The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Rama Set on September 25, 2014, 06:59:16 PM
-
I have never seen evidence for AWT posted on this site. I would like any proponent of the hypothesis to present their evidence so it can be duly examined.
Thanks for your time.
-
All of time and space is permeated with a substance known as the aether. This has been scientific fact since the 19th century. Aetheric wind is caused by things moving through the aether, which creates a sort of drag effect on the material moving through it. The evidence is right in front of us (above, really).
-
All of time and space is permeated with a substance known as the aether. This has been scientific fact since the 19th century. Aetheric wind is caused by things moving through the aether, which creates a sort of drag effect on the material moving through it. The evidence is right in front of us (above, really).
Aether has not been a scientific fact at any point, and utterly failed with the Michelson-Morley experiment which has been recreated many times, to ever increasing degrees of accuracy showing no such thing as Aether Drag.
That being said, I asked about AWT, which describes not only Aether, but also how it can substitute for gravitational type effects. Even in the 19th century, Aether was never attributed any gravitational properties. How do you account for this? With what evidence?
-
What are the details of the Michelson-Morley experiment?
-
One of the most important experiments in history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
-
I wouldn't necessarily call it one of the most important. There are many more significant experiments. That said, I don't personally dispute the results of Michelson-Morley. I use the term Aether because it's descriptive and has historical significance. I'm not referring to the aether that Michelson and Morley accidentally disproved.
A longer post about AWT evidence is forthcoming
-
So, I believe we've previously discussed how AWT is merely a hypothetical model of how a Flat Earth could be possible, which is theoretically sound (so far: I'm still investigating) but experimentally unproven. It's just a possibility which logically follows from the Earth being flat, which is an experimentally sound fact. I wrote a long post explaining this all again before realizing that I'd said it to you before.
So, what exactly are you looking for in this thread? I don't want to spout the same platitudes at you. I can't imagine you would have made a new thread unless you had something specific in mind. What's that specific thing?
-
Einstein believed in the Aether. So did Tesla. Were they idiots?
-
Einstein believed in the Aether. So did Tesla. Were they idiots?
No, but this has nothing to do with AWT, nor is it evidence.
-
Einstein believed in the Aether. So did Tesla. Were they idiots?
No, but this has nothing to do with AWT, nor is it evidence.
No, I was asking if two of the smartest scientists of modern times were idiots? Either they were wrong for bleieving in the Aether, or they were right. It is simply a black or white situation. Were they idiots for believing in Aether/Ether?
-
Einstein believed in the Aether. So did Tesla. Were they idiots?
All appeals to authority are bad. I would expect better of you.
Of course, since Einstein believed in RET, do FEers consider him an idiot? Reference showing Einstein's belief that both the earth and Mercury orbit the sun and review of experimental data verifying GR's effect on Mercury: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/)
-
Einstein believed in the Aether. So did Tesla. Were they idiots?
No, but this has nothing to do with AWT, nor is it evidence.
No, I was asking if two of the smartest scientists of modern times were idiots? Either they were wrong for bleieving in the Aether, or they were right. It is simply a black or white situation. Were they idiots for believing in Aether/Ether?
You can be smart and wrong and, stupid and right, it has nothing to do with the OP. Please do not derail this thread.
-
What makes you so sure that Einstein believed in RET? His SR theory actually proved that the Earth could be flat. I think he was a closet FE'er.
-
What makes you so sure that Einstein believed in RET? His SR theory actually proved that the Earth could be flat. I think he was a closet FE'er.
Please address the OP or stop derailing the thread.
-
What makes you so sure that Einstein believed in RET? His SR theory actually proved that the Earth could be flat. I think he was a closet FE'er.
His referenced paper describes his calculations of the orbit of Mercury available only in RET. How did his Theory of Special Relativity prove that the earth could be flat? Are you thinking that if we ignore the radial nature of the earth's gravity that the Equivalence Principle of General Relativity allows FET to avoid having to explain why gravity doesn't pull everything toward the North Pole? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle) That hardly proves that the earth could be flat.
