[Gulliver]

So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.

I "resort" to aetheric flow just as other physicists "resort" to hypothetical particles and substances when their expectations do not match observations.  Fermi guessed that neutrons had to exist in the nuclei of atoms to explain how they worked.  Pauli "resorted" to saying Neutrinos must exist because they explained observed results.  At the time, the scientific community said these ideas had no basis in reality.  They were "pleading."  Of course, years later, neutrons and neutrinos were detected.  Aether explains much of what we experience here on the flat earth, so if we are pleading when we discuss those effects, it is only in the sense that Fermi and Pauli were.

Special pleading is well defined and you're doing it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading While AWT never claimed that it affects ALL flight instrument to make a transpolar flight seem like it's on a RET, you now plead that it does--without any evidence but your pleading. Fermi had experimental evidence in hand before hypothesis. You have AWT in had then try to argue that it fits the real world evidence. You can't even tell me if the aether is even atomic in nature.

You may ought to speak to Tausami, as he's the resident aetheric wind theorist here.  I'm just relaying things as I understand them, but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge,  aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.

So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"? Has anyone seen, or in any objective way measured, these alleged flows? Has anyone done any experiment to even correlate these alleged flows with this alleged sort of navigational havoc? Do you have any VOE to support your outlandish (and escalating)  claims? Why should the OP believe anything that you've posted in this thread is anything but pleading?

Oh, and Tausami doesn't even know if the atheric flow exists. He does have some interesting math, which he refuses to post. Otherwise, he can't even say it the flows are of matter or energy. He can't explain how the flows have provided the FE with more than a centillion joules, without melting the FE.

[Tintagel]

So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"?

I didn't say I knew.  I clearly said that I believe AWT supports that conclusion.  If you're going to continue putting things in my mouth, I'm going to have to insist that you buy me dinner first.

[Gulliver]

So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"?

I didn't say I knew.  I clearly said that I believe AWT supports that conclusion.  If you're going to continue putting things in my mouth, I'm going to have to insist that you buy me dinner first.

You are saying you believe something. How can you believe something if you don't know it's true? Did a trusted fairy tell you to believe? Did it involve clapping your hands?

Oh and to quote you again:

... but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge,  aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.

[Tintagel]

So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"?

I didn't say I knew.  I clearly said that I believe AWT supports that conclusion.  If you're going to continue putting things in my mouth, I'm going to have to insist that you buy me dinner first.

You are saying you believe something. How can you believe something if you don't know it's true? Did a trusted fairy tell you to believe? Did it involve clapping your hands?

Oh and to quote you again:

... but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge,  aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.

You are misunderstanding my statement.  I am not using the absolute-faith form of believe (i.e. "I believe in angels").  I'm using the "as far as I know," form.  I'm not an expert on AWT, but as far as I know, that's what it says.  I could be wrong.  If I know something, I will say so.  I do know, for example, that you're being obtuse to the point of impossibility, as I've seen direct evidence of it, and there's little point in continuing this conversation if the precise definition and implication of each word I use in a post is going to be called into question.

[Ghost of V]

So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"?

I didn't say I knew.  I clearly said that I believe AWT supports that conclusion.  If you're going to continue putting things in my mouth, I'm going to have to insist that you buy me dinner first.

You are saying you believe something. How can you believe something if you don't know it's true? Did a trusted fairy tell you to believe? Did it involve clapping your hands?

Oh and to quote you again:

... but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge,  aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.

Every time you bring up AWT remember that Dark Matter is just you being wrong about the theory of gravity. Yet you follow it without supporting evidence. Before you criticize us maybe you should scrutinize your own theories.

[Gulliver]

Every time you bring up AWT remember that Dark Matter is just you being wrong about the theory of gravity. Yet you follow it without supporting evidence. Before you criticize us maybe you should scrutinize your own theories.

How is dark matter relevant to AWT? As an example of a theory, not RET, that has limited direct evidence? How does FET explain the rotation rate of galaxies better?

[Ghost of V]

How is dark matter relevant to AWT? As an example of a theory, not RET, that has limited direct evidence?

Dark matter is basically your version of AWT. There's no direct evidence, but we know it's there because of observed phenomenon. We've talked about this before, Gulliver. There is no evidence of Dark matter, and there is no evidence of Aether. However, they are both theories that attempt to explain the currently unexplainable. They are similar in that way.

How does FET explain the rotation rate of galaxies better?

Irrelevant?

[Gulliver]

How is dark matter relevant to AWT? As an example of a theory, not RET, that has limited direct evidence?

