Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - JRowe

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Investigations / Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« on: April 01, 2020, 02:04:08 AM »
My philosophy on scientific theory is simple: it is a house of cards. There's the natural to urge to want to focus in one some small aspect of a model in discussion and exclusively talk about that, but that has very limited use because no part of a model ever stands alone. Every statement has prerequisites and consequences. The way to analyze a model is to look at how it all comes together. You look at the assumptions, you look at the consequences, and most importantly you look at what is held as reasonable. If those developing the model consider as reasonable an absurdity, those are sufficient grounds to question the rigidity of whatever framework they use.

So let's look at black holes, specifically microscopic black holes. Technically speaking much of these are theory, but it is a well-respected theory, so we can certainly use it to examine the character of mainstream RE scientists.
As most of us probably know, black holes are formed by incredibly dense masses, where mass exerts gravity, and the mass is within such a small volume that there is a radius around it where the gravity is so extreme that not even light can escape from it. They are inescapable.
It is also commonly held that these black holes do indeed collapse. That is, energy escapes them.

The astute among you will notice that this seems contradictory. If nothing can escape a black hole, then how does it run out of mass, how does the gravitational force run down?
The answer to this is is Hawking radiation. However, examination of what this entails will unearth a contradiction, but bear with me for a moment as I explain the concept for those unaware of it. Hawking radiation relies upon so-called 'virtual-particles,' which are posited as a particle and anti-particle pair that come into existence spontaneously, and annihilate each other in an instant, thus meaning no new mass is created and the laws of physics are followed. That, broadly speaking, is the theory. (I'm assuming a basic understanding of anti-matter). This ties to quantum theory, that any energy is ultimately composed of quanta, so any energy on a quantum level is composed of these particle/anti-particle pairs appearing and annihilating each other to produce said energy. It's complicated, but the basics are there.
Now, at a black hole, should a particle/anti-particle pair appear on the event horizon, the border between being able to escape a black hole and being trapped, they would be separated. That is, one particle would be drawn into the black hole, and one would be sent outwards. They would not come into contact and not annihilate each other, and the black hole will seem to emit radiation in the form of that half-pair. This is Hawking Radiation.

The claim is that this essentially acts as a black hole emitting its energy, and thus weakening.

Except... it isn't, is it? The virtual particles are the source of the radiation, not the mass within the black hole. So why, then is it so commonly held that this would work?

Let's look at the easy answers.
One is the claim that the virtual particles are just the manifestation of the energy contained within the black hole's gravitational field. Thus, the virtual particle being lost and not becoming energy will in fact weaken the gravitational pull, and thus ultimately shrink the event horizon until the black hole is no more. This, however, does not make sense. The mass in the black hole is not changing, that is source of the gravitational pull, it isn't being 'used up,' it isn't being teleported out to the event horizon. What this idea says is that mass will end up existing without exerting any gravitational pull, because when the black hole collapse, the superdense mass will still be there, unaffected by the virtual particles. This is fundamentally at odds with the laws of physics this model relies upon. Even somehow involving odd quantum phenomena like entanglement doesn't resolve this precisely because the lost particle is by definition not being destroyed.
One might then ask about the particle that goes into the black hole. If anything you would expect it to gain mass, not lose it. Some of you might have argued that the anti-particle is what is to blame, annihilating the matter inside the black hole particle by particle, until it is just energy captured and there's no mass to sustain the event horizon. This too is illogical. Statistically, it is equally likely that a particle will be the half of the pair to go inwards, as opposed to the anti-particle. The mass annihilated by any anti-particle would be replenished by a particle, and vice versa. The mass stays constant.

In conclusion, the central mass of a black hole is unaffected by whatever virtual particles do at the event horizon, and yet we are supposed to believe its gravitational pull will diminish just because.