-
What makes you so sure that Einstein believed in RET? His SR theory actually proved that the Earth could be flat. I think he was a closet FE'er.
His referenced paper describes his calculations of the orbit of Mercury available only in RET. How did his Theory of Special Relativity prove that the earth could be flat? Are you thinking that if we ignore the radial nature of the earth's gravity that the Equivalence Principle of General Relativity allows FET to avoid having to explain why gravity doesn't pull everything toward the North Pole? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle) That hardly proves that the earth could be flat.
Any doubt that you were CT's alt just vanished.
-
Any doubt that you were CT's alt just vanished.
I was thinking The Knowledge, but CET is a possibity as well.
-
Evidence for AWT is trickier.
Where is your evidence for the theory of gravity? Or dark matter? Black holes? Yes, I know you have math that (somehow) proves black holes, but have you ever seen one or felt its tremendous sucking force? Very doubtful. Do you honestly expect me to believe that space is some sort of elastic material that bends to mass? That's absurd. Modern RE views are full of fairy-tale-caliber science.
The fact is, Rounders cling to unproven science to prove their flimsy theories just as much as we do. It's just a matter of picking the theory that makes more sense, and yes... AWT makes more sense. How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay in position? What is causing the upward acceleration of the Earth? AWT answers a lot of these questions sufficiently to the point where it would be stupid to not trust it.
-
Evidence for AWT is trickier.
Where is your evidence for the theory of gravity? Or dark matter? Black holes? Yes, I know you have math that (somehow) proves black holes, but have you ever seen one or felt its tremendous sucking force? Very doubtful. Do you honestly expect me to believe that space is some sort of elastic material that bends to mass? That's absurd. Modern RE views are full of fairy-tale-caliber science.
The fact is, Rounders cling to unproven science to prove their flimsy theories just as much as we do. It's just a matter of picking the theory that makes more sense, and yes... AWT makes more sense. How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay in position? What is causing the upward acceleration of the Earth? AWT answers a lot of these questions sufficiently to the point where it would be stupid to not trust it.
So just deflection and still no evidence. Expected. Can you even state in 100-200 words what AWT even is? Have you done the math to calculate how much energy AW must provide to keep the FE, sun, and moon all accelerated at g for billions of years? The amount is so great as to destroy all credibility of AWT, more than a centillion joules. Oh, and then you'd have to explain how the AW imparts that energy so efficiently as not to overheat the FE.
-
Einstein believed in the Aether. So did Tesla. Were they idiots?
No, but this has nothing to do with AWT, nor is it evidence.
No, I was asking if two of the smartest scientists of modern times were idiots? Either they were wrong for bleieving in the Aether, or they were right. It is simply a black or white situation. Were they idiots for believing in Aether/Ether?
Irrelevant. The aether that Einstein and Tesla believed in is not the same aether that is being discussed here
What makes you so sure that Einstein believed in RET? His SR theory actually proved that the Earth could be flat.
.
No, it doesn't.
-
Evidence for AWT is trickier.
Where is your evidence for the theory of gravity? Or dark matter? Black holes? Yes, I know you have math that (somehow) proves black holes, but have you ever seen one or felt its tremendous sucking force? Very doubtful. Do you honestly expect me to believe that space is some sort of elastic material that bends to mass? That's absurd. Modern RE views are full of fairy-tale-caliber science.
The fact is, Rounders cling to unproven science to prove their flimsy theories just as much as we do. It's just a matter of picking the theory that makes more sense, and yes... AWT makes more sense. How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay in position? What is causing the upward acceleration of the Earth? AWT answers a lot of these questions sufficiently to the point where it would be stupid to not trust it.
So just deflection and still no evidence. Expected. Can you even state in 100-200 words what AWT even is? Have you done the math to calculate how much energy AW must provide to keep the FE, sun, and moon all accelerated at g for billions of years? The amount is so great as to destroy all credibility of AWT, more than a centillion joules. Oh, and then you'd have to explain how the AW imparts that energy so efficiently as not to overheat the FE.
