceedingly difficult to draw that.
But as far as the rest goes, it doesn't matter what you find easy to 'buy,' what matters is what's logically consistent. I don't 'rely on aether when things are otherwise unexplainable,' aether is a well-defined and explained aspect to the model that is crucial, yes, but it is a reasonable answer because it is well-defined. Objecting to it simply because it's used to answer objections isn't logical. It is an entity that is defined simply at the start, little more than appending one trait to something we know exists, and the consequences follow.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2017, 01:32:45 PM »
We have discussed this before, but my greatest issue with your model is your reliance upon aether behaving in certain ways, when nobody has ever observed what you are describing.

I'd like to take a look at your "evidence" section in particular

Quote
Gravity will decrease with altitude: under DET, this is due to fewer whirlpools pushing down. It will be possible to verify that the alteration will occur discontinuously: instead of a smooth progression, we will observe jumps at the altitude of each whirlpool.

This is demonstrably false. Dozens of experiments have measured gravity at varying levels. None have observed any "jumps" in gravitational energy.

If you can point to 1 study showing these supposed "jumps" in gravity then you may be on to something.

Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2017, 01:43:11 PM »
This thread will go well.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2017, 01:46:01 PM »
Quote
This is demonstrably false. Dozens of experiments have measured gravity at varying levels. None have observed any "jumps" in gravitational energy.

If you can point to 1 study showing these supposed "jumps" in gravity then you may be on to something.
I have seen no experiment that tries to measure continuity, which is the key issue. There is no debate on the concept of gravity decreasing with altitude, but it is assumed to be continuous: this is not tested for.
This is an example of an experiment that count be performed, not one that has been.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15417
  • Djinn
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2017, 01:47:58 PM »
Quote
I'm a little confused.  I thought Jane was the resident expert in DET.

Are you further refining her ideas?
It has always been my model and I'm fairly sure you know that. Jane's a round earther who seems to be the best at grasping it.


You win this round.

Next question.  In other threads you have mentioned some psychic/supernatural powers that the aether has.  Does this still factory into your theories or have you dropped this aspect?
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2017, 01:51:59 PM »
Quote
Next question.  In other threads you have mentioned some psychic/supernatural powers that the aether has.  Does this still factory into your theories or have you dropped this aspect?
You know where the model is outlined. You are more than welcome to scour it for any mention of psychic powers.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11801
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2017, 01:52:55 PM »
I'm a little confused.  I thought Jane was the resident expert in DET.

Are you further refining her ideas?
Lol.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2017, 02:14:46 PM »
Little confused about your website.  It doesn't appear to get much traffic.  Not even from you as the latest dates show up in august of last year on forum posts.  Is this an attempt to fire it back up or something?

Does this site represent the bulk of your work?  I see that you have experiments that would prove your theory but you don't have the resources to perform them.  Has there been or is there anyone in mainstream science who have reviewed and support your work? If so, can you provide some links to their reviews?
The world is a sphere, but I don't hold that against it.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2017, 02:28:36 PM »
Your theory's supporting premise seems to be "This is my theory, you can't prove it wrong, therefore it is true".

Not how it works.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2017, 02:47:22 PM »
Examples: if you see something vanish in the distance bottom-up, what is that evidence of? Well, it could mean that you're on a round Earth, or it could mean you're by a hill, or it could be down to perspective. There are multiple explanations, as is the case for everything. There is not one observation in the world that has only one explanation. Everything can be explained multiple ways. Even experiments may have multiple interpretations.
So observation alone would not seem to be enough. You have to have a model to compare those observations with.

Therefore, we have our definition of evidence: an observation that is in line with what a theory states.

The above is a quote from your website. Doesn't the ship example meet this criteria?  It fits a know model, that of the round earth.  I have personally seen the phenomenon on the ocean, in Duluth with the big shipping freighters coming in, and on Mille Lacs lake in Minnesota with smaller boats. It wasn't a hill in the way, or a case of perspective, it was perfectly explained and matched the theory of the curvature of the earth.  By going to my hotel room at a higher elevation, I was able to bring the entire ship back into view which matches the theory as well.

You also compare amounts of evidence to support why DET and RET are simply alternative views of what it might be.  Where exactly is your evidence again? I see in your post that you talk a lot about what evidence truly is, and even mention some experiments that haven't been performed yet.  But, I didn't see any real evidence in there.

The world is a sphere, but I don't hold that against it.

*

The Real Celine Dion

  • 4423
  • Use as directed
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2017, 02:53:11 PM »
The aether is kind of like the T-virus from the Resident Evil games, it does whatever the plot(or theory) needs it to do
You just got Weskered, bitches!

Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2017, 02:56:42 PM »
The aether is kind of like the T-virus from the Resident Evil games, it does whatever the plot(or theory) needs it to do

If only there was a like button.
The world is a sphere, but I don't hold that against it.

*

The Real Celine Dion

  • 4423
  • Use as directed
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2017, 03:02:58 PM »
The aether is kind of like the T-virus from the Resident Evil games, it does whatever the plot(or theory) needs it to do

If only there was a like button.

