The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Socker on January 09, 2014, 12:22:51 AM
-
So I think I asked about this once before on the old site, but didn't get any satisfactory answers. I just checked the wiki, there's still next to nothing on the Aether page. So is there anyone that specifically knows a good deal on Aetheric Wind Theory and Aether in general? What is it, how is it formed, why do you think this theory is correct and so on.
-
So I think I asked about this once before on the old site, but didn't get any satisfactory answers. I just checked the wiki, there's still next to nothing on the Aether page. So is there anyone that specifically knows a good deal on Aetheric Wind Theory and Aether in general? What is it, how is it formed, why do you think this theory is correct and so on.
Aether was first coined as a term in the 19th century and was believed to be a substance that permeated all space, including the area beyond the earth's atmoplane, and provided a medium through which waves of light, gravity, etc may travel.
More modern scientists tend to discount the idea of aether, but it remains in Flat Earth Theory and provides much of the same function as it originally did.
Aetheric Wind is the rising flow of aether swirling about the earth-disc due to Universal Acceleration. The aether moves faster than the earth, and in some models it is actually the aetheric wind that causes the earth to accelerate upward. UA is, of course, the force that gives rise to gravity, and as Aether propagates light, its motion upward also causes the curvature of light that causes us to perceive sunrise/sunset, as well as accounting for round-earth-esque phenomena such as certain observations of the sinking ship effect.
Also connected to Aetheric Wind is the idea of the Aetheric Whirlpool. The idea here is that as the Aether rushes up around the disc of earth, it comes back together above us swirling in a great vortex, not entirely dissimilar to water in a drain. It is this swirling motion that is though to give rise to the relative motions of the sun and moon, and also accounts for the fact that the sun moves faster in its orbit when it is closer to the edge of the disc, where it is inferred that the aetheric whirlpool spins faster, or at the very least has a more direct effect on the sun and moon. Eddies in this aetheric whirlpool also account for discrepancies in things like sight distance and local gravity.
As for what it's made of, it's made of aether. No one can say for sure how it is formed - Aether was the "dark matter" of the 19th century astronomer, you see, and still retains much of its mystery.
I have an aetheric wind model that I worked on quite a bit some time ago, and a brief outline of this idea can be found elsewhere in this forum. In my model, the aetheric wind carries light from object below the earth, and is also responsible for the southern sky and southern celestial pole.
I'm still developing the model because I think it works quite well as a disc model precisely because of how well it accounts for certain observations that others interpret as proof of a spherical earth, but speaking personally, my ideas about the shape of the earth have evolved, and I've come to subscribe to an infinite plane model in which celestial gears drive the movements of the heavens.
Still, I can't deny that the aetheric models work. One of the beautiful things about Flat Earth Theory, to me, is how diverse and varied it is. I don't believe the Infinite Plane model is any more or less valid than the Aetheric Wind model, and support both (and several other) schools of thought.
I believe Tausami also has done quite a bit of research on Aetheric wind and the Aetheric whirlpool, so perhaps he can chime in here as well.
-
So I think I asked about this once before on the old site, but didn't get any satisfactory answers. I just checked the wiki, there's still next to nothing on the Aether page. So is there anyone that specifically knows a good deal on Aetheric Wind Theory and Aether in general? What is it, how is it formed, why do you think this theory is correct and so on.
Aether was first coined as a term in the 19th century and was believed to be a substance that permeated all space, including the area beyond the earth's atmoplane, and provided a medium through which waves of light, gravity, etc may travel.
More modern scientists tend to discount the idea of aether, but it remains in Flat Earth Theory and provides much of the same function as it originally did.
Aetheric Wind is the rising flow of aether swirling about the earth-disc due to Universal Acceleration. The aether moves faster than the earth, and in some models it is actually the aetheric wind that causes the earth to accelerate upward. UA is, of course, the force that gives rise to gravity, and as Aether propagates light, its motion upward also causes the curvature of light that causes us to perceive sunrise/sunset, as well as accounting for round-earth-esque phenomena such as certain observations of the sinking ship effect.
Also connected to Aetheric Wind is the idea of the Aetheric Whirlpool. The idea here is that as the Aether rushes up around the disc of earth, it comes back together above us swirling in a great vortex, not entirely dissimilar to water in a drain. It is this swirling motion that is though to give rise to the relative motions of the sun and moon, and also accounts for the fact that the sun moves faster in its orbit when it is closer to the edge of the disc, where it is inferred that the aetheric whirlpool spins faster, or at the very least has a more direct effect on the sun and moon. Eddies in this aetheric whirlpool also account for discrepancies in things like sight distance and local gravity.
As for what it's made of, it's made of aether. No one can say for sure how it is formed - Aether was the "dark matter" of the 19th century astronomer, you see, and still retains much of its mystery.
I have an aetheric wind model that I worked on quite a bit some time ago, and a brief outline of this idea can be found elsewhere in this forum. In my model, the aetheric wind carries light from object below the earth, and is also responsible for the southern sky and southern celestial pole.
I'm still developing the model because I think it works quite well as a disc model precisely because of how well it accounts for certain observations that others interpret as proof of a spherical earth, but speaking personally, my ideas about the shape of the earth have evolved, and I've come to subscribe to an infinite plane model in which celestial gears drive the movements of the heavens.
Still, I can't deny that the aetheric models work. One of the beautiful things about Flat Earth Theory, to me, is how diverse and varied it is. I don't believe the Infinite Plane model is any more or less valid than the Aetheric Wind model, and support both (and several other) schools of thought.
I believe Tausami also has done quite a bit of research on Aetheric wind and the Aetheric whirlpool, so perhaps he can chime in here as well.
So you think Aether accounts for the discrepancies in local gravity? If aether is only being pushed up around the edges of the earth, than how would areas closer to the north pole have these variances in gravity?
-
The reason the wiki page on Aether is so awful is that I need to rewrite it, and I removed a lot of the outdated or incorrect information. Uninformed is better than misinformed.
The Aetheric Wind is, essentially, a current. The Earth is like a rock caught up in that current, getting pushed along and creating an eddy. That eddy is the Aetheric whirlpool. Its x-axis motion causes Coriolis Effect, and its z-axis movement causes local gravitation variation.
