Offline Socker

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Aether
« 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.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2014, 01:11:09 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.

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.

Offline Socker

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2014, 01:27:51 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.

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?

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2014, 02:37:25 AM »
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.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Offline Socker

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2014, 02:44:14 AM »
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?

Saddam Hussein

Re: Aether
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2014, 04:39:19 AM »
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2014, 02:41:00 PM »
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

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2014, 11:04:20 PM »
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.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Re: Aether
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2014, 02:30:16 PM »
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.


*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2014, 03:20:41 PM »
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.

Re: Aether
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2014, 03:29:44 PM »
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.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Aether
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2014, 03:58:37 PM »
I have stumbled upon a controversial subject.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2014, 05:22:27 PM »
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.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Re: Aether
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2014, 05:46:50 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 06:57:04 PM by rottingroom »

Yaakov ben Avraham

Re: Aether
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2014, 10:25:10 PM »
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.

Re: Aether
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2014, 10:59:16 PM »
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.

Yaakov ben Avraham

Re: Aether
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2014, 11:32:46 PM »
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...
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 11:53:57 PM by Yaakov ben Avraham »

Re: Aether
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2014, 11:40:13 PM »
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.

Yaakov ben Avraham

Re: Aether
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2014, 11:51:13 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 11:56:30 PM by Yaakov ben Avraham »

Yaakov ben Avraham

Re: Aether
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2014, 11:53:18 PM »
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!