[herewegoround]

The distance from the North Pole to the equator is 6200 miles to 2 s.f.

The circumference of the equator is 25 000 miles to 2 s.f

I didn't get these figures from the CIA website. They are facts that are widely accepted and that are assumed to be true by thousands of people who use the round Earth model on a daily basis in their working lives: astronomers, cartographers, meteorologists, geologists, sailors, navigators, air traffic controllers, the military, air line pilots.

If the Earth is flat and the distance from the North pole to the equator is 6 200 miles that would give the equator a circumference of 39 000 miles.

If the Earth is flat and the circumference of the equator is 25 000 miles that would give make the distance from the North pole to the equator 4000 miles.

The flat Earth model doesn't fit at all, it's not even just a little bit out.

Now, if these figures are wrong how is it that all these professional people using the round Earth model don't notice that it is catastrophically inaccurate?

[herewegoround]

I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?

Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.

Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.

How does the aether manage to make some parts of the disc accelerate slightly differently form other parts of the disc?

[herewegoround]

You sound like you are fishing for something to debate that you could actually defend.  While I applaud your willingness to find something in RET that is defendable, you will have to pick something that I or someone else actually stated in order to work up your rebuttal.

There is no aspect of the round Earth model that isn't defendable. There isn't even a well defined flat Earth model that you all agree on. I can accept that some of you have different models but I have never spoken to a flat Earth proponent who can specify precisely what their model is.

How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?

Not that it's in any way relevant to the discussion, I couldn't put an exact figure to it. Between the flat Earth forums and youtube I would say somewhere between 10 and 20.

You always evade issues by asking pedantic questions that have no bearing on the central points.

The issue in hand at this precise moment is what is your model for the flat Earth?

[herewegoround]

wait wait... if the aether is propelling the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s why is it not acting on us and the objects on top of the earth?

It is 9.8 m/s/s, which is an acceleration.  Also, it is acting on you.  The Earth is being pushed, and the Earth pushes against your feet, so you are also being accelerated upwards.

I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?

I believe that the Earth blocks most, but not all, of this force from reaching us.  A small amount permeates through the Earth and does act on us, but in a very subtle and almost imperceptible way.  This is why things have a slightly different amount of weight at different locations across the plane.

Can you provide a link to a physics journal in which a physicist proposes the aether and gives it a precise Mathematical definition?

[herewegoround]

So, are you asking me to guess, then?  Guessing might be OK in your round Earth model, but in FET, we like to use facts instead of just guesses.

If you can't specify precisely what your flat Earth model is then this conversation is redundant.

[jroa]

So, are you asking me to guess, then?  Guessing might be OK in your round Earth model, but in FET, we like to use facts instead of just guesses.

If you can't specify precisely what your flat Earth model is then this conversation is redundant.

No, it is redundant when you quote me and respond to my quote, I respond back, and then hours later, you quote me and respond as if you had not already responded to the quote to begin with.  Do you understand how redundancy works? 

[Wulf]

How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?

you people are the first, but i feel that is somewhat irrelevent.

I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?

Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.

Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.

Thanks that makes sense.

I believe that the Earth blocks most, but not all, of this force from reaching us.  A small amount permeates through the Earth and does act on us, but in a very subtle and almost imperceptible way.  This is why things have a slightly different amount of weight at different locations across the plane.

That also makes sense. but that still doesn't explain the atraction between small objects observed in cavendish's experiment, and i've still not heard the original reason that suggests that aether exists.

[Wulf]

sorry if i don't respond right away. i'm sneaking posts in between classes. =3

[Pete Svarrior]

How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?

you people are the first, but i feel that is somewhat irrelevent.

I think that question was directed at herewegoround who said "I have never spoken to a flat Earth proponent who can specify precisely what their model is." That statement could technically be correct if he simply spoke to no FE'ers at all.

That also makes sense. but that still doesn't explain the atraction between small objects observed in cavendish's experiment, and i've still not heard the original reason that suggests that aether exists.

Personally, I propose that gravitation exists between some mass, but not all mass. An old favourite of mine was to challenge RE'ers to demonstrate that bananas attract each other. Eventually, I stopped asking, since I received nothing but insults back.

[markjo]

So, are you asking me to guess, then?  Guessing might be OK in your round Earth model, but in FET, we like to use facts instead of just guesses.

If you can't specify precisely what your flat Earth model is then this conversation is redundant.

No, it is redundant when you quote me and respond to my quote, I respond back, and then hours later, you quote me and respond as if you had not already responded to the quote to begin with.  Do you understand how redundancy works?

Instead of "redundant", he probably meant "moot" or, more likely, "futile".

[herewegoround]

Jrao.

Give me a full description of the flat Earth model you are arguing for. Stop derailing the discussion with irrelevant and illogical points. This is your classic tactic. You are notorious for it on the other flat Earth forums.

[Tau]

I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?

Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.

Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.

How does the aether manage to make some parts of the disc accelerate slightly differently form other parts of the disc?

It doesn't. However, the shadow of the Aetheric whirlpool exerts a small amount of pull, which causes the minor changes in gravitation you're referring to.

Jrao.

Give me a full description of the flat Earth model you are arguing for. Stop derailing the discussion with irrelevant and illogical points. This is your classic tactic. You are notorious for it on the other flat Earth forums.

That's a big demand to make of someone when you can't even spell their name properly. Why is Jroa under any obligation to comply with your orders.

[herewegoround]

I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?

Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.

Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.

How does the aether manage to make some parts of the disc accelerate slightly differently form other parts of the disc?