Dark matter is basically your version of AWT. There's no direct evidence, but we know it's there because of observed phenomenon. We've talked about this before, Gulliver. There is no evidence of Dark matter, and there is no evidence of Aether. However, they are both theories that attempt to explain the currently unexplainable. They are similar in that way.

How does FET explain the rotation rate of galaxies better?

Irrelevant?

So then why don't you apply Occam's Razor and eliminate AWT in favor of intelligent, benevolent, secretive pixies? Dark matter is the simplest, accurate hypothesis. A previously unknown pervasive superfluid (which might actually just be energy, not a fluid) that for no physical reason moves light and the sun and the moon and the planets and the atmolayer in just the right fashion, and violates the LoTD, and now according to today's expansion causes flight instrument havoc just right to convince a pilot that he's flying a circumpolar route over both poles.Yep, pixies would be a simpler hypothesis and explain more data more accurately.

[Ghost of V]

How is dark matter relevant to AWT? As an example of a theory, not RET, that has limited direct evidence?

Dark matter is basically your version of AWT. There's no direct evidence, but we know it's there because of observed phenomenon. We've talked about this before, Gulliver. There is no evidence of Dark matter, and there is no evidence of Aether. However, they are both theories that attempt to explain the currently unexplainable. They are similar in that way.

How does FET explain the rotation rate of galaxies better?

Irrelevant?

So then why don't you apply Occam's Razor and eliminate AWT in favor of intelligent, benevolent, secretive pixies? Dark matter is the simplest, accurate hypothesis. A previously unknown pervasive superfluid (which might actually just be energy, not a fluid) that for no physical reason moves light and the sun and the moon and the planets and the atmolayer in just the right fashion, and violates the LoTD, and now according to today's expansion causes flight instrument havoc just right to convince a pilot that he's flying a circumpolar route over both poles.Yep, pixies would be a simpler hypothesis and explain more data more accurately.

The same suggestion could be made for you. You don't know what dark matter is made of, you don't know what it is, what it does, or where it came from. It's equally ridiculous. Why not pixies that alter gravity? Pixies, in theory, would actually have mass and a gravitational pull that can be measured, whereas dark matter is still unobserved and unverified. You might as well believe in Gravity Pixies, because that's just as viable as "Dark Matter". It would be much simpler than "invisible weightless matter that magically has a gravitational pull".

Until you can prove dark matter without a doubt, don't knock AWT.

[Gulliver]

How is dark matter relevant to AWT? As an example of a theory, not RET, that has limited direct evidence?

Dark matter is basically your version of AWT. There's no direct evidence, but we know it's there because of observed phenomenon. We've talked about this before, Gulliver. There is no evidence of Dark matter, and there is no evidence of Aether. However, they are both theories that attempt to explain the currently unexplainable. They are similar in that way.

How does FET explain the rotation rate of galaxies better?

Irrelevant?

So then why don't you apply Occam's Razor and eliminate AWT in favor of intelligent, benevolent, secretive pixies? Dark matter is the simplest, accurate hypothesis. A previously unknown pervasive superfluid (which might actually just be energy, not a fluid) that for no physical reason moves light and the sun and the moon and the planets and the atmolayer in just the right fashion, and violates the LoTD, and now according to today's expansion causes flight instrument havoc just right to convince a pilot that he's flying a circumpolar route over both poles.Yep, pixies would be a simpler hypothesis and explain more data more accurately.

The same suggestion could be made for you. You don't know what dark matter is made of, you don't know what it is, what it does, or where it came from. It's equally ridiculous. Why not pixies that alter gravity? Pixies, in theory, would actually have mass and a gravitational pull that can be measured, whereas dark matter is still unobserved and unverified. You might as well believe in Gravity Pixies, because that's just as viable as "Dark Matter". It would be much simpler than "invisible weightless matter that magically has a gravitational pull".

Until you can prove dark matter without a doubt, don't knock AWT.

Nope. Dark matter has several characteristics that have made great predictions. The theory explains observations that came after it. Pixies don't. We know what dark matter does and how it does it fits right in with GR. No, dark matter is not weightless. Please do try to keep up. (Saying something is both weightless and has a gravitation pull in the same sentence is a hallmark of a crackpot.) Why can't something that is hard to detect have mass? How would FET explain the rotational speed of galaxies? AWT? At least DM doesn't violate the Laws of TD. oh and again: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-indirect-detection-of-dark-matter/

[Ghost of V]

There's still 0 evidence for dark matter. What you've done is created something magical to explain certain phenomenon that you cannot explain. Dark matter is a crutch for your own ignorance of the workings of the universe.

Funny how there are other (just as plausible) theories out there that successfully explain why galaxies are spinning faster than they should, among other things that are dubiously attributed to dark matter.