-
The reason the wiki page on Aether is so awful is that I need to rewrite it, and I removed a lot of the outdated or incorrect information. Uninformed is better than misinformed.
The Aetheric Wind is, essentially, a current. The Earth is like a rock caught up in that current, getting pushed along and creating an eddy. That eddy is the Aetheric whirlpool. Its x-axis motion causes Coriolis Effect, and its z-axis movement causes local gravitation variation.
Okay cool, so you'll eventually be updating the wiki page?
-
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?
-
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?
It does, I believe. DE is also a hypothetical source of UA, but as far as I know it isn't also responsible for effects like the bending of light and the movements of the heavens. Aether works much more elegantly in this role, IMO
-
Aether is more of an extension of DE than anything. I came up with the idea while I was trying to explain to noobs that the UA works like a wind, which is why it doesn't directly accelerate us. The wind still needs something to cause it to be going, which might as well be called Dark Energy. There's just one fewer layer of abstraction in the theory.
-
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?
No, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe and has no scientific bearing on any local space phenomenon. The laws of gravity would have us expecting the acceleration of the universe to slow down but this is not the case and as such there is an unknown source of energy causing this acceleration that is simply dubbed "Dark Energy" as a mere placeholder name.
-
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?
No, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe and has no scientific bearing on any local space phenomenon. The laws of gravity would have us expecting the acceleration of the universe to slow down but this is not the case and as such there is an unknown source of energy causing this acceleration that is simply dubbed "Dark Energy" as a mere placeholder name.
In other words. "No, it's OUR placeholder word for a force we don't understand. It can't also be THEIR placeholder word for a force they don't understand."
Take your ball and go home, RR.
-
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?
No, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe and has no scientific bearing on any local space phenomenon. The laws of gravity would have us expecting the acceleration of the universe to slow down but this is not the case and as such there is an unknown source of energy causing this acceleration that is simply dubbed "Dark Energy" as a mere placeholder name.
In other words. "No, it's OUR placeholder word for a force we don't understand. It can't also be THEIR placeholder word for a force they don't understand."
Take your ball and go home, RR.
Yes, it's a placeholder for a force we don't understand. It's unlike aether for the reason I listed above. That reason being that aether describes local space while Dark Energy describes something on the galactic scale.
It's use is appropriate because it's based on an observation that actually happens (galaxies accelerating faster) instead of being based on nothing. By nothing I mean that no observation supports the idea of aether, at all. A placeholder word aether is for sure, but no observation leads to the hypothesis of aether other than the rejection of modern science.
Aether is assumed by FE'rs because of denialism of the facts that we already know. It is essential for FET because it's magical properties are necessarily invoked to explain what can already be explained by what is already understood in modern science.
-
I have stumbled upon a controversial subject.
-
I have stumbled upon a controversial subject.
Evidently. Although, this is FES. If a topic isn't controversial, there's something wrong.
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?
No, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe and has no scientific bearing on any local space phenomenon. The laws of gravity would have us expecting the acceleration of the universe to slow down but this is not the case and as such there is an unknown source of energy causing this acceleration that is simply dubbed "Dark Energy" as a mere placeholder name.
In other words. "No, it's OUR placeholder word for a force we don't understand. It can't also be THEIR placeholder word for a force they don't understand."
Take your ball and go home, RR.
Yes, it's a placeholder for a force we don't understand. It's unlike aether for the reason I listed above. That reason being that aether describes local space while Dark Energy describes something on the galactic scale.
It's use is appropriate because it's based on an observation that actually happens (galaxies accelerating faster) instead of being based on nothing. By nothing I mean that no observation supports the idea of aether, at all. A placeholder word aether is for sure, but no observation leads to the hypothesis of aether other than the rejection of modern science.
Aether is assumed by FE'rs because of denialism of the facts that we already know. It is essential for FET because it's magical properties are necessarily invoked to explain what can already be explained by what is already understood in modern science.
DE describes the unknown force resulting in a Universal Acceleration. This is true in both RET and FET. I fail to see your problem.
-
I have stumbled upon a controversial subject.
Evidently. Although, this is FES. If a topic isn't controversial, there's something wrong.
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?
No, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe and has no scientific bearing on any local space phenomenon. The laws of gravity would have us expecting the acceleration of the universe to slow down but this is not the case and as such there is an unknown source of energy causing this acceleration that is simply dubbed "Dark Energy" as a mere placeholder name.
In other words. "No, it's OUR placeholder word for a force we don't understand. It can't also be THEIR placeholder word for a force they don't understand."
Take your ball and go home, RR.
Yes, it's a placeholder for a force we don't understand. It's unlike aether for the reason I listed above. That reason being that aether describes local space while Dark Energy describes something on the galactic scale.
It's use is appropriate because it's based on an observation that actually happens (galaxies accelerating faster) instead of being based on nothing. By nothing I mean that no observation supports the idea of aether, at all. A placeholder word aether is for sure, but no observation leads to the hypothesis of aether other than the rejection of modern science.
Aether is assumed by FE'rs because of denialism of the facts that we already know. It is essential for FET because it's magical properties are necessarily invoked to explain what can already be explained by what is already understood in modern science.
DE describes the unknown force resulting in a Universal Acceleration. This is true in both RET and FET. I fail to see your problem.
No, because the observations for Dark Energy are derived from galaxies expanding from some point in the universe.
Let's look at this logically and suppose UA and DE are the same thing and that UA exists. This would suggest that we are accelerating away from some point underneath us. This means that there would be no Cosmic Microwave Radiation Background to observe because it would not be in the observable night sky. It would be inherently impossible for all observations that lead to the Big Bang Theory to have ever happened because our night sky would only be filled with galaxies heading a direction similar to our own. Yet it seems they are accelerating away from us in all directions.
Not to mention that for most FE'rs, the idea of a big bang flies in the face of FEism and without the big bang hypothesis in the first place there wouldn't be the DE hypothesis. So assuming that UA, Aether and DE are all part of the same soup goes against everything you stand for.
-
So, what exactly is Universal Acceleration? How does it work on a disc? How does it work on an infinite plane? If Earth IS an infinite plane, what lies beyond the parts we humans inhabit? I've read about UA from the FAQ, but still don't get it.