It doesn't. However, the shadow of the Aetheric whirlpool exerts a small amount of pull, which causes the minor changes in gravitation you're referring to.

This is what you call logical gymnastics. Pretty much every flat Earth argument amounts to invoking a mysterious process, to which you can give any property you want, in order to cover up the fact that all the evidence indicates overwhelmingly that the Earth is round.

Provide a link to a physics journal where a physicist has published an article giving a mathematical description of the properties of the aether.

[herewegoround]

That's a big demand to make of someone when you can't even spell their name properly. Why is Jroa under any obligation to comply with your orders.

How is that a big demand to make of someone who spends a lot of time on a flat Earth forum and who seems utterly committed to the notion? I spelt his name wrong, apologies.

I am more than happy to specify exactly what I am arguing for.

[Wulf]

How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?

you people are the first, but i feel that is somewhat irrelevent.

I think that question was directed at herewegoround who said "I have never spoken to a flat Earth proponent who can specify precisely what their model is." That statement could technically be correct if he simply spoke to no FE'ers at all.

That also makes sense. but that still doesn't explain the atraction between small objects observed in cavendish's experiment, and i've still not heard the original reason that suggests that aether exists.

Personally, I propose that gravitation exists between some mass, but not all mass. An old favourite of mine was to challenge RE'ers to demonstrate that bananas attract each other. Eventually, I stopped asking, since I received nothing but insults back.

oh snap you right! i must have been reading too quickly due to posting during classes. for the sake of my logic i should probably wait until i get home to do reading. sorry jroa.

on your point about the bananas i suspect the experiment could be replicated to verify it, however the organic nature of a banana could pose troublesome as decaying banana's release heat which could interfere with the experiment. It would be much more effective to perform the experiment on the different elements that make up the banana. It's extremely likely that no one has ever considering doing such a thing, so i imagine you or another FEr would have to do it yourself. the experiment itself doesn't seem too complicated; it's getting the materials and making sure that the device is isolated that would be the hardest parts.

It's also worth noting that if even some of the earth has gravity, than there would be an obvious effect felt on a flat earth as you near the side of the disk. if it wouldn't be obvious we could test this by comparing how a ball hangs from a string at different distances from the arctic.

although i'm still curious as to why aether was proposed in the first place. since i can't just assume aether exists (Occam's Razor); i'll be left to the theory of gravity, which explains things rather well and has past experiments that back the theory up, if i can't find a reason to suggest the existence of aether.

[lifeonmars?]

How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?

you people are the first, but i feel that is somewhat irrelevent.

I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?

Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.

Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.

Thanks that makes sense.

I believe that the Earth blocks most, but not all, of this force from reaching us.  A small amount permeates through the Earth and does act on us, but in a very subtle and almost imperceptible way.  This is why things have a slightly different amount of weight at different locations across the plane.

That also makes sense. but that still doesn't explain the atraction between small objects observed in cavendish's experiment, and i've still not heard the original reason that suggests that aether exists.

Wulf's point above is valid - what is the original evidence for the aether / aetheric wind? It seems to be, as herewegoround is suggesting in his most recent post, that FE folks start from the presumption that the earth is flat (because hey, look our your window, it's pretty flat...), and then need to invent new natural processes for which we have no evidence to explain the original presumption....whereas, given the evidence from observations as we have them (and again, herewegoround laid them out a number of them pretty clearly at the beginning of this thread), everything seems to suggests that the earth is round.

Not to paint with a broad brush, but is it possible FE folks that maybe you are all just so committed to being contrarian - which, granted, is an important role in a free thinking society - that you're not really looking at the very clear and obvious truth? I mean, I just cannot see any way that you guys truly believe this stuff, so I keep coming back to the idea that this whole entire website must just be an attempt to mess with people...

Also, I'd love to hear a response to the Verrazzano bridge point!

[herewegoround]

Isn't it obvious what a catastrophe the flat Earth idea is. For a start there isn't even a standard flat Earth model, so when you talk to people you have no idea what they are arguing for. Most people when pressed on exactly what they do believe won't or can't specify. There is no flat Earth model that fits all the observations which sticks to all the normal laws of geometry, optics and physics. The known distances on the surface of the Earth like the circumference of the equator and the distance from the North Pole to the equator don't match. There is no way there can be circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres assuming normal geometry. The path the sun follows in the sky and its constant apparent size don't fit. The farce that ships disappearing over the horizon evokes is epic: I've heard everything from bending light to swelling water.

When you bring up these points there are two main tactics: deny basic facts or invoke mysterious pseudo-scientific processes which can be invested with any properties you want.

If the idea of a flat Earth was viable there would be a single standard model which could fit all the known geometry of the Earth and the motions of heavenly bodies. It would be a model that made sense and didn't require all sots of peculiar ideas. The total disarray amongst flat Earth proponents as to exactly what you do believe and how exactly the facts could fit a flat Earth should be ringing warning bells for you that perhaps you haven't got it right.

[herewegoround]

although i'm still curious as to why aether was proposed in the first place. since i can't just assume aether exists (Occam's Razor); i'll be left to the theory of gravity, which explains things rather well and has past experiments that back the theory up, if i can't find a reason to suggest the existence of aether.

As far as I know the aether was proposed by a guy on the other flat Earth forum, I won't mention his name. He's the first person I heard talking about it anyway. He claims that it talks to him and tells him how it creates whirlpools far above the Earth. Unless he is trolling I think he is actually schizophrenic.

[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.

[Ghost of V]

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.