Have you ever heard of Clarke's three laws?
-
Evidence for AWT is trickier.
Where is your evidence for the theory of gravity? Or dark matter? Black holes? Yes, I know you have math that (somehow) proves black holes, but have you ever seen one or felt its tremendous sucking force? Very doubtful. Do you honestly expect me to believe that space is some sort of elastic material that bends to mass? That's absurd. Modern RE views are full of fairy-tale-caliber science.
The fact is, Rounders cling to unproven science to prove their flimsy theories just as much as we do. It's just a matter of picking the theory that makes more sense, and yes... AWT makes more sense. How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay in position? What is causing the upward acceleration of the Earth? AWT answers a lot of these questions sufficiently to the point where it would be stupid to not trust it.
Not sure why you have theory in italics, but this objection is a derailment from the point of the thread which is to discuss the evidence for AWT. Can we keep to that please and thank you?
-
Any doubt that you were CT's alt just vanished.
I was thinking The Knowledge, but CET is a possibity as well.
Not Cat Earth Theory, ClockTower. He's trying to hard (and failing too hard) to be pedantic to be anyone else. CET and TK are a dime a dozen. True noobishness, like CT, is rare.
Can you even state in 100-200 words what AWT even is?
AWT is a theory that a superfluid substance known as Aether accelerates delicately through space. Furthermore, this substance's interaction with the plane of the earth causes several phenomena including gravitation and the Aetheric whirlpool. The whirlpool in turn causes several phenomena including night/day cycles, seasons, Auroras, eclipses, etc.
Have you done the math to calculate how much energy AW must provide to keep the FE, sun, and moon all accelerated at g for billions of years?
Yes. I'm researching the theoretical portions of the theory in my (rare) free time.
The amount is so great as to destroy all credibility of AWT, more than a centillion joules
Preliminary results suggest otherwise.
Oh, and then you'd have to explain how the AW imparts that energy so efficiently as not to overheat the FE.
Well, first of all most of the energy goes into acceleration. It is a fairly efficient process by virtue of the substance itself. One of the requirements of Aether is that it very easily and efficiently gain and lose energy. This is what I mean by 'delicate'. I've yet to come up with a better word for it.
In addition, the earth has several processes creating significant amounts of heat according to RET. The most notable are compaction and radiation. Preliminary results suggest that the heat imparted by Aether would logically be similar to the heat imparted by these RET phenomena.
-
Evidence for AWT is trickier.
Where is your evidence for the theory of gravity? Or dark matter? Black holes? Yes, I know you have math that (somehow) proves black holes, but have you ever seen one or felt its tremendous sucking force? Very doubtful. Do you honestly expect me to believe that space is some sort of elastic material that bends to mass? That's absurd. Modern RE views are full of fairy-tale-caliber science.
The fact is, Rounders cling to unproven science to prove their flimsy theories just as much as we do. It's just a matter of picking the theory that makes more sense, and yes... AWT makes more sense. How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay in position? What is causing the upward acceleration of the Earth? AWT answers a lot of these questions sufficiently to the point where it would be stupid to not trust it.
Not sure why you have theory in italics, but this objection is a derailment from the point of the thread which is to discuss the evidence for AWT. Can we keep to that please and thank you?
Apologies. You're absolutely right.
Gulliver, if you'd like to discuss all of that further please make a new thread for it.
_______
So anyway, as I mentioned in that wall of text I just made my preliminary theoretical research into AWT shows results consistent with reality. It is, of course, unlikely that I'll be able to gain access to a Max Planck Institute to test the theory experimentally any time soon, but the theoretical research is promising.
-
The amount is so great as to destroy all credibility of AWT, more than a centillion joules
Preliminary results suggest otherwise.
Well, first of all most of the energy goes into acceleration. It is a fairly efficient process by virtue of the substance itself. One of the requirements of Aether is that it very easily and efficiently gain and lose energy. This is what I mean by 'delicate'. I've yet to come up with a better word for it.