I try to make all of my posts with the utmost quality
You just got Weskered, bitches!

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11801
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2017, 03:14:19 PM »
Dumb Earth Theory = DET
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2017, 03:25:37 PM »
Quote
Next question.  In other threads you have mentioned some psychic/supernatural powers that the aether has.  Does this still factory into your theories or have you dropped this aspect?
You know where the model is outlined. You are more than welcome to scour it for any mention of psychic powers.
You may not mention any
"psychic/supernatural powers that the aether has", but it seems able to read your mind and do everything that you imagine it needs to do!

Yes, I know where your DET is described and I have noted no real evidence, just things that could be done!
JRowe, you do realise the numerous gravitational anomaly scans have been done. Have you looked there for the evidence you want?

But, as I have claimed numerous times, both FET and DET have the known dimensions of the earth quite incorrect.

The real earth distance around the equator is 40,075 km (based on one degree of longitude = 111.32 km at the equator).
But the distance around the equator in both FET and DET is 62,832 km (based on 2 x π x 10,000 km.)

See Flat Earth Debate / Re: Traveling Directly South? on: Today at 08:30:53 AM

As far as I am concerned this massive distance discrepancy kills both FET and DET without looking any further!

Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2017, 09:36:06 PM »
Aside from just saying I have issues with just about everything your model (sic) presents and that such ideas that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I'll be specific.

The sun, moon and planets follow on from the equator. As far as a diagram goes, it is physically impossible to draw such a thing in 2-D. If there is a part of the text-based explanation that you don't understand, please let me know. I could give an illustration with four pins, a piece of card and an elastic band, but it's exceedingly difficult to draw that.
But as far as the rest goes, it doesn't matter what you find easy to 'buy,' what matters is what's logically consistent. I don't 'rely on aether when things are otherwise unexplainable,' aether is a well-defined and explained aspect to the model that is crucial, yes, but it is a reasonable answer because it is well-defined. Objecting to it simply because it's used to answer objections isn't logical. It is an entity that is defined simply at the start, little more than appending one trait to something we know exists, and the consequences follow.

Simply saying that the sun, moon and planets follow on from the equator is far from a satisfactory or sufficient answer. How does it follow on? You've gone from A-Z in one bound, then simply declare that "It follows!". The amount of handwaving is breathtaking.

The formation of the Earth, moon, stars and other planets in your incoherent-wall-of-rambling-text model does not 'follow on' from the 'properties of aether'. Unless you've left out some rather lengthy and detailed explanations about aether and your space dust, there is no logical connection between aether flowing (for arguments sake, let's just accept it) and the formation of a DE, the sun & moon in the middle of the DE and the formation of the stars in aetheric whirlpools above a DE. Where is the follow on? What am I missing? There is no connection between aether flows & space dust to the formation of the Earth and everything we observe.

Again, for the sake of argument, I'm happy to just concede the existence of aether and your space dust. Now, could you attempt to coherently explain how you get from that to a DE, the sun, moon and the stars? I ask because your Overview does little more than assert that these things happen, rather than offer something substantive and/or falsifiable.

Once you cover that, I have questions about sunrise and sunset.

Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2017, 03:40:36 PM »
Quote
This is demonstrably false. Dozens of experiments have measured gravity at varying levels. None have observed any "jumps" in gravitational energy.

If you can point to 1 study showing these supposed "jumps" in gravity then you may be on to something.
I have seen no experiment that tries to measure continuity, which is the key issue. There is no debate on the concept of gravity decreasing with altitude, but it is assumed to be continuous: this is not tested for.
This is an example of an experiment that count be performed, not one that has been.

Here's the thing though, one cannot possibly measure for continuity. How would it be recorded?

The only way anybody can make any sort of accurate measurement of anything in the world is to measure it at discrete intervals and record the findings.

As it stands, NOT ONE SINGLE TEST regarding the effects of gravity has found ANY evidence of the "jumps" you speak of. In fact, every single time gravity is measured at different altitudes, one reliably finds a GRADUAL DECREASE in gravitational energy as one moves further away from the source.

AGAIN, if you can point out ONE SINGLE TEST that finds irregular "jumps" in gravitational energy, you would have a leg to stand on.

Currently, you do not.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2017, 05:19:41 PM »
Quote
Does this site represent the bulk of your work?  I see that you have experiments that would prove your theory but you don't have the resources to perform them.  Has there been or is there anyone in mainstream science who have reviewed and support your work? If so, can you provide some links to their reviews?
The site is where I chose to gather my work. It gives easy means for guests without an account to query, if they're interested, but also allows for easy linking without getting lost or derailed.
Mainstream science is not going to consider anything related to FET, as you well know.

Quote
Your theory's supporting premise seems to be "This is my theory, you can't prove it wrong, therefore it is true".
What is your source for such a blatantly false claim? Please quote where I said anything remotely similar to this.