True, we are in the realms of more theoretical science here, but these are the respected thinkers, these are the ones pushing frontiers. Why is such absurdity even considered?
Well, because it follows from believed statements, and that a black hole is needed to decay because if it doesn't the model would predict mass being generated by nothing, something too unreasonable. It demonstrates a willingness to bend the rules by supposed respected figures, and indicates the model is held together by string and hope when these are the things that are actually considered, actually studied, rather than be expected to develop to a worthwhile level.
It's like a paper cut. It's small, seemingly insignificant, but if you get a lot of them, the effect can be rather more worrying indeed. There are countless tiny flaws, things you look at and assume it's nothing, but all together they paint a worrying picture indeed about the state of RET.

Flat Earth Projects / Compiling Objections
« on: March 04, 2019, 05:27:52 PM »
At a certain point we all need to acknowledge one thing: REers don't bring anything new to the table. All their arguments have already been responded to several times over, and we've all seen pretty much everything they come up with. The strongest point REers have is exhaustion, it is simply wearying to repeat lengthy explanations to people that more often than not don't listen. Thus they create the illusion of superiority with cheap tricks rather than reasoned debate.
No doubt REers will disagree with that assessment. However most should still agree that the same basic points do end up being repeated an awful lot. In a way it's the natural drawback of debate, we already know how the first two or three exchanges will go because we've all had them before. In light of this I'd like to try compiling and categorizing all the finite RE arguments, with an end goal of a one stop shop for the quickest replies to most of them, and references to other areas if it ends up being complex. Nothing's ever going to weed out the trolls, but for those actually interested in learning or debating or discussing, skipping to a more developed topic of discussion can only benefit.

So, first step, putting together an exhaustive list. Don't try to make an argument, just point out what it is. It doesn't matter how informed you are about the area, I'm not going to expect you to defend it, just looking to add it to the list. Equally these are arguments in general, not arguments against specific FE models. Those can be addressed when responses start being compiled, but trying to bring those into it will just turn this into debate and derail everything. If there's any argument you've seen or that you can think of that's not on this list, post it below and I'll add it.
What I've got so far:

Arguments on Celestial Objects
Properties of the Sun (address Eratosphenes, sunset wrt glowing red and bottom-up, spectroscopy, how it stays alight, what keeps it up, solar flares, constant size, azimuth, day length, midnight Sun, equinox path, are rays parallel if cloud shadows are size of cloud)
Properties of the moon (address phases, what keeps it up, prediction)
Explanation of lunar and solar eclipses (cause, prediction)
Properties of the stars (address spectroscopy and Doppler effect, stellar parallax, aberration of starlight, what keeps them up, circumpolar stars, Polaris)
Radio moonbounce
Planets (why are they round? Why do they orbit? What keeps them up? Transits, predictable movement)
Kepler's transit of Venus experiment

Space Travel
Haven't we been to space? (Address motive, ability to fake, cost, international politics)
Satellites (address GPS, aligned dishes)
Why has nothing been leaked?

Arguments on Terrestrial Observations and Measurements
Map (address issues with creation, distances claimed working for globe, navigation esp walking along equator in straight line, locating edge, day/night times)
Sinking ship on horizon (address altitude having an effect, ties to Sun's reflection on sea cutting off)
General tectonics (address cause of earthquakes, dispersal, wave detection... volcanoes, is the Earth brittle?)
Gravity (address cause, variations in location and altitude)
Coriolis effect (storms, weather prediction, snipers etc, eotvos effect)
High altitude photographs/observations
What of Antarctica?
Clouds lit below at sunset/shadows climbing buildings/mountain shows
Why is horizon a defined line/why does it seem lower at altitude?
Curvature (mountain peaks seeming lower, distance seen like Lake Pontchartain)
Why are radio transmissions limited in range?

Neutrino experiments
Equatorially aligned telescopes
RET is preferred by the mainstream and history
Multiple FE models
Focault's pendulum

Science & Alternative Science / On Stuff
« on: February 25, 2019, 03:38:01 PM »
Matter and energy exist, though there are different forms of each.