-
So, what exactly is Universal Acceleration? How does it work on a disc? How does it work on an infinite plane? If Earth IS an infinite plane, what lies beyond the parts we humans inhabit? I've read about UA from the FAQ, but still don't get it.
It's simple. The Earth is traveling upward at 9.8 m/s/s causing the phenomenon the world over calls gravity. The rejection of gravity inspires the idea and FE'rs cite Einstein's Equivalence principle to insist that it is just like gravity. Despite the obvious observations that completely dismiss the idea, FE'rs still hold onto it.
-
But WHY is the disc or infinite plane travelling upward @ 9.8 m/s/s & how? EDIT Is there an FE response? Not that I object to hearing the other side, but still...
-
But WHY is the disc or infinite plane travelling upward @ 9.8 m/s/s & how?
Well earlier in this thread there were people claiming that it is the aether and they were saying that that is DE. Which is laughable because DE is dependent on a globular view.
All that matters for FEism is to have views that support a flat earth. Any observations that contradict that are put into the conspiracy pile regardless of their merits because they will never falter on the FE view. In any case, experiments that confirm gravity and the local experiences that seem to support a RE are disregarded but they don't deny that things fall, so somewhat cleverly a FE'r found the Equivalence Principle and put 2 and 2 together. Gee, Einsteins elevator is flat and Einstein says that experience is indistinguishable from gravity, therefore the world is an elevator.
-
Ok. Got that. I'm a Rounder myself, so its good to hear the RET. I'm not a scientist @ all. But I would still like to hear the FET. Whether I agree w/ it is beside the point. & I'm curious about the other questions I asked in my other posts as well, like what else lies on the infinite plane beyond where humans dwell, & etc, again from the FE perspective. Rotting, I do appreciate you explaining the RE science. Although I believe the Earth is round, Maths & Sciences were TERRIBLE subjects for me. But I do want to hear the FE perspective as well.
-
HELLO! WHERE IS THE FLAT EARTH RESPONSE! I know Rotting makes fun of you all, but that is not my intention. I genuinely want to know. HELP!
-
I have stumbled upon a controversial subject.
Evidently. Although, this is FES. If a topic isn't controversial, there's something wrong.
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?
No, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe and has no scientific bearing on any local space phenomenon. The laws of gravity would have us expecting the acceleration of the universe to slow down but this is not the case and as such there is an unknown source of energy causing this acceleration that is simply dubbed "Dark Energy" as a mere placeholder name.
In other words. "No, it's OUR placeholder word for a force we don't understand. It can't also be THEIR placeholder word for a force they don't understand."
Take your ball and go home, RR.
Yes, it's a placeholder for a force we don't understand. It's unlike aether for the reason I listed above. That reason being that aether describes local space while Dark Energy describes something on the galactic scale.
It's use is appropriate because it's based on an observation that actually happens (galaxies accelerating faster) instead of being based on nothing. By nothing I mean that no observation supports the idea of aether, at all. A placeholder word aether is for sure, but no observation leads to the hypothesis of aether other than the rejection of modern science.
Aether is assumed by FE'rs because of denialism of the facts that we already know. It is essential for FET because it's magical properties are necessarily invoked to explain what can already be explained by what is already understood in modern science.
DE describes the unknown force resulting in a Universal Acceleration. This is true in both RET and FET. I fail to see your problem.
No, because the observations for Dark Energy are derived from galaxies expanding from some point in the universe.
Let's look at this logically and suppose UA and DE are the same thing and that UA exists. This would suggest that we are accelerating away from some point underneath us. This means that there would be no Cosmic Microwave Radiation Background to observe because it would not be in the observable night sky. It would be inherently impossible for all observations that lead to the Big Bang Theory to have ever happened because our night sky would only be filled with galaxies heading a direction similar to our own. Yet it seems they are accelerating away from us in all directions.
Not to mention that for most FE'rs, the idea of a big bang flies in the face of FEism and without the big bang hypothesis in the first place there wouldn't be the DE hypothesis. So assuming that UA, Aether and DE are all part of the same soup goes against everything you stand for.
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here. You're aware that DE is just a placeholder name, right? It has nothing to do with RET. It's just a placeholder name. So is Aether, for that matter.
But WHY is the disc or infinite plane travelling upward @ 9.8 m/s/s & how?
Well earlier in this thread there were people claiming that it is the aether and they were saying that that is DE. Which is laughable because DE is dependent on a globular view.
All that matters for FEism is to have views that support a flat earth. Any observations that contradict that are put into the conspiracy pile regardless of their merits because they will never falter on the FE view. In any case, experiments that confirm gravity and the local experiences that seem to support a RE are disregarded but they don't deny that things fall, so somewhat cleverly a FE'r found the Equivalence Principle and put 2 and 2 together. Gee, Einsteins elevator is flat and Einstein says that experience is indistinguishable from gravity, therefore the world is an elevator.
Please refrain from hijacking threads. It's not a very attractive personality trait, to put it lightly.
But WHY is the disc or infinite plane travelling upward @ 9.8 m/s/s & how? EDIT Is there an FE response? Not that I object to hearing the other side, but still...
Same reason gravity is a thing. We can tell you how it works (it's getting pushed by an aetheric wind), but the source of the Aetheric Wind remains a mystery at this point.
-
Ok. What IS Aetheric Wind? What is Universal Acceleration? Does the latter have anything to do w/ Terminal Velocity, which is also 9.8 m/s/s, or is this coincidental? What about the Infinite Plane model? What lies beyond the part of Earth wherein humans dwell?
-
Ok. What IS Aetheric Wind? What is Universal Acceleration? Does the latter have anything to do w/ Terminal Velocity, which is also 9.8 m/s/s, or is this coincidental? What about the Infinite Plane model? What lies beyond the part of Earth wherein humans dwell?
9.8 m/s/s is not a velocity (that would be just m/s). It is a measure of acceleration. To tackle your questions one at a time:
What IS Aetheric Wind?
What is it made of? Aether. What is Aether? In classical physics, it was the name of the medium through which light propagates. FET has expanded that definition somewhat. As to its nature, chemical formula, molecular structure, or otherwise to describe its nature, we can't. We don't know. It's our Dark Matter.