Quote
The above is a quote from your website. Doesn't the ship example meet this criteria?  It fits a know model, that of the round earth.  I have personally seen the phenomenon on the ocean, in Duluth with the big shipping freighters coming in, and on Mille Lacs lake in Minnesota with smaller boats. It wasn't a hill in the way, or a case of perspective, it was perfectly explained and matched the theory of the curvature of the earth.  By going to my hotel room at a higher elevation, I was able to bring the entire ship back into view which matches the theory as well.
Yes, it does. One piece of evidence can be evidence of many things. It doesn't make sense to say that A is only proof of B, there will inevitably be countless models that could encompass A.

Quote
You also compare amounts of evidence to support why DET and RET are simply alternative views of what it might be.  Where exactly is your evidence again? I see in your post that you talk a lot about what evidence truly is, and even mention some experiments that haven't been performed yet.  But, I didn't see any real evidence in there.
I didn't list it exhaustively because we'd be there forever. Simply put, though, the evidence is in the observations that are in line with DET. i'd just spent three posts outlining what DET predicts and claims, so if you observe those, that is the evidence.

Quote
The aether is kind of like the T-virus from the Resident Evil games, it does whatever the plot(or theory) needs it to do
A clearly false claim as aether is rigidly and clearly defined. Where does this convenience you appeal to come in? Everything follows from a pre-stated definition.

Quote
You may not mention any
"psychic/supernatural powers that the aether has", but it seems able to read your mind and do everything that you imagine it needs to do!
Why do REers persist in making such a patently false claim? how could I make aether behave as I want it to when its definition comes before everything, and is plainly defined? There is no wiggle-room, aether has to follow specific rules and you're perfectly capable of pointing it out if I contradict these rules at any time. Sure, some people have tried to do so, but upon clarification they saw that it was not the case. And if all aether does is in line with a simple rule, then where could this convenient behaviour possibly arise?

Quote
JRowe, you do realise the numerous gravitational anomaly scans have been done. Have you looked there for the evidence you want?
Please provide a source that tests for the continuity of gravity.

Quote
But, as I have claimed numerous times, both FET and DET have the known dimensions of the earth quite incorrect.
You do not justify your claims of accuracy of the RE measurement. Following the status quo is not evidence.

Quote
Aside from just saying I have issues with just about everything your model (sic) presents and that such ideas that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I'll be specific.
You are more than welcome to provide your reasoning for dismissing the evidence that I provide, rather than pretending it does not exist.

Quote
Simply saying that the sun, moon and planets follow on from the equator is far from a satisfactory or sufficient answer. How does it follow on? You've gone from A-Z in one bound, then simply declare that "It follows!". The amount of handwaving is breathtaking.
The way it follows on is explained in the model, I was answering a specific question. They referenced people who did not understand the equator, and so did not understand the rest. I just pointed out that it wouldn't make sense for them to grasp the Sun etc when they do not understand what underlies it.

Quote
There is no connection between aether flows & space dust to the formation of the Earth and everything we observe.
Your question is far to broad for anyone to have a hope of answering. What, specifically, is your objection to the explanation that is laid out in the overview? Instead of insisting that it does not work, please provide the point at which you object. "Explain everything," is not a feasible question.
I explain how the Earth forms from aether and dust in the shape it's in, I then explain the equator, and then explain the Sun, moon and stars. It's a lengthy chain of reasoning which you are expecting me to reproduce fully, without telling me what was wrong with it in the first place. You seem to just be pretending that this chain never existed in the first place, which is patently false.

Quote
Here's the thing though, one cannot possibly measure for continuity. How would it be recorded?
Look at the gauge, wait for jumps. Narrow the intervals. Instead of the focus on discrete altitudes, increase height slowly and measure based on times (which would be far clearer in this case).

Quote
As it stands, NOT ONE SINGLE TEST regarding the effects of gravity has found ANY evidence of the "jumps" you speak of. In fact, every single time gravity is measured at different altitudes, one reliably finds a GRADUAL DECREASE in gravitational energy as one moves further away from the source.
A gradual decrease is what would be expected, when you enforce continuity onto the results. Continuity has to be tested for rather than just assumed. Your assertion that no test shows this is unjustifiable, because all tests assume automatically that it's not happening, and interpret the results in that light. Add a few error bars, and you can create a smooth line easily.

Quote
AGAIN, if you can point out ONE SINGLE TEST that finds irregular "jumps" in gravitational energy, you would have a leg to stand on.
This part of the model is only a prediction. You are not providing persuasive evidence against it, merely the assumption that it is not the case and quoting studies which assumed similarly. I do not need this test to ever occur or to ever have reliable results for it for DET to stand, the rest of the model stands by itself.
Neither of us have 'a leg to stand on,' by your reasoning as we're simply making claims about tests that have not been performed. Your attempts to shoehorn in studies which tried to show no such thing and indeed just assumed continuity are not evidence, it's circular reasoning.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: DET: Come at me
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2017, 05:30:21 PM »
AGAIN, if you can point out ONE SINGLE TEST that finds irregular "jumps" in gravitational energy, you would have a leg to stand on.

Currently, you do not.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.