For matter, this is simple. Obviously you have different states of matter, different elements, but if you break it all down at the end of the day it's just stuff, whether you want to talk about atoms or baryons or quarks. There is of course the interesting quantum question, of whether these end up just being waves if you look at them closely, but given that waves are typically free to dissipate there is plainly something non-wavelike about matter. All of which is a drastic oversimplification of quantum theory, but it merited acknowledgement.
At a basic level we can break all matter down into this stuff. There are interactions with energy that help distinguish it all, but this provides a simple visualisation. On a macro scale it is even easier to see; you can have a solid cube that you drop into water, say, and it cannot occupy the same location as the water. However if the cube is porous, you end up finding that the water and cube essentially may indeed occupy the same location, the water running through the cube, or the cube running through the water, whichever way you want to visualize it.

Energy, now, is where it gets interesting. There are many types of energy. Heat energy, which manifests essentially as the vibration of molecules (also as a form of radiation, that is waves). Sound energy, which really is just an illusion born of human perception, it is again just vibrations that go through matter, but when those vibrations reach our eardrums it is interpreted a specific way by the brain. Again, just vibration. Kinetic energy, obviously, is just the movement of matter. Electrical energy is manifested by the movement of specific types of matter, and this is when we get onto concepts such as chemical energy, potential energy stored that one day could manifest as another type of energy. At a basic level energy and movement are equivalent.
And then we get to light. Though it is modelled as a wave, and it can indeed impart other forms of energy, it does not seem to be as simple as a vibration carried by matter. The trivial resolution to this is the photon, positing that the photon is the particle which carries the wave of light and thus vibrates in such a fashion, but this is unsatisfactory. It does not allow for wavelike behaviour. What does, however, is ironically simple: multiple particles.

Think now of the famous double slit experiment, only instead of photons, we use water. Water waves interfere with each other, create similar patterns to light, but if you then constrain what happens to a single molecule of water going through at a time, you no longer observe the interference pattern. Understanding the double slit experiment, really, is trivially simple. If you limit things so that you can observe a single basic particle, it no longer has anything to interfere with. Only when things are unlimited, when there is no equipment getting in the way to allow you to observe, can the interference occur.
Light, then, is similar. The notion of an 'aether' that carries light must indeed be accurate, it just wasn't as it used to be posited. The light waves themselves are carried by multiple fundamental particles, photons, that only behave the way they do when they are carrying lightwaves. One might say they are synonymous with light, but at the end of the day the two statements are equivalent; energy cannot be created or destroyed, the emission of a photon simply creates the photon by converting it from some other non-photon potential. Something is done that transforms it into a photon, the addition of 'light' if you will. It then carries this light, and we observe all we do.
The only thing special about light, in this case, is its speed limit. As I hope we all know, anything with mass that approaches the speed of light in vacuum ends up warping spacetime around itself.

So far I'm just expressing what is already known, albeit with a couple of odd bits of focus.
My proposal is thus: there are two building blocks to everything. Movement, and stuff. Movement gives us energy, this 'stuff' gives us matter, though precisely what type of matter depends on energy. There is no more and no less than this. Light is a massless particle with a 'charge' of energy, creating a photon.
This is in line with all we know. The extension is where this gets interesting.