What is Universal Acceleration?
It is the idea that the force we perceive as gravity is actually the result of the plane of earth accelerating upward at a constant rate of 9.8 m/s/s. Note that this doesn't say we're moving at a constant velocity of 9.8 m/s, it's an acceleration. General Relativity shows that acceleration indiscernable from gravity relative to the observer.
IN regards to your third question, 9.8 m/s/s is approximately the rate of acceleration of a falling object due to gravity on Earth. This is not a coincidence. In the UA model, rather than gravity accelerating the falling object downward at 9.8 m/s/s, rather the earth "catches up" to the object by accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s as it hangs in free-fall.
-
I see. & what about my last question, re: the Infinite Plane model? What lies beyond the part of the Earth wherein we humans do dwell?
-
I see. & what about my last question, re: the Infinite Plane model? What lies beyond the part of the Earth wherein we humans do dwell?
It seems pretty obvious that humans wouldn't know what lies beyond where humans dwell, don't you think?
-
Well, it would seem so. But the question leads further. WHY don't we know? After several thousand yrs of human history, how is it that not 1 person has tried to find out? & no, I'm not trying to be a dick to FEers. I'm genuinely curious.
-
Well, it would seem so. But the question leads further. WHY don't we know? After several thousand yrs of human history, how is it that not 1 person has tried to find out? & no, I'm not trying to be a dick to FEers. I'm genuinely curious.
On the infinite plane model, what lies beyond the antarctic rim is out of reach of the sun and would likely be inhospitable. From what I have read and heard of explored antarctica, it's inhospitable enough. I suppose someone could try, but I certainly wouldn't want to, and while I think some round-earth folks have attempted to "cross the antarctic continent," a cursory examination of their routes reveal to me that they rather hiked around the rim for a bit, and eventually came back to shore. Perhaps there's something going on, spatially or otherwise, out there that makes it impossible to venture out beyond the ice rim? I can't say for sure.
-
Hm. That's a thought. It makes one wonder if other parts of the plane have suns.
-
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here. You're aware that DE is just a placeholder name, right? It has nothing to do with RET. It's just a placeholder name. So is Aether, for that matter.
Did my comments fly right over your head? I brought up the fact that both are placeholder names. The differences I commented on were about them not being placeholder names for the same thing and the very fact that DE, despite being a theory, is hypothesized in light of actual observations, unlike aether.
-
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here. You're aware that DE is just a placeholder name, right? It has nothing to do with RET. It's just a placeholder name. So is Aether, for that matter.
Did my comments fly right over your head? I brought up the fact that both are placeholder names. The differences I commented on were about them not being placeholder names for the same thing and the very fact that DE, despite being a theory, is hypothesized in light of actual observations, unlike aether.
Aether and FE-DE are both hypothesized in light of actual observations, I don't know why you would suggest otherwise.
-
Aether and FE-DE are both hypothesized in light of actual observations, I don't know why you would suggest otherwise.
Check me if I'm wrong, but don't Zetetics, pretty much by (Rowbotham's) definition, distrust hypotheses in light of actual observations? As I recall, that's what led the Ancient Greeks to conclude that the earth is round.
-
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here. You're aware that DE is just a placeholder name, right? It has nothing to do with RET. It's just a placeholder name. So is Aether, for that matter.
Did my comments fly right over your head? I brought up the fact that both are placeholder names. The differences I commented on were about them not being placeholder names for the same thing and the very fact that DE, despite being a theory, is hypothesized in light of actual observations, unlike aether.
Aether and FE-DE are both hypothesized in light of actual observations, I don't know why you would suggest otherwise.
And what observations lead one to hypothesize about Aether or UA?
Are you sure that UA was not actually hypothesized because of the Equivalence Principle which in turn was hypothesized because of gravity?
-
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here. You're aware that DE is just a placeholder name, right? It has nothing to do with RET. It's just a placeholder name. So is Aether, for that matter.
Did my comments fly right over your head? I brought up the fact that both are placeholder names. The differences I commented on were about them not being placeholder names for the same thing and the very fact that DE, despite being a theory, is hypothesized in light of actual observations, unlike aether.
Aether and FE-DE are both hypothesized in light of actual observations, I don't know why you would suggest otherwise.
And what observations lead one to hypothesize about Aether or UA?
Are you sure that UA was not actually hypothesized because of the Equivalence Principle which in turn was hypothesized because of gravity?
Last time I checked, observations support this.
Aether and FE-DE are both hypothesized in light of actual observations, I don't know why you would suggest otherwise.
Check me if I'm wrong, but don't Zetetics, pretty much by (Rowbotham's) definition, distrust hypotheses in light of actual observations? As I recall, that's what led the Ancient Greeks to conclude that the earth is round.
Zetetics generally distrust the hypothetical, you're correct. I believe that FET has room for hypothesis, if only as intellectual exercises or to provide ideas for measurement and experimentation, but I fully concur that at its core, FET is a zetetic theory, and all the aetheric wind / dark energy / UA ideas are purely conjecture.
-
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here. You're aware that DE is just a placeholder name, right? It has nothing to do with RET. It's just a placeholder name. So is Aether, for that matter.
Did my comments fly right over your head? I brought up the fact that both are placeholder names. The differences I commented on were about them not being placeholder names for the same thing and the very fact that DE, despite being a theory, is hypothesized in light of actual observations, unlike aether.
Aether and FE-DE are both hypothesized in light of actual observations, I don't know why you would suggest otherwise.
And what observations lead one to hypothesize about Aether or UA?
Are you sure that UA was not actually hypothesized because of the Equivalence Principle which in turn was hypothesized because of gravity?
Last time I checked, observations support this.
Yes, WHAT OBSERVATIONS?
-
Tintagel, I've kind of already mentioned the following but here is how I would answer the question if it were asked to me about Dark Energy:
1. Newton notices that things fall and as such we call the force that causes this gravity.
2. He makes gravitational laws which seem infallible.
3. Astronomy improves and we notice anomalies in space which seem to contradict laws of inertia concerning the acceleration of galaxies.
4. Knowing gravitational laws still hold true locally, DE is theorized to account for the strange behavior of accelerating galaxies.
