[Gulliver]

I made no such claim.

Feels bad when others do it to you, huh?

Nope. I feel just fine, but thanks for the concern.

[Ghost of V]

What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.

Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.

Have you considered trolling a different forum?

Please do present your evidence of this simple fact. Please be sure to note how you determined that Einstein, a theoretical physicist, confirmed it and that this ether is the same as the one FET relies on for various effects and, of course, document how you know that your ether has these effects. Thanks.

This thread is about The Coriolis Effect. If you have questions about aether, please read the FAQS. Aether is outlined in great detail on the wiki.

Thank you for your time. If you have any further questions: read the FAQs.

[Gulliver]

What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.

Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.

Have you considered trolling a different forum?

Please do present your evidence of this simple fact. Please be sure to note how you determined that Einstein, a theoretical physicist, confirmed it and that this ether is the same as the one FET relies on for various effects and, of course, document how you know that your ether has these effects. Thanks.

This thread is about The Coriolis Effect. If you have questions about aether, please read the FAQS. Aether is outlined in great detail on the wiki.

Thank you for your time. If you have any further questions: read the FAQs.

So you can't support your outlandish claim, yet again. Noted (and expected). Do stop back when you have evidence to support you.

[Ghost of V]

So you can't support your outlandish claim, yet again. Noted (and expected). Do stop back when you have evidence to support you.

It really is quite tiring having to provide links for you. You're not very good with a computer, are you?

http://wiki.tfes.org/Aether
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories


Wow, so many different scientists developed their own Aether theories simultaneously without help from each other. But I'm sure they're all just making it up, right Gullly? 

Once you've read the material you're debating about I suspect we'll be able to have a real conversation. Until then your bully tactics and playing-dumb are going to be ignored.

[Rama Set]

What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.

Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.

Have you considered trolling a different forum?

Stop conflating Einstein's conception of Aether with your own self-serving idea.  Einstein knew the Earth was round based on the preponderance of astronomical evidence and never proposed a single phenomenon that is put forth on this site.  It is extremely dishonest to try and shoehorn his science in to this site's pseudo-science.

[Tau]

What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.

Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.

Have you considered trolling a different forum?

Please do present your evidence of this simple fact. Please be sure to note how you determined that Einstein, a theoretical physicist, confirmed it and that this ether is the same as the one FET relies on for various effects and, of course, document how you know that your ether has these effects. Thanks.

This thread is about The Coriolis Effect. If you have questions about aether, please read the FAQS. Aether is outlined in great detail on the wiki.

Thank you for your time. If you have any further questions: read the FAQs.

So you can't support your outlandish claim, yet again. Noted (and expected). Do stop back when you have evidence to support you.

Who's refusing to support a claim (also obvious ClockTower is obvious)? Make a thread elsewhere. We can discuss it there. This is not a complicated idea. Now stop derailing the thread. It continues to be distasteful.

[Gulliver]

Who's refusing to support a claim (also obvious ClockTower is obvious)? Make a thread elsewhere. We can discuss it there. This is not a complicated idea. Now stop derailing the thread. It continues to be distasteful.

As I pointed out, Vaux makes the following unsupported, outlandish claim:

Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.

In particular, he fails miserably in understanding that the typical uses of the word "ether" does not match FE's ether's characteristics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

[Ghost of V]

Who's refusing to support a claim (also obvious ClockTower is obvious)? Make a thread elsewhere. We can discuss it there. This is not a complicated idea. Now stop derailing the thread. It continues to be distasteful.

As I pointed out, Vaux makes the following unsupported, outlandish claim:

Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.

In particular, he fails miserably in understanding that the typical uses of the word "ether" does not match FE's ether's characteristics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

There are many interpretations of aether. They are all essentially the same thing however. Aether has many functions.

[james_zombob]

funny thing is, there only needs to be one interpretation of the round earth truth. its funny how when were talking about aether/ether einstein is a the epitome of genius, and i say things like "einsteins theories were of course flawed" ("youre going to trust GOOGLE?") and then i hear things like "you think EINSTEIN was wrong? he was frickin EINSTEIN" (paraphrasing). now, when i talk about the round earth being the only theory without gaping holes, i get sent to a page that talks about all the flaws in einsteins theory of relativity. so if it fits for you its good, but if it doesnt then its flawed, seems familiar somehow. and at the bottom  with the newest post we see the FE favorite line(s) "thats just one theory/there are many interpretations".  sounds like yall need to actually put some more thought into this stuff...