In addition, the earth has several processes creating significant amounts of heat according to RET. The most notable are compaction and radiation. Preliminary results suggest that the heat imparted by Aether would logically be similar to the heat imparted by these RET phenomena.
So you solve the problem by fiat, again. I had hoped for more.
Please post your "preliminary results". I've already posted mine. I do recommend that you stay with SR, vice GR, formulation. You'll need to watch the tanh function's asymptote. You'll need high precision. I suggest Maple or Mathematica. For some help, see: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30833#msg30833 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30833#msg30833)
-
Please verify my interpretation of what you described as the aether of AWT.
The aether is a fluid.
The aether has mass.
The aether has momentum.
The aether is composed of atoms.
The aether accelerates the FE to g and has since the creation of the FE.
The aether imparts its momentum to the FE by its atoms colliding with the FE's atoms.
The aether also balances the gear-controlled, rotating stellar objects, including the sun, moon, planets, and stars--regardless of their position over the FE.
Something else accelerates, or has accelerated, the aether.
Thanks!
-
Evidence for AWT is trickier.
Where is your evidence for the theory of gravity? Or dark matter? Black holes? Yes, I know you have math that (somehow) proves black holes, but have you ever seen one or felt its tremendous sucking force? Very doubtful. Do you honestly expect me to believe that space is some sort of elastic material that bends to mass? That's absurd. Modern RE views are full of fairy-tale-caliber science.
The fact is, Rounders cling to unproven science to prove their flimsy theories just as much as we do. It's just a matter of picking the theory that makes more sense, and yes... AWT makes more sense. How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay in position? What is causing the upward acceleration of the Earth? AWT answers a lot of these questions sufficiently to the point where it would be stupid to not trust it.
Not sure why you have theory in italics, but this objection is a derailment from the point of the thread which is to discuss the evidence for AWT. Can we keep to that please and thank you?
Apologies. You're absolutely right.
Gulliver, if you'd like to discuss all of that further please make a new thread for it.
-
Evidence for AWT is trickier.
Where is your evidence for the theory of gravity? Or dark matter? Black holes? Yes, I know you have math that (somehow) proves black holes, but have you ever seen one or felt its tremendous sucking force? Very doubtful. Do you honestly expect me to believe that space is some sort of elastic material that bends to mass? That's absurd. Modern RE views are full of fairy-tale-caliber science.
The fact is, Rounders cling to unproven science to prove their flimsy theories just as much as we do. It's just a matter of picking the theory that makes more sense, and yes... AWT makes more sense. How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay in position? What is causing the upward acceleration of the Earth? AWT answers a lot of these questions sufficiently to the point where it would be stupid to not trust it.
Um no. GR has had quite a few experimental verifications. To wit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Please learn what theory means in science. It is not a guess, it as a model that has strong explicative power as well as predictive capability. GR explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. It then predicted gravitational lensing which was confirmed by the 1915 solar eclipse. Since then there have been many more experiments, listed in the wiki article above.
-
the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē,ˈTHi(ə)rē/
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
opinion, view, belief, contention
"I reckon that confirms my theory"
principles, ideas, concepts;
philosophy, ideology, system of ideas, science
"modern economic theory"
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
-
de·rail
dēˈrāl/
verb
obstruct (a process) by diverting it from its intended course.
"the plot is seen by some as an attempt to derail the negotiations"
-
Please learn what theory means in science.
-
Evidence for AWT is trickier.
Where is your evidence for the theory of gravity? Or dark matter? Black holes? Yes, I know you have math that (somehow) proves black holes, but have you ever seen one or felt its tremendous sucking force? Very doubtful. Do you honestly expect me to believe that space is some sort of elastic material that bends to mass? That's absurd. Modern RE views are full of fairy-tale-caliber science.