I glossed over photons just now. They are converted from a potential, yes, but what is this? Are lightbulbs haemorrhaging matter without losing mass? We're treading on the toes of thermodynamics with that thought experiment, but it is an illustration. Perhaps it is raw energy converted into matter, we know this is possible, living things do it all the time. The quantum understanding of matter makes this easy; what sets apart a wave of energy and a quantum wave of a fundamental particle of matter is perhaps most simply thought of as some kind of binding that keeps it in place on a macro scale. So long as that can be generated, energy becomes matter.
The third option, though, is the aether response. Instead of a medium which carries a wave, it is a medium composed of stuff already, and the introduction of a light-charge simply shifts a particle of this into a photon, in the same way a colour-charge defines a quark. If there is such a medium it must be universal. If you want to imagine it as a sea of molecules, a light-charge essentially transforms one molecule of substance A into substance B with wholly different properties, such as a velocity.
And thus, we reach the conclusion of this. I propose that the medium of light is spacetime itself, that spacetime is composed of another fundamental form of matter. This isn't an alien idea, John Wheeler hypothesised a type of quantum foam, this is simply a generalisation of that.
Location, then, is much like the porous cube mentioned above. You occupy the same space as this primarily non-interacting matter. In a similar fashion, this also means that the speed of light in vacuum is not a property of light, but rather it is the limit to the movement of the fundamental components of spacetime. If a mass is moving at high speeds, it moves faster than the space it occupies can keep up with, of course that is impossible. Relativity begins to make intuitive sense.

I could take this to more speculative ground, analyze why the postulates of relativity are what they are, rather than merely stating it. One could suppose that the particles composing spacetime are locally uniform, thus any force that keeps them together, limiting movement and causing the speed limit, will be constant. In this way, the assumption of the homogeneity of spacetime and the speed of light in vacuum being constant are equivalent. It also tells us the situations in which relativity will break down, and why, taking us a step closed to a unified model.

This is just a lot of theoretical underpinning to the concept of spacetime possessing some form of building block, and by extension the potential for varying concentrations, but I hope it begins to demonstrate the ramifications for even understood science. A lot of topics are treated as big mysteries, or "This is just the way it is," but there are answers to the why as well.

Flat Earth Theory / RET - The Single Biome Universe
« on: August 20, 2018, 10:11:36 PM »
There is an easy way to determine that other celestial objects are not as we are taught. Before I begin this argument I will make a note on terminology. As a result of this argument, and the model itself, the Earth is the only thing I would call a planet. Mercury, Venus et al are not the same class of entity and have far more in common with stars than the Earth. However, as most people are used to thinking of them as planets, I will default to the mainstream terminology for the purposes of this post so that my point is clearer.

You likely have a clear image of many celestial objects in your head, planets and otherwise. The moon is endless plains of grey sand and rock. Mars is rust-brown sand and rock. Venus is volcanic and toxic. Jupiter is endlessly stormy gas. And everything we've seen from photos and statements from mainstream scientists is in line with this. Everything else in the Solar System is what is termed a single biome planet; a body with only one ecology.
It's an idea that is popular in sci-fi. The best known examples would be Star Wars; we have Hoth the ice planet, Tattooine the desert world. Something of a cliche, and plainly one that appeals to the human imagination, despite repeated criticism from the scientific.

But is it realistic?
We have only one planet that we can directly observe, and we see it covered in rainforest and desert and sea and ice. Certainly, if a world lacks water or plant life there are limits to the variation possible, but there should still be some. If you want to limit the materials to just sand and rock, then we should observe some areas of pure sand, some solid areas of just rock, but if you look at the myriad photos claimed to be of the moon (for example) then no matter the landing site they all seem to be pretty much identical. If you look at all the images from the Mars Rovers, it's the same. Loose rocks scattered over a sandy plain. There is no variation in the surface, the materials, the composition...
And that is to say nothing of the utter lack of climate variation.
Instead every single body that we have seen is little more than a quarry, and every single world that we are told about supposedly lacks any variation.

If one were to strip the Earth of all its water and plant life, you would still find that there were a multitude of colors, huge variations in the surface structure, some solid areas and some sandy... Does that bear any similarity to how we are told other planets look?

The way we are told the Solar System is composed is devoid of any logic or common sense.

The best we get is the claim Mars supposedly has ice caps... except it doesn't, according to REers it gets so cold that the carbon dioxide in the air freezes at the poles. There is no actual variation in its composition. Sand, rocks and air, the same stuff, the same layout, all over.
That just doesn't fly.