5. Evidence pops up that supports DE:
a. Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are excellent standard candles across cosmological distances. They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble's law.
Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.
b. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to the critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.
c. The theory of large-scale structure, which governs the formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.
d. Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe.
-
Tintagel, I've kind of already mentioned the following but here is how I would answer the question if it were asked to me about Dark Energy:
1. Newton notices that things fall and as such we call the force that causes this gravity.
2. He makes gravitational laws which seem infallible.
3. Astronomy improves and we notice anomalies in space which seem to contradict laws of inertia concerning the acceleration of galaxies.
4. Knowing gravitational laws still hold true locally, DE is theorized to account for the strange behavior of accelerating galaxies.
5. Evidence pops up that supports DE:
a. Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are excellent standard candles across cosmological distances. They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble's law.
Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.
b. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to the critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.
c. The theory of large-scale structure, which governs the formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.
d. Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe.
1) Don't call non-dark matter baryonic matter. RET research shows that some, if not most, dark matter may also be baryonic, and not all regular matter is baryonic. Depending on which theory you believe in, Dark Matter could literally just be a bunch of brown dwarfs and black holes that we can't see because there's not enough light being emitted.
2) Genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter whether Einstein was a globularist. The Equivalence Principle still stands.
-
Tintagel, I've kind of already mentioned the following but here is how I would answer the question if it were asked to me about Dark Energy:
1. Newton notices that things fall and as such we call the force that causes this gravity.
2. He makes gravitational laws which seem infallible.
3. Astronomy improves and we notice anomalies in space which seem to contradict laws of inertia concerning the acceleration of galaxies.
4. Knowing gravitational laws still hold true locally, DE is theorized to account for the strange behavior of accelerating galaxies.
5. Evidence pops up that supports DE:
a. Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are excellent standard candles across cosmological distances. They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble's law.
Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.
b. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to the critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.
c. The theory of large-scale structure, which governs the formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.
d. Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe.
1) Don't call non-dark matter baryonic matter. RET research shows that some, if not most, dark matter may also be baryonic, and not all regular matter is baryonic. Depending on which theory you believe in, Dark Matter could literally just be a bunch of brown dwarfs and black holes that we can't see because there's not enough light being emitted.
2) Genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter whether Einstein was a globularist. The Equivalence Principle still stands.
1) We are talking about Dark Energy. You do know the difference right?
2) Actually it does matter in the context of this conversation. We are talking about the events/observations that led up to a hypothesis. UA hypothesis is not possible without Einstein's legwork on the Equivalence Principle. A concept which was never meant to illustrate (as it does for you) that the earth is an elevator but who's purpose was to conceptualize how light and time are affected by gravitational fields.
-
Tintagel, I've kind of already mentioned the following but here is how I would answer the question if it were asked to me about Dark Energy:
1. Newton notices that things fall and as such we call the force that causes this gravity.
2. He makes gravitational laws which seem infallible.
3. Astronomy improves and we notice anomalies in space which seem to contradict laws of inertia concerning the acceleration of galaxies.
4. Knowing gravitational laws still hold true locally, DE is theorized to account for the strange behavior of accelerating galaxies.
5. Evidence pops up that supports DE:
a. Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are excellent standard candles across cosmological distances. They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble's law.
Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.
b. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to the critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.
c. The theory of large-scale structure, which governs the formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.
d. Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe.
1) Don't call non-dark matter baryonic matter. RET research shows that some, if not most, dark matter may also be baryonic, and not all regular matter is baryonic. Depending on which theory you believe in, Dark Matter could literally just be a bunch of brown dwarfs and black holes that we can't see because there's not enough light being emitted.
2) Genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter whether Einstein was a globularist. The Equivalence Principle still stands.
1) We are talking about Dark Energy. You do know the difference right?
2) Actually it does matter in the context of this conversation. We are talking about the events/observations that led up to a hypothesis. UA hypothesis is not possible without Einstein's legwork on the Equivalence Principle. A concept which was never meant to illustrate (as it does for you) that the earth is an elevator but who's purpose was to conceptualize how light and time are affected by gravitational fields.
1) I was being pedantic in reference to your inaccurate usage of the term 'baryonic matter'. It had nothing to do with the argument at hand. No need to be rude about it.
2) This continues to be the Genetic Fallacy. It doesn't matter why Einstein came up with the idea. What matters is that it is true. Unless you plan to argue that on a flat Earth the Equivalence Principle cannot work, your argument is irrelevant.
-
Unless you plan to argue that on a flat Earth the Equivalence Principle cannot work, your argument is irrelevant.
Good thing that he isn't arguing that, because that is an argument that FE'ers would lose.
-
Unless you plan to argue that on a flat Earth the Equivalence Principle cannot work, your argument is irrelevant.
Good thing that he isn't arguing that, because that is an argument that FE'ers would lose.
[citation needed]
-
Unless you plan to argue that on a flat Earth the Equivalence Principle cannot work, your argument is irrelevant.
Good thing that he isn't arguing that, because that is an argument that FE'ers would lose.
[citation needed]
How's this?
Tidal forces, and a more precise definition
So far, so simple. Too simple, in fact, in several respects. Strictly speaking, all that was said about the equivalence of gravity and acceleration is true only for gravitational fields that are strictly homogeneous. Only in homogeneous gravitational fields are all bodies - per definition - accelerated in exactly the same way, namely in exactly the same direction and at exactly the same rate; as a result, it is indeed true that a researcher inside a cabin cannot distinguish acceleration from gravity. But real gravitational fields are always to a certain extent inhomogeneous.
-
Unless you plan to argue that on a flat Earth the Equivalence Principle cannot work, your argument is irrelevant.
Good thing that he isn't arguing that, because that is an argument that FE'ers would lose.
[citation needed]
How's this?
Tidal forces, and a more precise definition
So far, so simple. Too simple, in fact, in several respects. Strictly speaking, all that was said about the equivalence of gravity and acceleration is true only for gravitational fields that are strictly homogeneous. Only in homogeneous gravitational fields are all bodies - per definition - accelerated in exactly the same way, namely in exactly the same direction and at exactly the same rate; as a result, it is indeed true that a researcher inside a cabin cannot distinguish acceleration from gravity. But real gravitational fields are always to a certain extent inhomogeneous.
Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory. Try again.
-
Please explain and show some testable predictions of the theory. That would be very interesting.
-
Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory[Citation Needed].
-
Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory[Citation Needed].
We've had this conversation more than twice. Are you going to bring up something new, or are we going to have the same discussion again?
-
Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory[Citation Needed].
We've had this conversation more than twice. Are you going to bring up something new, or are we going to have the same discussion again?
I'm inclined to say that any claim without support is an insufficient rebuttal and should be either withdrawn or ignored.
-
Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory[Citation Needed].
We've had this conversation more than twice. Are you going to bring up something new, or are we going to have the same discussion again?
Aether wind doesn't matter. That fact that the earth does not have homogeneous gravitational field (regardless of the cause) means that the EP does not apply.
-
Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory[Citation Needed].
We've had this conversation more than twice. Are you going to bring up something new, or are we going to have the same discussion again?
Aether wind doesn't matter. That fact that the earth does not have homogeneous gravitational field (regardless of the cause) means that the EP does not apply.
I'm starting to think you're just grasping onto vocabulary you don't entirely understand. A homogeneous gravitational field means that it is exactly the same at all points on the sphere. This is not the case in RET due to differences in density, as well as the influence of celestial bodies. Therefore, when converting to an accelerative model one must be able to account for those things being caused by something other than acceleration. This has been accomplished through the introduction of the shadow of the Aetheric Whirlpool, which cause coriolis force via its angular momentum, tides via its horizontal (x-axis) momentum, and gravitational fluctuation through its vertical (y-axis) momentum.
-
There is still a citation need regardless of the rationale. I think this conversation would really benefit from some sort of evidence being provided for the Aetheric Whirlpool.
-
There is still a citation need regardless of the rationale. I think this conversation would really benefit from some sort of evidence being provided for the Aetheric Whirlpool.
As the Aetheric Whirlpool in this instance is a theoretical construct to account for the alleged variations in gravity on different parts of the earth, perhaps this is the data we should start with. Once we have this, perhaps we can, using a rudimentary understanding of fluids, construct a model where the variations in G are accounted for by the aether's movements.
However, I've never seen any conclusive evidence in the variations in G over the earth's surface, only predictions. Has anyone ever actually measured this (and don't bring up the fundamentally flawed gnome experiment)?
-
The GRACE and GOCE experiments measured the variations in the gravitational field.
-
I'm starting to think you're just grasping onto vocabulary you don't entirely understand. A homogeneous gravitational field means that it is exactly the same at all points on the sphere. This is not the case in RET due to differences in density, as well as the influence of celestial bodies.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean and that's exactly why the EP doesn't apply.
Therefore, when converting to an accelerative model one must be able to account for those things being caused by something other than acceleration.
Citation please.
This has been accomplished through the introduction of the shadow of the Aetheric Whirlpool, which cause coriolis force via its angular momentum, tides via its horizontal (x-axis) momentum, and gravitational fluctuation through its vertical (y-axis) momentum.
It has? Would you care to show me the math, please?
-
Therefore, when converting to an accelerative model one must be able to account for those things being caused by something other than acceleration.
Citation please.
I don't think this requires a citation. He is acknowledging that on an accelerative model, there is no justification for variations in the gravity field. Hence the ad hoc construct of the AW.
-
the ad hoc construct of the AW.
Incorrect. You weren't there and are assuming quite a bit in order to fuel your theoretical superiority complex.
AWT was created due to the realization that the universal accelerator acted as a wind and, therefore, probably was a wind. I then compared the Earth to a rock in a river and realized that there would have to be quite violent eddies directly above the Earth in keeping with this interpretation. These eddies would certainly influence the motions of the celestial bodies, and it follows that it would have some kind of effect on us. Assuming that the eddies are similar to a whirlpool, which they would be, their effects would be exactly what is observed. An angular effect, a vertical effect, and a horizontal effect.
We currently don't know enough about the Aether to do the calculations you're about to ask for. We aren't sure what it is made out of and don't really know how it behaves (density and viscosity, for example). Any speculation about this would be arbitrary and unwarranted and therefore should not be bothered with.
____
As for Markjo, feel free to make an actual point at any time. I'm not going to have a pedantic debate over your inaccurately strict interpretation of something you read online.
-
the ad hoc construct of the AW.
Incorrect. You weren't there and are assuming quite a bit in order to fuel your theoretical superiority complex.
Can we both promise not to make it personal?
AWT was created due to the realization that the universal accelerator acted as a wind and, therefore, probably was a wind. I then compared the Earth to a rock in a river and realized that there would have to be quite violent eddies directly above the Earth in keeping with this interpretation. These eddies would certainly influence the motions of the celestial bodies, and it follows that it would have some kind of effect on us. Assuming that the eddies are similar to a whirlpool, which they would be, their effects would be exactly what is observed. An angular effect, a vertical effect, and a horizontal effect.
We currently don't know enough about the Aether to do the calculations you're about to ask for. We aren't sure what it is made out of and don't really know how it behaves (density and viscosity, for example). Any speculation about this would be arbitrary and unwarranted and therefore should not be bothered with.
I called it Ad Hoc because there has never been any evidence provided to me to support your observations despite numerous requests. Unless I am mistaken, this is what an Ad Hoc theory is: one that is utilitarian in that it is constructed to fit observation, but has not been substantiated yet; much like string theory.
EDIT: Being able to show that your theory can be derived from other successful theories would go a ways to showing it is not Ad Hoc as well I would think.
-
As for Markjo, feel free to make an actual point at any time. I'm not going to have a pedantic debate over your inaccurately strict interpretation of something you read online.
What evidence do you have that my strict interpretation of the EP is inaccurate? Seriously, I want to know how aether wind can account for gravitational variations due to differing geological densities. Before you answer, I just want to point out that these gravitational variations are used in real world geologic surveys.
-
the ad hoc construct of the AW.
Incorrect. You weren't there and are assuming quite a bit in order to fuel your theoretical superiority complex.
Can we both promise not to make it personal?
