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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.