JRowe

Well this was a waste of time. I'd hoped for actual discussion here, but instead I get an idiot who objects to a spring analogy, somehow objects to me pointing out he was complaining about a post that had already been made (?!) and goes on lengthy tirades rather than even acknowledge the existence of the answer he was given, and expects me to pretend he is being at all honest or respectful. I get someone saying I'm insisting on an alternative to relativity when nothing I've said is at odds with relativity, the conventional model can still occur. I get someone that uses the tired old dressed up argument from tradition despite having the flaw in that already pointed out in the post he's replying to. I get someone insisting I'm using luminiferous aether even when that doesn't follow in the slightest. I get someone demanding that I defend a claim I never made and to insist that I'm doing something I explicitly said i'm not. I really tried, but apparenly it is just a waste of time to try to engage with people on scientific grounds. Inevitably you fall back into stock arguments, assumptions about a person, and tired old arrogance because you believe in the mainstream so you must be superior. That's always how it goes. Conclusions with no why. I don't give a damn about the fact you disagree with me, but if you are going to be so arrogant there should at least be the slightest shred of honesty instead of this vomit. I had hope. A couple of people did at least engage with the content of what I said, but no, in the end the majority always comes back to misrepresentation and attacks and ignorance, relying on cliches even after they've been called out and dealt with, without a word as to what was wrong with the call-out. Go ahead. Chalk it up as a victory, I know how your type works. You intentionally act like this, you openly misrepresent, you lie, you act so unbearable that no one can stick around and sit cosy believing that the fact you were so unpleasant that no one wanted to deal with you means you must have refuted them. You disgust me. So go right ahead. Do whatever you want to this thread, I'm not putting up with this bs. Adios!

Of course I didn't mention them again. They were an analogy that you asked for an alternative to. Why would I just repeat the analogy?! That's an argument from tradition. Any model that has been held for decades is in a position where it has more depth to it, where people have had more time to come up with excuses for the gaps and omissions just by force of numbers. No new model is ever going to compare to that, and it's going to take a similar length of time before it's ever going to offer as much detail. That's the case no matter which is true. I am not claiming to be able to offer all the same intricacies because I am not the equivalent of a few hundred people working with a whole host more time, money and resources than I possess. All anyone can do is point out an avenue that has not been explored. To reject it simply because it is different, and because it is new, should be the antithesis is scientific thought. Instead apparently it's the norm, even here. If my claim does not pass muster, please do me the courtesy of pointing out where and how. I am not the only one that should be expected to justify their claims. I did explain myself. You ignored it because I didn't use the explanation you said was insufficient. What precisely are you complaning about? I've written plenty you have outright refused to engage with, preferring instead insults and ignorant attacks. If there is something I posted that you want to see the back-up for, tell me what it is rather than refusing to give any question I can answer. You asked for an alternative explanation. I gave it. You complained that it wasn't the first explanation. You are contradicting yourself. Ok, true, my phrasing was unclear, but the fact stands. Whichever way you cut it, it is still not the same way that an arbitrary direction behaves. There are properties. It is not constant. It may not be reacting as such, but it is still doing something.