Suggestions & Concerns / On disrespectful posting
« on: July 29, 2018, 06:06:26 PM »
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, and is more concern than suggestion, but i wanted to say it because it's one of those topics that ruined the other site for me.

Why precisely should I give any respect to a sanctimonious, patronising, arrogant, dishonest poster?
Because the rules require you to do so, so long as you're posting in the upper fora, or at least to refrain from personal attacks. Pretty please and thank you.
i wouldn't consider much of what i said particularly disrespectful, save of course for the bit you quoted though i'd argue by then it was earned, but there's a certain imbalance there. Disrespect is measured by more than just word choice; personal attacks and descriptors can be a fine line. When someone baits to get a reaction, and succeed, the fault is at least partially on their shoulders too. if someone knowingly lies and misrepresents, and then caps it all off by not responding but rather complaining that you dared react to their condescension, that's more disrespectful as any f-bomb or snippy reaction.

Flat Earth Investigations / Is the world fully explored?
« on: July 19, 2018, 04:42:18 PM »
In the early days of exploration, early centuries where people worked to map the world, there were constant omissions. One of the most common was the total lack of America in many ancient world maps. Then the Vikings and Columbus set sail, and suddenly it had to be added to the European maps.
With the more recent claimed use of satellites to map out the whole globe world, exploration has pretty much ceased under the logic that we've aerial views of every inch of the planet. But if that is not the case, we are in the same boat as those ancient cartographers that had never heard of the Americas and yet still believed they'd mapped the world. After all planes and boats only show us so much, and there are a limited number of flight paths. Might there be more land that has yet to be discovered, and won't be discovered for so long as the world labors under the delusion that the globe shows us everything?

Flat Earth Community / What FE Experiment would you believe?
« on: July 16, 2018, 12:54:20 AM »
It's pretty common for REers to demand FEers perform experiments of varying degrees of practicality and usefulness, so let's check the value. Let's suppose a FEer on this forum decided to go ahead and do one of those experiments (as has happened, but never mind), and he reports back that he got the FE outcome.

Would you believe him?
What would it take for you to believe him?
Are there any users or experiments you would reject automatically, or be more disposed to accept?

Flat Earth Investigations / Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« on: July 05, 2018, 11:27:30 PM »
A key tenet of RET is dark matter; without such an entity the whole model falls apart. And further, it is true that dark matter is supported by evidence when the world is viewed from the RE perspective, the only way to make sense of the motion of planets and stars (supposedly due to gravity) is by recourse to these dark bodies.
The earliest reference I can find to dark matter as a vague concept is 1884, though this was very slight.

So, what is dark matter? Basically, it has the following properties:
1. It exerts a gravitational force. That is, it has mass.
2. It does not interact with normal matter in any other way; it may not even interact with itself.

There is meant to be over five times as much dark matter as regular matter. And this is where it all starts to fall apart for RET.

Almost a century before 1884, Cavendish calculated a figure, using the RE model, to determine the mass of the Earth to within 1% of the figure commonly accepted today. He was not the only person to work on this problem, but he is one of the more famous, and this basic figure was considered to be accurate. Similar calculations predate his, over huge periods of time.
Another problem people worked on was the composition of the Earth. The crust, the mantle, the core of the globe Earth, the densities of all the various parts.

Now, let us look at dark matter. It is affected by gravity; it is supposed to be drawn to the same centers of gravity as normal matter. The center of stars, of planets, of galaxies... And, while it is true dark matter may behave different insofar as it does not interact with itself and so cannot form solid bodies, it is still going to be drawn towards those centers of mass in the same way any particle would be.
And, again, there is five times as much dark matter as regular matter.
So where is its impact on calculations of the Earth's mass? RET does have excuses, but none of them can explain why it is dark matter fails to be attracted to centers of mass like planets. The moon doesn't simply stop orbiting the Earth just because the Sun or Galactic Center exist. If dark matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET.