The fact is, Rounders cling to unproven science to prove their flimsy theories just as much as we do. It's just a matter of picking the theory that makes more sense, and yes... AWT makes more sense. How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay in position? What is causing the upward acceleration of the Earth? AWT answers a lot of these questions sufficiently to the point where it would be stupid to not trust it.
Um no. GR has had quite a few experimental verifications. To wit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Please learn what theory means in science. It is not a guess, it as a model that has strong explicative power as well as predictive capability. GR explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. It then predicted gravitational lensing which was confirmed by the 1915 solar eclipse. Since then there have been many more experiments, listed in the wiki article above.
You can't just change the definition of 'theory' on a whim like that, even if you throw the words "in science" after it. Please see jroa's post if you're confused about what a theory is. And no, your head-canon on what theory means does not matter.
-
Evidence for AWT is trickier.
Where is your evidence for the theory of gravity? Or dark matter? Black holes? Yes, I know you have math that (somehow) proves black holes, but have you ever seen one or felt its tremendous sucking force? Very doubtful. Do you honestly expect me to believe that space is some sort of elastic material that bends to mass? That's absurd. Modern RE views are full of fairy-tale-caliber science.
The fact is, Rounders cling to unproven science to prove their flimsy theories just as much as we do. It's just a matter of picking the theory that makes more sense, and yes... AWT makes more sense. How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay in position? What is causing the upward acceleration of the Earth? AWT answers a lot of these questions sufficiently to the point where it would be stupid to not trust it.
Um no. GR has had quite a few experimental verifications. To wit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Please learn what theory means in science. It is not a guess, it as a model that has strong explicative power as well as predictive capability. GR explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. It then predicted gravitational lensing which was confirmed by the 1915 solar eclipse. Since then there have been many more experiments, listed in the wiki article above.
You can't just change the definition of 'theory' on a whim like that, even if you throw the words "in science" after it. Please see jroa's post if you're confused about what a theory is. And no, your head-canon on what theory means does not matter.
Different words have different meanings depending on the situation. It is not changing the definition, it is providing context.
Regardless, if you do not have any evidence to provide for AWT, this conversation should likely go elsewhere.
-
You can't just change the definition of 'theory' on a whim like that, even if you throw the words "in science" after it.
The word "theory" has several definitions, depending on the context. What makes you think that jroa provided the correct one in the context of this discussion?
theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] /ˈθi ə ri, ˈθɪər i/ IPA Syllables
noun, plural theories.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:
number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:
conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6. contemplation or speculation:
the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture:
My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
Idioms
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically:
In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.
-
The word "theory" has several definitions, depending on the context. What makes you think that jroa provided the correct one in the context of this discussion?
RET and the 'science' that has spawned from it fall into the second definition you listed:
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
This is because your theory contains completely unconfirmed elements that have no real evidence supporting them. See: Dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravity, etc.
-
The word "theory" has several definitions, depending on the context. What makes you think that jroa provided the correct one in the context of this discussion?
RET and the 'science' that has spawned from it fall into the second definition you listed:
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
This is because your theory contains completely unconfirmed elements that have no real evidence supporting them. See: Dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravity, etc.
Incorrect. Please stop derailing this thread.
-
The word "theory" has several definitions, depending on the context. What makes you think that jroa provided the correct one in the context of this discussion?
RET and the 'science' that has spawned from it fall into the second definition you listed:
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
This is because your theory contains completely unconfirmed elements that have no real evidence supporting them. See: Dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravity, etc.
Incorrect. Please stop derailing this thread.
Where is the evidence for dark matter?
-
The word "theory" has several definitions, depending on the context. What makes you think that jroa provided the correct one in the context of this discussion?
RET and the 'science' that has spawned from it fall into the second definition you listed:
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
This is because your theory contains completely unconfirmed elements that have no real evidence supporting them. See: Dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravity, etc.
Incorrect. Please stop derailing this thread.
Where is the evidence for dark matter?
Please stop derailing this thread.
-
Please answer the question.