Here's one: http://science.time.com/2013/02/26/cosmic-fuggedaboudit-dark-matter-may-not-exist-at-all/

Your own peers cannot come to an agreement.

[Rama Set]

So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.

I "resort" to aetheric flow just as other physicists "resort" to hypothetical particles and substances when their expectations do not match observations.  Fermi guessed that neutrons had to exist in the nuclei of atoms to explain how they worked.  Pauli "resorted" to saying Neutrinos must exist because they explained observed results.  At the time, the scientific community said these ideas had no basis in reality.  They were "pleading."  Of course, years later, neutrons and neutrinos were detected.  Aether explains much of what we experience here on the flat earth, so if we are pleading when we discuss those effects, it is only in the sense that Fermi and Pauli were.

Special pleading is well defined and you're doing it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading While AWT never claimed that it affects ALL flight instrument to make a transpolar flight seem like it's on a RET, you now plead that it does--without any evidence but your pleading. Fermi had experimental evidence in hand before hypothesis. You have AWT in had then try to argue that it fits the real world evidence. You can't even tell me if the aether is even atomic in nature.

You may ought to speak to Tausami, as he's the resident aetheric wind theorist here.  I'm just relaying things as I understand them, but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge,  aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.

Tausami has also said there is no conclusive experimental evidence supporting AWT so perhaps some discretion is in order when invoking AWT.

[Thork]

There's still 0 evidence for dark matter. What you've done is created something magical to explain certain phenomenon that you cannot explain. Dark matter is a crutch for your own ignorance of the workings of the universe.

Funny how there are other (just as plausible) theories out there that successfully explain why galaxies are spinning faster than they should, among other things that are dubiously attributed to dark matter.

Here's one: http://science.time.com/2013/02/26/cosmic-fuggedaboudit-dark-matter-may-not-exist-at-all/

Your own peers cannot come to an agreement.

You just posted how Round Earth scientists can't come to an agreement on the existence of Dark Matter, and then criticised us for being in the exact same place.

Neither party (RE or FE) know what is really going on, but both can and do make hypothesis on how the thing neither of us understand, might be responsible for observable phenomena we can't yet explain in our own respective models.

[Ghost of V]

Neither party (RE or FE) know what is really going on, but both can and do make hypothesis on how the thing neither of us understand, might be responsible for observable phenomena we can't yet explain in our own respective models.

This was the conclusion I was trying to highlight. FE and RE are very similar in many respects. I am not criticizing FET by any means though. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. The point I'm trying to get across is that Gulliver attempts to debunk AWT with unfair scrutiny, when he should really be scrutinizing his own scientific theories because, for all intents and purposes, dark matter is very similar to aether... yet he blindly defends dark matter theory because of popular opinion, even when there are RE scientists that do not agree and have come up with equally plausible explanations that make dark matter irrelevant/junk-science.

[Rama Set]

Neither party (RE or FE) know what is really going on, but both can and do make hypothesis on how the thing neither of us understand, might be responsible for observable phenomena we can't yet explain in our own respective models.

This was the conclusion I was trying to highlight. FE and RE are very similar in many respects. I am not criticizing FET by any means though. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. The point I'm trying to get across is that Gulliver attempts to debunk AWT with unfair scrutiny, when he should really be scrutinizing his own scientific theories because, for all intents and purposes, dark matter is very similar to aether... yet he blindly defends dark matter theory because of popular opinion, even when there are RE scientists that do not agree and have come up with equally plausible explanations that make dark matter irrelevant/junk-science.

What hypotheses have been formulated to compete with dark matter?

As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.

[Ghost of V]

Link is above.

[Thork]

As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.

Maybe if they had some RE scientists they could go back and tell everyone else that there has been a horrible oversight. RET not having specialists in earth's shape, is why TFES has such a lead in this research area.

[Gulliver]

As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.

Maybe if they had some RE scientists they could go back and tell everyone else that there has been a horrible oversight. RET not having specialists in earth's shape, is why TFES has such a lead in this research area.

Reference: http://aerospace.wcc.hawaii.edu/shape.html

Geodesy is a quite active science with active, paid specialists. Its main journal far outdoes FES in terms of results and publication.

If you'd be so kind as to publish any VOE to support your outlandish claim of "a horrible oversight", we'd support you in seeking the Nobel Prize in physics.

[Ghost of V]

As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.

There are scientists who favor RET and scientists who favor FET. They come in all shapes and sizes.

[Rama Set]

As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.

There are scientists who favor RET and scientists who favor FET. They come in all shapes and sizes.

Perhaps, although I would not call either of them FE scientists or RE scientists.