[Rama Set]

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.

[Ghost of V]

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).

[Rama Set]

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?

[Ghost of V]

What are the details of the Michelson-Morley experiment?

[Rama Set]

One of the most important experiments in history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

[Tau]

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

[Tau]

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?

[jroa]

Einstein believed in the Aether.  So did Tesla.  Were they idiots? 

[Rama Set]

Einstein believed in the Aether.  So did Tesla.  Were they idiots? 

No, but this has nothing to do with AWT, nor is it evidence. 

[jroa]

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?   

[Gulliver]

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/

[Rama Set]

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.

[jroa]

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. 

[Rama Set]

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.

[Gulliver]

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 That hardly proves that the earth could be flat.

[Tau]

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 That hardly proves that the earth could be flat.

Any doubt that you were CT's alt just vanished.

[jroa]

Any doubt that you were CT's alt just vanished.

I was thinking The Knowledge, but CET is a possibity as well. 

[Ghost of V]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[markjo]

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.