Evidence for AWT has already been given to you to the best of our abilities. The evidence is just as good, if not better, than evidence for dark matter/energy. I am on topic, if you choose to interpret it another way then I'm sorry but that sounds like a personal problem.
-
Please answer the question.
Evidence for AWT has already been given to you to the best of our abilities. The evidence is just as good, if not better, than evidence for dark matter/energy. I am on topic, if you choose to interpret it another way then I'm sorry but that sounds like a personal problem.
What does Dark Matter/Energy have to do with AWT? Please link me to any post in this thread that contains evidence. All I have received is a promise from Tausami to post something at a future date, which I will enjoy reading when he does.
If you wish to debate the evidence for Dark Matter/Dark Energy, then I would happily do so, in another thread.
-
Please answer the question.
Evidence for AWT has already been given to you to the best of our abilities. The evidence is just as good, if not better, than evidence for dark matter/energy. I am on topic, if you choose to interpret it another way then I'm sorry but that sounds like a personal problem.
What does Dark Matter/Energy have to do with AWT? Please link me to any post in this thread that contains evidence. All I have received is a promise from Tausami to post something at a future date, which I will enjoy reading when he does.
If you wish to debate the evidence for Dark Matter/Dark Energy, then I would happily do so, in another thread.
No thanks. This thread please.
The point I am trying to make is that dark matter/energy is just as fantastical as Aetheric Wind theory, but for some reason you believe that over AWT. Why?
-
Please answer the question.
Evidence for AWT has already been given to you to the best of our abilities. The evidence is just as good, if not better, than evidence for dark matter/energy. I am on topic, if you choose to interpret it another way then I'm sorry but that sounds like a personal problem.
What does Dark Matter/Energy have to do with AWT? Please link me to any post in this thread that contains evidence. All I have received is a promise from Tausami to post something at a future date, which I will enjoy reading when he does.
If you wish to debate the evidence for Dark Matter/Dark Energy, then I would happily do so, in another thread.
No thanks. This thread please.
The point I am trying to make is that dark matter/energy is just as fantastical as Aetheric Wind theory, but for some reason you believe that over AWT. Why?
I understand the point you are trying to make. Lets discuss it somewhere else.
-
Where is the evidence for dark matter?
Gravitational lensing. Where is the evidence for windy aether?
-
Where is the evidence for dark matter?
Gravitational lensing. Where is the evidence for windy aether?
The Sun and Moon discs.
Where is the evidence for gravitational lensing? Pictures do not count as evidence due to their easily manipulated nature.
-
Where is the evidence for dark matter?
Gravitational lensing. Where is the evidence for windy aether?
The Sun and Moon discs.
It seems to me that if the sun and moon are discs, then they should be quite unstable due to the turbulence created by your proposed aetherific eddies.
Where is the evidence for gravitational lensing? Pictures do not count as evidence due to their easily manipulated nature.
What unfakable evidence do you propose that I provide?
-
It seems to me that if the sun and moon are discs, then they should be quite unstable due to the turbulence created by your proposed aetherific eddies.
The Sun & Moon discs are caught within a stable whirlpool known as the aetheric whirlpool. The Sun is near a portion of the whirlpool comparable to an eyewall, which causes it to rise and set. It moves from side to side on this wall, which causes what you know of as "seasons". It really is no more miraculous than what you consider gravity holding your faulty round Earth in orbit around your fraud Sun.
-
It seems to me that if the sun and moon are discs, then they should be quite unstable due to the turbulence created by your proposed aetherific eddies.
The Sun & Moon discs are caught within a stable whirlpool known as the aetheric whirlpool. The Sun is near a portion of the whirlpool comparable to an eyewall, which causes it to rise and set. It moves from side to side on this wall, which causes what you know of as "seasons". It really is no more miraculous than what you consider gravity holding your faulty round Earth in orbit around your fraud Sun.
Except that the motions of the "faulty" RE sun and moon can be mathematically modeled. Where is the mathematical model of your aetherific whirlpool powered sun-moon model?