The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Media => Topic started by: JRowe on June 04, 2015, 01:45:59 PM

Title: Dual Earth Theory
Post by: JRowe 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.
Title: Re: Dual Earth Theory
Post by: JRowe on June 04, 2015, 05:24:48 PM

This is an approximate cross-section of the world. Given that light/matter/heat etc all travel through space, you can work out the rough path of anything (whether physically, or its image) given the currents displayed. Start at any point, follow the arrows. For example, the Sun's image is high above the world due to the fact that it is in the current of aether that forms those whirlpools. Similarly, at the equator and the especially thin current, you pass straight through to the far side; though the full path of that is not displayed, as there are far too many lines as it is.
This is best used to observe the Sun, as that is probably the hardest part of the theory to grasp.

I apologize for the terms used: no words entirely suit what we are talking about. The intent should be clear, however.

This also illustrates the variations in the downwards force: so called gravity. While these are far from all the whirlpools, we see that the lower whirlpools are spread out, while the higher ones are more focused at the centre@ this means the downwards force at the pole is the sum of the force of more aether.
Title: Re: Dual Earth Theory
Post by: Misero on June 27, 2015, 04:15:37 PM
Is the property of space to have density capable of making objects larger from another perspective? As in, does it create mass?
Title: Re: Dual Earth Theory
Post by: JRowe on June 28, 2015, 07:04:40 PM
Is the property of space to have density capable of making objects larger from another perspective? As in, does it create mass?

Space does not have density by the strict, technical definition: 'density' is a covenient term, that's all. That is why I spoke of concentrations only.
Increased concentrations of space only increase distance. Mass necessarily remains constant: it will seem to be the same size, but the distance between you and it may grow larger, if more space is introduced.
Everything is only capable of occupying a set amount of space.

Thank you for your question.
Title: Re: Dual Earth Theory
Post by: Misero on July 05, 2015, 06:43:57 PM
Was that a slip? Free expansion of a gas.
Title: Re: Dual Earth Theory
Post by: JRowe on July 05, 2015, 09:08:26 PM
Was that a slip? Free expansion of a gas.

Gas still only occupies a finite amount of space. Though the molecules may spread out, they don't occupy all of space.