[herewegoround]

I know it might be tiresome dealing with people who ask the same questions over and over, especially when they tend to be hostile, but i am not trying to antagonistic. The wiki doesn't say anything about why the aether proposal was proposed in the first place.

The Earth is moving upward at 1g (in RET terms). What is pushing the Earth upward? Aether.

Earlier you said that "we observe phenomenon and that's how we know gravity is there", well... that's how the theory of aether came about as well. Besides admitting that there is no actual evidence for gravity, do you see the similarities? Your RET model makes just as many assumptions, actually more, than we do. This is why FET passes the Occam's razor test and RET does not.

As I have already stated there is a precise mathematical and simple law of gravitation which makes very specific and testable predictions. The law is that two objects will attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The evidence for this is massive; both direct and indirect evidence. The Cavendish experiments showed that there is an attraction between objects in the exact way as would be predicted. The motion of the the planets is described to a high degree of accuracy using the law of gravitation.

There is nothing even comparable to this in aether "theory". There are no equations, no way of making exact predictions, no way of testing it and no obvious way to falsify it. It's a qualitative hand waving idea that can do anything flat Earthers want it to do. As I have said before, it's function is to twist evidence for the Earth being round into evidence for the Earth being flat.

[herewegoround]

Gravity isn't a round Earth theory. At the time Newton developed it, contrary to what many flat Earthers would have you believe, it was widely accepted that the Earth was round. Look into the history of it. It has nothing to do with people believing the Earth is round or for explaining why the Earth is round. As it turned it, gravity does also explain very nicely why heavenly bodies form into spheres. The main arguments for the Earth being round are mostly geometric and optical. Flat Earth "theory" is a complete mess, as I have said there isn't even a standard model that we can debate. The partial models and ad hoc ideas that are floating about explain partially some observations. They often require completely unsubstantiated concepts that nobody can ever define properly or give any evidence for. 

[Wulf]

I know it might be tiresome dealing with people who ask the same questions over and over, especially when they tend to be hostile, but i am not trying to antagonistic. The wiki doesn't say anything about why the aether proposal was proposed in the first place.

The Earth is moving upward at 1g (in RET terms). What is pushing the Earth upward? Aether.

Earlier you said that "we observe phenomenon and that's how we know gravity is there", well... that's how the theory of aether came about as well. Besides admitting that there is no actual evidence for gravity, do you see the similarities? Your RET model makes just as many assumptions, actually more, than we do. This is why FET passes the Occam's razor test and RET does not.

I believe i mentioned Cavendish's experiment. my issue is that i cannot observe the earth flying upward at 1g. i can observe the effect of gravity both on the earth and on small objects. without an observation to back the aether theory up we have to assume that it exists, and i don't think the earth flying upwards at 1 g can qualify without some space exploration.

[Pete Svarrior]

As I have already stated there is a precise mathematical and simple law of gravitation which makes very specific and testable predictions.

Yes, and because we've tested those predictions, we know that this theory is false. That's high school knowledge which doesn't require any contact with FET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

[herewegoround]

As I have already stated there is a precise mathematical and simple law of gravitation which makes very specific and testable predictions.

Yes, and because we've tested those predictions, we know that this theory is false. That's high school knowledge which doesn't require any contact with FET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

That's science, it's not evidence of a conspiracy. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is limited. I already said that. For most everyday purposes though it is still highly accurate. It predicts to a very high degree of accuracy the motions of the planets apart from the precession of mercury. It took General Relativity to account for that. That's how science works, every increasing degrees of accuracy. There isn't even a mathematical model for the aether that can be tested.

[Wulf]

As I have already stated there is a precise mathematical and simple law of gravitation which makes very specific and testable predictions.

Yes, and because we've tested those predictions, we know that this theory is false. That's high school knowledge which doesn't require any contact with FET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

if you've done tests could you share the results? I'm actually excited to hear about these anomalies because it means there is more to learn. however i don't believe some anomalies can discount a relationship that has been observed and proven. The new model would have to describe both the anomalies and the relationship already observed.

[Rama Set]

As I have already stated there is a precise mathematical and simple law of gravitation which makes very specific and testable predictions.

Yes, and because we've tested those predictions, we know that this theory is false. That's high school knowledge which doesn't require any contact with FET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

How is that evidence that there is no gravity?  Perhaps it is evidence of an improper formulation?

[Ghost of V]

Newton never existed. That's pretty relevant to this discussion, because he supposedly created the theory of gravity. Even science needs a messiah.

Do you have any concrete evidence that Newton was a real person or are you simply dismissing this idea because you have no way of disproving it?

i'm dismissing it because i think it is irrelevant. as long as predictions are made and turn out correctly it doesn't matter who is making them. newton is admired for his contributions, but the information speaks for itself. The only function i can see for a role model is motivation and inspiration. I believe newton had a rival, and both of them claimed the other had stolen their work. in my own opinion, people back then tended to be very unethical and selfish in general, so i can't really say he's much of a role model.

pizaaplanet had already provided you with a lengthy list of gravitational anomalies that do not jive with the predicted values. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that your predictions are inaccurate and therefore your model is wrong.

This is when dark matter is introduced, to account for these discrepancies. But dark matter has absolutely no evidence supporting it, and is pretty much a god particle (magic) at this point. How is that any different from aether?

It's clear you weren't aware of these anomalies. I suggest doing some research on your own model before attempting to prove its accuracy.

[Pete Svarrior]

That's science, it's not evidence of a conspiracy.