Thus Cavendish's figure for the mass of the Earth should have been noticed to be six times what the actual physical matter and composition allowed for. That isn't some minor figure that can be brushed over with error bars.
Where has the seismic shift in geology been? Where have the scientists that work on mapping the interior of the globe Earth accounted for the fact their mass is five sixths dark matter? How could no one notice this giant glaring flaw? Where are the historical unanswered questions, where are the major rewrites we would expect?

The establishment of figures surrounding dark matter should have shattered the RE status quo, if it is as pervasive as it is claimed. Instead we get excuses, but no credible explanations of how or why it leaves our masses alone.

Flat Earth Media / Dual Earth Theory
« on: June 04, 2015, 01:45:59 PM »
This thread is intended to explain my theory as to how the flat earth operates. It was originally written for the other site, though I have added another section, and neatened some other points, here. I am aware that it is lengthy: if you have any particular questions, I would suggest using ctrl f. The section 'basics' will give the briefest outline, though the mechanisms are not explained in that section.

I may refer to this thread often in the central forum, because many of the dual earth answers to questions rely on background knowledge of dual earth theory, and so if you want details, it's far easier to refer you to a compilation source rather than repeat a lengthy explanation all the time. If you are here because of some such reason, I suggest using ctrl f.

The first question I am often asked is what evidence I have. Here, I will explain some basic scientific principles.
Experiments are not required for science: observation is. All science is founded in observation. Experiments are a kind of observation, but they are not the only kind. For example, astronomers do no experiments, they simply watch what is the case.
A hypothesis is something that explains observations. A theory is, in part, something that explains multiple observations. For example, magnetism. One possible explanation is that certain metals are inhabited by invisible imps that like metal and hold onto it. That would explain how magnets can hold paperclips aloft. It would not really explain magnetic fields, which we observe by iron filings, or he earth’s magnetic field. So if something explains more than one thing, it is more likely to be true. That is not enough, however.
The last thing we need is occam’s razor. To be a scientific theory, something must a) explain observations, and b) require fewer assumptions than any alternative. The evidence I have is observational: the dual earth model explains observations. All I need is to show it contains fewer assumptions than the alternatives.
Whether or not you agree with me that fewer assumptions are required, you must agree that this is all that is required.
A final thing many round earthers have asked me for are equations, usually to govern the behaviour of aether. This is an absurd request, for a simple reason. There are three kinds of equation. The first are reformulations based on existing equations: as those do not exist, they are impossible. The second are definitions: I can happily provide some of these (for example, a way to determine the thickness of aether), but they are not the kind of equation asked for.
The final kind of equation is what is usually wanted, and they are equations arrived at by experimentation: taking values, and seeing if they match a relationship. I do not have the equipment, money or time to perform the kinds of experiments necessary to derive any kind of general equation, and it is simply dishonest to ask for them. You do not personally derive a single one of the equations you use: I doubt you’d know how and, even if you do, you would not have the resources to do so. I am one person currently without a research grant, if you are going to make intentionally impossible demands then at least admit you’re not interested in discussion, only in personal attacks and wasting time.

The dual earth model states that the earth is a flat disc. Its departure from classical flat earth theory is that each side is occupied, and each side is a hemiplane (or hemisphere as they are more commonly called: however, each side is flat) centred at a pole. A crucial component is aether, which we will get onto in the next section.
The stars, sun, moon and other planets are all the same kind of entity: rock and metal. They resemble spotlights: a metal core with dull rock on the outside. The metal is heated white-hot by friction, though all are heated to different degrees depending on locations. Some are impure, also, giving some texture. The phases of the moon are caused by the moon’s rotation, dull non-lit sides rotating into view. When an entirely metal face is pointed at the earth, this is a full moon: a rock face provides a new moon.
The advantage of the dual earth model is that circumpolar stars and flight times are fully explained, while classical flat earth theory suffered with them.
Many answers may be similar to the usual flat earth answers. For example, space travel is faked, and so is not reliable evidence. We can tell this because it is possible to deduce that aether exists in higher concentrations as you go further up: this renders it nearly impossible to reach higher altitudes. The reasons why are explained by the properties of aether, in the next section.
The obvious queries are how gravity works, and how the equator work. These rely on knowledge of aether.

