[Tau]

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.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

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?

[Tintagel]

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.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

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?

[markjo]

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?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

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.

[Tintagel]

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.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Hm. That's a thought. It makes one wonder if other parts of the plane have suns.

[rottingroom]

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.

[Tintagel]

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.

[markjo]

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.

[rottingroom]

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?

[Tintagel]

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. 

[rottingroom]

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?

[rottingroom]

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.

[Tau]

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.

[rottingroom]

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.

[Tau]

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.

[markjo]

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.

[Tau]

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]