[Pete Svarrior]

You're really bad at paraphrasing what others said. I wonder if it's just that, or if you fail to parse and interpret the language correctly in the first place.

[james_zombob]

And you're really bad at attempting to divert and dodge the topic...

[Pete Svarrior]

And you're really bad at attempting to divert and dodge the topic...

"Dodge"? I've answered every question you had for me thus far. Whether or not you personally liked those answers is another matter entirely.

[Gulliver]

Who's refusing to support a claim (also obvious ClockTower is obvious)? Make a thread elsewhere. We can discuss it there. This is not a complicated idea. Now stop derailing the thread. It continues to be distasteful.

As I pointed out, Vaux makes the following unsupported, outlandish claim:

Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.

In particular, he fails miserably in understanding that the typical uses of the word "ether" does not match FE's ether's characteristics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

There are many interpretations of aether. They are all essentially the same thing however. Aether has many functions.

So you don't know even what definition or "functions" FET uses of the "ether", and never have any data or experiments to support your outlandish claims. Figures.

[Ghost of V]

So you don't know even what definition or "functions" FET uses of the "ether", and never have any data or experiments to support your outlandish claims. Figures.

Please make your own thread on this topic.

Thank you.

[james_zombob]

Since you're answering questions, why isn't there one singular unified flat earth theory? There's one singular unified round earth (not a) theory, and it does explain everything. Could you show me the best theory y'all have? Because from where I'm sitting, everyone flat earther has their own opinion and not much else.

[Rama Set]

So you don't know even what definition or "functions" FET uses of the "ether", and never have any data or experiments to support your outlandish claims. Figures.

Please make your own thread on this topic.

Thank you.

You opened the door. He is simply challenging you on your expertise or evidence as it pertains the claim you made.

[Ghost of V]

Since you're answering questions, why isn't there one singular unified flat earth theory? There's one singular unified round earth (not a) theory, and it does explain everything. Could you show me the best theory y'all have? Because from where I'm sitting, everyone flat earther has their own opinion and not much else.

No. There's actually quite a long list of round Earth theories since the beginning of civilization. They can be found here. As you can plainly see, your "Round Earth" theory is currently the most accepted one, but that doesn't make it correct. I'm sure Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle all believed that their round Earth theory was fundamentally sound and correct during their time, but they would be laughed out of society in our time.

You opened the door. He is simply challenging you on your expertise or evidence as it pertains the claim you made.

No. I didn't. I mentioned aether, because it exists and relates to a lot of different things in FET. If Gulliver wants to derail every thread when the word "aether" pops up then he should be banned, or at least heavily moderated. I'm tired of him missing the point.

[Gulliver]

You opened the door. He is simply challenging you on your expertise or evidence as it pertains the claim you made.

No. I didn't. I mentioned aether, because it exists and relates to a lot of different things in FET. If Gulliver wants to derail every thread when the word "aether" pops up then he should be banned, or at least heavily moderated. I'm tired of him missing the point.

You didn't just mention it in this thread. You made outlandish, unsupported claims about it. For example:

There are many interpretations of aether. They are all essentially the same thing however. Aether has many functions.

[Ghost of V]

You opened the door. He is simply challenging you on your expertise or evidence as it pertains the claim you made.

No. I didn't. I mentioned aether, because it exists and relates to a lot of different things in FET. If Gulliver wants to derail every thread when the word "aether" pops up then he should be banned, or at least heavily moderated. I'm tired of him missing the point.

You didn't just mention it in this thread. You made outlandish, unsupported claims about it. For example:

There are many interpretations of aether. They are all essentially the same thing however. Aether has many functions.

I don't see how that is outlandish or unsupported.

What else would hold up the sun and moon discs? Clouds? 

[Gulliver]

You opened the door. He is simply challenging you on your expertise or evidence as it pertains the claim you made.

No. I didn't. I mentioned aether, because it exists and relates to a lot of different things in FET. If Gulliver wants to derail every thread when the word "aether" pops up then he should be banned, or at least heavily moderated. I'm tired of him missing the point.

You didn't just mention it in this thread. You made outlandish, unsupported claims about it. For example:

There are many interpretations of aether. They are all essentially the same thing however. Aether has many functions.

I don't see how that is outlandish or unsupported.

What else would hold up the sun and moon discs? Clouds? 

Just because ether is a convenient placeholder to deal with problems with FET does not mean that need supports your claim that ether holds up clouds, for example. Buoyancy, for example, is perfectly compatible even in FET of holding up clouds. You really failed there.