In the dual earth model, aether is the fabric of space. This is not an assumption, this is a definition, and no more than that. I simply choose to call it aether, because the term ‘aether’ is used in typical flat earth theory (so it is known), and because the word ‘space’ means many things. For example, there is outer space (which clearly exists at a point in space: and that phrasing makes the ambiguity of not calling it aether clear). The fabric of space is not the same thing.
The fabric of space, aether, is how we define distance. It is the dimension in which we live. From point a to point b, that distance could not exist without some spatial dimension. This brings us to the first of the two rules that govern aether’s behaviour. The more aether that is present, the more distance needs to be crossed: the less aether, the less distance.
It is clearly possible for aether to exist in concentrations, as everything else does: very little is a binary concept in reality. If there is space, it follows there can be more (or less) space in a certain area. This is another point where terminology gets confusing.
For this description, when I say ‘space’ I am using the term colloquially. It is not in reference to the fabric of space (that will exclusively be called aether). If more aether is in a certain location, then the (subjective) distance in that location will be greater than a location with less aether: as such, the time taken to cross it will be decreased. This cannot be easily determined from a local perspective, for obvious reasons: you rely on aether (the fabric of space) to see anything.
The issue is dimensional. If you were a two dimensional drawing on elastic, you would not be able to notice when the elastic curved, nor if it stretched: as then your sensory organs would themselves be stretched.
A useful analogy is a spring. While it has set length, the apparent distance of it when compressed is far shorter than when it is stretched. As such, you can fit multiple springs into the same distance as one spring: if the one is stretched, and the multiple kept pushed together.
The only real assumption I make about aether is a trivial one. There is a universal tendency observed in all systems, from diffusion to pressure to heat. Without outside intervention (which muddles up all laws: take the second law of thermodynamics, relevant only in a closed system), everything moves from high concentrations to low: from high pressures to low. Everything seeks to balance out, and reach an equilibrium.
This is a safe assumption, as the behaviour dominates all we observe, and there is no need to suppose an exception. Take the second law of thermodynamics: we have not verified it for all places, at all times, and all possible interactions. We simply assume it will hold in all those situations because there is no reason to suppose an exception. This is an identical principle.
If you do not understand, I suggest you reread slowly. This is complicated, yes, but worthwhile.
Now we get onto applications. Aether travels from high concentrations to low. It follows that within the earth (between the hemiplanes) is a very low concentration of aether. Aether flows towards that low concentration, and in doing so brings everything closer to it: after all, we exist in space, so we will be subject to its movements. This is the force seen as gravity. It will vary depending on altitude, and distance from the low pressure zone.
My personal belief is that aether will, when sufficiently dense, change state to become matter. Though I have not seen reliable evidence for it, this would explain the weak pull matter possesses: it draws aether in. that is just speculation: it is not required. While this would explain the creation of the earth, so too would loose particles drawn to a location by aether.
The equator is the major question. What happens there? Well, the equator is the edge of the earth in the dual earth model. Due to the low concentration of aether inside the earth, this is the point where that is exposed: this means, functionally, distance ceases to exist at this point. Walking across it is walking across the inside of the world. With no distance to speak of, it can be done instantaneously, and you end up at the far side of the world, on the opposite face. You can stand half on one side, half on the other, and you can happily see both sides: after all, light travels through space.
Do not think of this as anything special. It is not; it’s movement through space, the same as we do every second.
Our final concern is stars. As aether is non-material (it is space, after all), what imparts friction to the stars? And how do they move?
First, let’s finish our description of the motion of aether. It flows to the inside of the world, causing what we call gravity: from there it flows out the ‘sides’., as a low pressure zone is left there. It then flows up, moving inwards: creating a kind of dome shape until it fills in the lower concentration it left behind when it descended. As a non-material substance, aether has no friction, and so can continue this motion endlessly. When it moves on, it leaves a low pressure zone in its wake, which must be filled by nearly aether. Above the world, this created a kind of whirlpool (aetheric whirlpool being the common flat earth term) when the aether from the circular rim of the earth meet.
This circular motion is where the stars are located. Whether they were formed of condensed aether changing state, or loose particles, does not matter. There will be a whirlpool on each side of the world, causing two points around which stars rotate.
Note, only stars exist in these whirlpools. The sun, moon and planets are a different matter, described below.
Finally, a mention of the 'force' imparted by aether: this is an inaccurate term, but for visualization's sake, the easiest. Strictly speaking aether does not exert a force: however, if we exist in space, if the space we exist in moves, then we will move. That's just a fact. So, if the space we exist in moves down, then we are pulled down with it: supported only by the earth which has the same force on the far side, thus remaining approximately stationary.
The frictional forces on the stars, and the line, are similar: they're caused by the aether moving limited portions of the matter within it, or moving the matter at varying rate: the molecules rub against each other, producing friction, and so heat.