I didn't say it's evidence of a conspiracy. I said it's wrong and you should stop pretending it isn't.

[Wulf]

pizaaplanet had already provided you with a lengthy list of gravitational anomalies that do not jive with the predicted values. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that your predictions are inaccurate and therefore your model is wrong.

This is when dark matter is introduced, to account for these discrepancies. But dark matter has absolutely no evidence supporting it, and is pretty much a god particle (magic) at this point. How is that any different from aether?

It's clear you weren't aware of these anomalies. I suggest doing some research on your own model before attempting to prove its accuracy.

I countered that arguement already. providing anomalous behavior is great, it means something is unaccounted for. However, it doesn't disprove relationships that are observed. the relationships i have mentioned before hasn't been explained by aether yet. the new model will have to account for both the anomalous behavior and the observations.

besides, i'm not asking for you to disprove gravity, although i guess it's ok, i'm asking for the initial observation that led to the conclusion that aether exists.

[Ghost of V]

besides, i'm not asking for you to disprove gravity ...

Why would you? It disproves itself.

[Wulf]

besides, i'm not asking for you to disprove gravity ...

Why would you? It disproves itself.

would you please explain?

could you please provide me the original observation that led to the conclusion that aether exists? i'm starting to think you are dodging this on purpose... i've asked a lot of times.

[Ghost of V]

Aether is the proposed substance that causes the observable phenomenon known as universal acceleration.

[herewegoround]

That's science, it's not evidence of a conspiracy.

I didn't say it's evidence of a conspiracy. I said it's wrong and you should stop pretending it isn't.

You provided a link to some anomalies. Do you know what an anomaly is? It means a result that doesn't fit in with all the other results. They aren't evidence that the whole thing is wrong. I have said clearly at least twice that Newton's Law of Gravity isn't the whole story. It is still a very useful theory that fits with an incredible amount of evidence. The aether doesn't have anomalies because to have anomalies it must have a huge amount of supporting evidence that is accurately predicted by the theory. For a theory to get to the point of having anomalies it must have been successful in the first place.

[Pete Svarrior]

You provided a link to some anomalies. Do you know what an anomaly is?

Yes.

I have said clearly at least twice that Newton's Law of Gravity isn't the whole story.

Yes, and I'm calling you out on it.

For a theory to get to the point of having anomalies it must have been successful in the first place.

No. Do you know what an anomaly is?

[herewegoround]

You provided a link to some anomalies. Do you know what an anomaly is?

Yes.

I have said clearly at least twice that Newton's Law of Gravity isn't the whole story.

Yes, and I'm calling you out on it.

For a theory to get to the point of having anomalies it must have been successful in the first place.

No. Do you know what an anomaly is?

You're calling me out on it? What does that mean?

An anomaly is a result that doesn't fit. For there to be anomaly there must be lots of results that do fit.

Seriosuly, where is this going? What point are you trying to make? The universal law of gravitation was an astoundingly successful theory. It was the first ever proper mathematical theory that could be used to make accurate predictions. For two hundred years the only known fact that didn't fit was the precision of mercury.

What are you trying to say? This isn't going anywhere.

I shall state is very clearly once more.

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation made some very accurate predictions. Specifically about the motions of the planets and also terrestrial motion such as projectiles but it's not the whole story.

Can we move on from this irrelevant point.

The aether isn't even a theory.

[Wulf]

Aether is the proposed substance that causes the observable phenomenon known as universal acceleration.

thank you. i initially rejected this because i did not think to ask: how did people observe universal acceleration? how do we know that universal acceleration is the cause things falling and not gravity? How do we know that sunsets are the result of refraction and not the result of a round earth? it's paradoxical to me: the proof that aether exists is the refraction of light and the upwards acceleration of the earth. the proof that light refracts causing the sun to stay a consistent shape throughout the day and that the earth is accelerating upwards is.. what? the aether? i can only assume I'm misunderstanding what you are saying or you are not providing all the information because that logic doesn't sound right.

[Ghost of V]

Falling is an observable phenomenon. The most simple explanation is that the Earth is moving upward which causes us to fall at the same rate universally. This explanation is simpler and conforms with what we can observe. Making up a fake force (gravity) is complicated and in need of evidence, which is why it does not pass the Occam's razor test and is therefore the less likely possibility.

[Wulf]

Falling is an observable phenomenon. The most simple explanation is that the Earth is moving upward which causes us to fall at the same rate universally. This explanation is simpler and conforms with what we can observe. Making up a fake force (gravity) is complicated and in need of evidence, which is why it does not pass the Occam's razor test and is therefore the less likely possibility.

but you understand the problem right? in my shoes i can say this: Falling is an observable phenomenon. The most simple explanation is that the gravity is acting on us which causes us to fall at the same rate universally. This explanation is simpler and conforms with what we can observe. Making up a fake force (Aether) is complicated and in need of evidence, which is why it does not pass the Occam's razor test and is therefore the less likely possibility.

There needs to be a way to tell which one is actually the force acting on us. i've offered my evidence that shows small objects exhibit the property of gravity. so far i've yet to hear about any results and methodology from experiments performed by this society. Without this information, i've only my observational proof that gravity exists.

[Ghost of V]

How is gravity a simple explanation?

If you fall off a chair, what's the simplest explanation? A mysterious particle that sucks you to the Earth that is unobservable, or that the Earth is actually meeting you as you fall? Which one requires less made up stuff?