No, no, it's not personal at all. You have a theoretical superiority complex. All of the RE'ers do. Most of the FE'ers do. You're so certain that Round Earth Theory is obviously correct and that by extension, Flat Earth Theory is quite silly, that you assume that all parts of Flat Earth Theory are arbitrary pseudoscience. That was my experience when I first discovered the society, and observations suggest that it's everyone's position upon finding the society.
AWT was created due to the realization that the universal accelerator acted as a wind and, therefore, probably was a wind. I then compared the Earth to a rock in a river and realized that there would have to be quite violent eddies directly above the Earth in keeping with this interpretation. These eddies would certainly influence the motions of the celestial bodies, and it follows that it would have some kind of effect on us. Assuming that the eddies are similar to a whirlpool, which they would be, their effects would be exactly what is observed. An angular effect, a vertical effect, and a horizontal effect.
We currently don't know enough about the Aether to do the calculations you're about to ask for. We aren't sure what it is made out of and don't really know how it behaves (density and viscosity, for example). Any speculation about this would be arbitrary and unwarranted and therefore should not be bothered with.
I called it Ad Hoc because there has never been any evidence provided to me to support your observations despite numerous requests. Unless I am mistaken, this is what an Ad Hoc theory is: one that is utilitarian in that it is constructed to fit observation, but has not been substantiated yet; much like string theory.
EDIT: Being able to show that your theory can be derived from other successful theories would go a ways to showing it is not Ad Hoc as well I would think.
I can see what I can do for you in the second respect. As I said before, the theory is just a logical application of fluid dynamics to Universal Acceleration.
I should probably qualify that this entire thought process is based on the assumption that the Aether acts similarly to a fluid. If that turns out to be incorrect the entire theory is moot.
So, this fast-moving fluid would be exhibiting laminar flow prior to hitting the Earth. That's a fancy way of saying that it's moving in parallel layers aren't disrupting each other. It's very calm and orderly. This is because there's no known boundaries to the UA, so there's no friction to cause it to be disrupted.
But then the fluid hits the Earth. Now its laminar flow is disrupted significantly, at least in the area surrounding the Earth. You end up with an eddy, or vortex, according to fluid dynamics.
The celestial bodies appear to be positively buoyant in relation to aether (suggesting, now that I think about it, that it is quite dense). The Sun would ride much higher on it than the Moon simply because the Sun is ~98% H and He, while the moon is composed primarily of silicate rocks. This is consistent with observations.
Most of the eddy wouldn't make it to the surface of the Earth, of course. We have an atmolayer in the way. But some of it will make it through, and this aether would still have momentum. It will have angular momentum, vertical momentum, and horizontal momentum. When it hits objects within the Earth's atmosphere it will impart some of its energy. This has to be consistent with observations, and it is. The angular momentum we would expect to see is explained by Coriolis force. The vertical momentum we would expect to see is explained by gravitational variations (some parts of the atmosphere will allow more aether in than others, thereby causing more or less of this variation). The horizontal momentum is mostly only significant in the oceans, where the large scale application of its force causes tides.
-
the ad hoc construct of the AW.
Incorrect. You weren't there and are assuming quite a bit in order to fuel your theoretical superiority complex.
Can we both promise not to make it personal?
No, no, it's not personal at all. You have a theoretical superiority complex. All of the RE'ers do. Most of the FE'ers do. You're so certain that Round Earth Theory is obviously correct and that by extension, Flat Earth Theory is quite silly, that you assume that all parts of Flat Earth Theory are arbitrary pseudoscience. That was my experience when I first discovered the society, and observations suggest that it's everyone's position upon finding the society.
I am interested to know how you an presume to know my mind?
AWT was created due to the realization that the universal accelerator acted as a wind and, therefore, probably was a wind. I then compared the Earth to a rock in a river and realized that there would have to be quite violent eddies directly above the Earth in keeping with this interpretation. These eddies would certainly influence the motions of the celestial bodies, and it follows that it would have some kind of effect on us. Assuming that the eddies are similar to a whirlpool, which they would be, their effects would be exactly what is observed. An angular effect, a vertical effect, and a horizontal effect.
We currently don't know enough about the Aether to do the calculations you're about to ask for. We aren't sure what it is made out of and don't really know how it behaves (density and viscosity, for example). Any speculation about this would be arbitrary and unwarranted and therefore should not be bothered with.
I called it Ad Hoc because there has never been any evidence provided to me to support your observations despite numerous requests. Unless I am mistaken, this is what an Ad Hoc theory is: one that is utilitarian in that it is constructed to fit observation, but has not been substantiated yet; much like string theory.
EDIT: Being able to show that your theory can be derived from other successful theories would go a ways to showing it is not Ad Hoc as well I would think.
I can see what I can do for you in the second respect. As I said before, the theory is just a logical application of fluid dynamics to Universal Acceleration.
I should probably qualify that this entire thought process is based on the assumption that the Aether acts similarly to a fluid. If that turns out to be incorrect the entire theory is moot.
So, this fast-moving fluid would be exhibiting laminar flow prior to hitting the Earth. That's a fancy way of saying that it's moving in parallel layers aren't disrupting each other. It's very calm and orderly. This is because there's no known boundaries to the UA, so there's no friction to cause it to be disrupted.
But then the fluid hits the Earth. Now its laminar flow is disrupted significantly, at least in the area surrounding the Earth. You end up with an eddy, or vortex, according to fluid dynamics.
The celestial bodies appear to be positively buoyant in relation to aether (suggesting, now that I think about it, that it is quite dense). The Sun would ride much higher on it than the Moon simply because the Sun is ~98% H and He, while the moon is composed primarily of silicate rocks. This is consistent with observations.
Most of the eddy wouldn't make it to the surface of the Earth, of course. We have an atmolayer in the way. But some of it will make it through, and this aether would still have momentum. It will have angular momentum, vertical momentum, and horizontal momentum. When it hits objects within the Earth's atmosphere it will impart some of its energy. This has to be consistent with observations, and it is. The angular momentum we would expect to see is explained by Coriolis force. The vertical momentum we would expect to see is explained by gravitational variations (some parts of the atmosphere will allow more aether in than others, thereby causing more or less of this variation). The horizontal momentum is mostly only significant in the oceans, where the large scale application of its force causes tides.