This is one of the harder parts to understand but, if you learn about aetheric transmission, it is far from bizarre as it first sounds. Everything builds on something else: you must understand the building blocks to understand the later results.
The sun is inside the earth: it is the source of geothermal energy, and our magnetic field (recalling that it is made of metal). Its light and much of its heat is carried by aether, however: clearly such things move through space. This is what we see in the sky, on each side of the world: the image of the same sun.
You also see the images of the moon.

The aetheric whirlpools are the last major note. As has already been said, when the currents of aether meet, whirlpools form: circular motion which at some point in the past drew particles together to create stars, which rotate above us. At high altitudes, the downwards force is reduced: it's further from the low concentration within the Earth.
There are many such whirlpools: the currents join at many points, though all whirlpools are, approximately, centred at the same point, above one another. Many of these exist on Earth: as you climb a mountain, you pass through several of these, meaning the downwards force of aether is reduced. Similarly, the higher whirlpools will only descend at more cetral points, strengthening the downwards force at the poles. I do have a diagram to explain this, which I shall post shortly.
These whirlpools cause what is referred to as the coriolis force: the whirlpools near ground level are incredibly weak, as the majority of the aether at this level is constantly being pulled down. However, this causes rotational motion, mirrored on each side of the world, which is what we observe.

I haven’t gone through every aspect of the world as that could take ages. I think I’ve described the major points, however, and hopefully I have shown you that the dual earth model is both respectable and accurate. It matches observations.
Recalling what we stated earlier, this means I have only one thing to do: show that it contains less assumptions than the alternatives.
This is simple to do. My only real assumptions are on the properties of aether: as everything is a consequence of these (the location of the sun would result from the aetheric currents, as would the stars, and earth, for example), then the properties are the only important details. As aether is space, there are only two:
Aether can form concentrations
Aether moves from high concentrations to low
As shown in the relevant section, both of these are logical. If something can exist, more of it can exist: that causes concentrations; and movement from high to low is a tendency observed in everything. Each of these are, at the very least, possible, even if you refuse to accept them as truth.
Let’s compare with just one area of round earth theory. Gravity. The formula used to govern it does not work, so dark matter is presupposed: and even beyond that, no scientist claims to have any serious understanding of how it could work. Mass bends space (somehow) at that bending draws things in (somehow). That’s two assumptions, neither with any logical support. From that alone, even without the absurdity of dark matter, dual earth theory is scientifically preferred.
The only difference is that dual earth theory has not had centuries of work and millions of dollars behind it.

Pages: [1]