I understand that you have created a coherent rationale for this, and it is admirable, but what I am saying is, until one of my requests for some sort of experimental evidence is acknowledged, or you can show that this hypothesis is some sort of inevitable consequence of another tested theory, I cannot consider this anything more than a piece of utilitarian thinking. Has any of this been mathematically modeled even?
-
Tintagel, I've kind of already mentioned the following but here is how I would answer the question if it were asked to me about Dark Energy:
1. Newton notices that things fall and as such we call the force that causes this gravity.
2. He makes gravitational laws which seem infallible.
3. Astronomy improves and we notice anomalies in space which seem to contradict laws of inertia concerning the acceleration of galaxies.
4. Knowing gravitational laws still hold true locally, DE is theorized to account for the strange behavior of accelerating galaxies.
5. Evidence pops up that supports DE:
a. Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are excellent standard candles across cosmological distances. They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble's law.
Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.
b. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to the critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.
c. The theory of large-scale structure, which governs the formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.
d. Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe.
1) Don't call non-dark matter baryonic matter. RET research shows that some, if not most, dark matter may also be baryonic, and not all regular matter is baryonic. Depending on which theory you believe in, Dark Matter could literally just be a bunch of brown dwarfs and black holes that we can't see because there's not enough light being emitted.
2) Genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter whether Einstein was a globularist. The Equivalence Principle still stands.
1) We are talking about Dark Energy. You do know the difference right?
2) Actually it does matter in the context of this conversation. We are talking about the events/observations that led up to a hypothesis. UA hypothesis is not possible without Einstein's legwork on the Equivalence Principle. A concept which was never meant to illustrate (as it does for you) that the earth is an elevator but who's purpose was to conceptualize how light and time are affected by gravitational fields.
1) I was being pedantic in reference to your inaccurate usage of the term 'baryonic matter'. It had nothing to do with the argument at hand. No need to be rude about it.
2) This continues to be the Genetic Fallacy. It doesn't matter why Einstein came up with the idea. What matters is that it is true. Unless you plan to argue that on a flat Earth the Equivalence Principle cannot work, your argument is irrelevant.
On number 2,
I'd agree that what matters is what is true. The problem is that there are no premises that lead to the conclusion of aether or UA to be true. In fact, observations do just the opposite and give us every reason to reject those unoriginal hypotheses.
-
Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.
-
Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.
It bears mentioning that the infinite planar models (or the near-infinite, at least) do allow for gravity as a force, I believe.
-
Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.
It bears mentioning that the infinite planar models (or the near-infinite, at least) do allow for gravity as a force, I believe.
Fair enough. I think it was Wilmore who did the calculations showing that on an infinite plain gravity would not form the Earth into a ball.
-
Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.
It bears mentioning that the infinite planar models (or the near-infinite, at least) do allow for gravity as a force, I believe.
Fair enough. I think it was Wilmore who did the calculations showing that on an infinite plain gravity would not form the Earth into a ball.
Gravity would however bend light rays reflected from distant landscape features back down to your eyes effectively making the sky a reflection of the distant ground.
-
Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.
It bears mentioning that the infinite planar models (or the near-infinite, at least) do allow for gravity as a force, I believe.
Fair enough. I think it was Wilmore who did the calculations showing that on an infinite plain gravity would not form the Earth into a ball.
Actually it was John Davis who used Gauss's Law as applied to Bouguer plates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity#Bouguer_plate) to justify his infinite plane with gravity model. I don't recall Wilmore (or just about any other FE'er) ever presenting any calculations to support his model.
-
Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.
It bears mentioning that the infinite planar models (or the near-infinite, at least) do allow for gravity as a force, I believe.
Fair enough. I think it was Wilmore who did the calculations showing that on an infinite plain gravity would not form the Earth into a ball.
Gravity would however bend light rays reflected from distant landscape features back down to your eyes effectively making the sky a reflection of the distant ground.
Gravity doesn't increase as mass increases. Gravity increases as density increases. An infinite Earth wouldn't have any particularly special gravitational lensing, since it would have the same density as the Earth does in RET.
-
Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you imply that it is established that the earth is flat?
-
Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you imply that it is established that the earth is flat?
The insistence that such a thing is ridiculous is how I define an 'angry noob' on this forum. So, yes, but only to some.
-
Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you imply that it is established that the earth is flat?
The insistence that such a thing is ridiculous is how I define an 'angry noob' on this forum. So, yes, but only to some.
If you say so. Enjoy those delusions and your mountain of evidence that nobody has seen, ever.
-
Tausami, I would like to see the evidence that exists proving the Earth to be flat. Up here topside I would like to see that. So far I haven't even seen an agreed upon map of the Earth, let alone anything else. Unlike my colleague Rotting, I'm willing to entertain the idea of FET. But I have to see evidence first. So far, I haven't. If RET is false, demonstrate HOW it is false.
-
Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.
It bears mentioning that the infinite planar models (or the near-infinite, at least) do allow for gravity as a force, I believe.
Fair enough. I think it was Wilmore who did the calculations showing that on an infinite plain gravity would not form the Earth into a ball.
Gravity would however bend light rays reflected from distant landscape features back down to your eyes effectively making the sky a reflection of the distant ground.
Gravity doesn't increase as mass increases. Gravity increases as density increases. An infinite Earth wouldn't have any particularly special gravitational lensing, since it would have the same density as the Earth does in RET.
Yes, but over an infinite plane, any bending, no matter how slight would lead to this effect. Here is a link explaining better than I can with some maths as well:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/08/q-if-earth-was-flat-would-there-be-the-horizon-if-so-what-would-it-look-like-if-the-earth-was-flat-and-had-infinite-area-would-that-change-the-answer/
-
Tausami, I would like to see the evidence that exists proving the Earth to be flat. Up here topside I would like to see that. So far I haven't even seen an agreed upon map of the Earth, let alone anything else. Unlike my colleague Rotting, I'm willing to entertain the idea of FET. But I have to see evidence first. So far, I haven't. If RET is false, demonstrate HOW it is false.
Perhaps this should be taken up in this thread:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1141.0
-
I'm unable to click on the link from my phone w/ the WAP2 interface. I'll look @ it from my computer a little later today.
-
It's the thread in FE Debate titled "Show me proof of a flat Earth".
-
Ok! Thanks!