Many people ask similar questions. I am not just going to copy/paste my answers. I did provide another way to view the section you highlighted, as you requested. The same is going to be true for this post, I am going to address the points that have been presented, but if more than one person asks the same question I am not going to repeat myself just to make that other person feel special. Too many quotes just makes a post unreadable. That would be waffle. Other way around. I believe the world is flat as a consequence of this, I just mentioned it so that it doesn't come out of nowhere. The hypothesis so far presented is based exclusively on what it is that has been established. I'm not expecting or even looking to convince anyone, just to get an appraisal from people that seem more educated than the usual rabble that hunt down Flat Earth sites and forums to help refine. The aether in this case is just space, as I said. It is not some material medium that carries light. Light travels through it, yes, the same as everything. Aether is a word, with no more scientific credibility or lack of credibility than, say, 'atom.' The Ancient Greek atomism is pure pseudoscience, but the flaws with that notion do not translate to atoms as they are understood today. I do not claim or predict any drag effect, nor do I see how one would follow from the definition presented here. It's worth mentioning that with respect to the Flat Earth idea as well. There are FE models out there that appeal to a luminiferous aether, but the experiment you reference there would not serve to refute luminiferous aether there because it is reliant on the rotation of the Earth. This is why I started with something seemingly as abstract as space; everything is different, not just one or two minor points. References to results mean nothing, only references to the means by which those results are found. That way there's no hiding details that don't line up. Not trying to get into a debate on how we know the Earth rotates etc, just a good illustration of trying to apply results without checking to see if the premises still work. Not all aethers are created equal. That is only 'proof' if it attempts to measure properties that are predicted. Proposing spacetime as the sole entity that has a binary nature with no concept of degree is one that sounds like special pleading to me given that every other entity, from energy to matter to concepts like velocity, has some concept of one being greater or lesser than another. True, that's on me. For the sake of clarity, I accept the theory of relativity. It just concerns itself with one aspect of spacetime, while this focuses on another. I could speculate on relationships, but that would be speculation within speculation and judging by a couple of posts even this is overstaying its welcome. Essentially that, apologies, it's old habit again. Precisely. You can represent it at a basic level as a geometry, but if you want to apply it to reality you need to equip it with certain rules. That demonstrates it is not just some abstract of dimension, a simple set of directions, because it reacts to different situations. Large masses, high velocities, all take it further and further away from being just an abstract coordinate system. Rules apply to it and govern it, even if just to make it curve. It isn't nothing, there has to be something that follows the rules. So, anyway, onto the main point. At a basic level, heat is just movement. If you view spacetime/aether as just the sea of coordinate points mentioned, then when they flow they will not always be flowing in the same direction, or at the same rate. Space isn't a material so it's not going to have any kind of friction or viscosity, so it will move far more easily than the objects that occupy positions in space. If the coordinates an object occupies move, then that object itself will move; if the object runs into a force that counters that, then it will slow or stop. So for just one single mass, composed of multiple coordinates, if those coordinates are all moving slightly differently then the various parts of that object will be drawn to move apart from one another. The molecular bonds and, deeper, gluons within it hold the object in one piece and resist that force, creating a kind of friction within the object itself. On evidence that this happens, that's where we start to get onto the FE stuff. I'd point to it for the power source of the stars and such, but that takes us on a long walk through the formation of the Earth and such and isn't really merited yet. There's the experiment I presented, though admittedly I doubt we have the technology yet to measure to the correct degree of accuracy so it's little more than an illustration (and even then, until such time as I get the resources to determine a few constants myself I'll admit that numerical prediction is beyond me). More practically, it could be used to explain the cosmic microwave background. Heat, ultimately, is just movement as I said, and that would be happening even in vacuum. We're limited by the fact that at ground level the aether density is basically constant. Experiments only work when there's something we'd expect to see. Most observations would have to be taken on a larger scale. One application, for example, would be anomalies in the movement of celestial objects; an irregularity in the density of aether/space would cause them to move as the coordinates they occupy fill the lower concentration.

(The flat earther aspect is going to come to the fore later. I added it so it doesn't come out of nowhere when I start dealing with the implications, I just didn't want to throw everything out there at once because I'm well aware of how much pseudoscience runs purely on throwing so many points out that you lose track and have no time to respond to everything). Apologies for the limited terminology too, most people I describe this too I do my best to make it accessible, though it can have the opposite effect in forums such as this. Force of habit. Space/aether is more than an abstract dimension. It's already well-established that, for example, there is a phenomenon termed curvature which has concrete and measurable effects. Certainly, I'm aware Einstein says spacetime has no tangible properties, but I view that as a statement made without proof, or at the very least a postulate. He simply did not need to refer to any such behaviour. Hafele-Keating is the classic experimental evidence of this. The fabric of space isn't just mere length and width when it has such measurable effects. Indeed, this can be viewed as a more detailed explanation of how it is that spacetime warps. An object moving at a high velocity, instead of time slowing down for it, it 'draws in' aether. From its perspective nothing is different, it's flying the same distance at the same rate, but from the perspective of the outside world it's taking longer to get anywhere because they're viewing it from a perspective of a lower aether-density. That's just pure hypothesis, I'm not going to claim that's some integral part of my model because it currently lacks any solid evidence, but it does serve as an illustration. (The DePalma spinning ball experiment could serve as justification, demonstrating that any kind of movement can lead to spatial distortion in this fashion if you want to go by the actual result of the experiment rather than the conclusion DePalma drew, but that's no more than a sidenote because I haven't seen the experiment much less the result replicated by anyone else so I'm not going to rely on it for anything). They underlie, yes, in the same way assumptions about velocity underlies Newton and everything that followed from Newton. It doesn't make it accurate to say velocity addition is always as simple as u+v, just that it was sufficient in the situations they talked about. It just wasn't something they sought to prove. This is a good segue into the practical side. When it comes to differing concentrations, there's one universally observed piece of behaviour; concentrations flow from high to low. Diffusion demonstrates it for conventional matter, osmosis for concentrations, then there's the basic behaviour of pressure systems, there's the heat equation, the second law of thermodynamics which in application embodies this for heat (and by extension energy). Barring active outside influences (the obligatory caveat for any law) gases expand if surrounded by a lower density gas, heat moves outwards from a source if the room is cooler, entropy naturally increases... Given that no law is ever tested for all objects in all places at all times, it feels natural to me to conclude that the same will hold for concentratons of spacetime/aether by the same token that we assume any law will hold for a new experiment. The only time this does not occur is with entities like light, which is quite literally incapable of moving in the directions required due to its nature. If it is possible for something to obey this law, it does so. A more practical way to envision the concentrations of aether would be as a sea of coordinate points, especially if you want to focus on spacetime granularity. A seething sea of coordinate points; every object occupies a fixed number of points, dependent on its volume and density. If these points move in one direction, the object occupying them does the same, but of course can be prevented from doing so by the presence of forces. So, for example, aether might flow downwards. An object is equipped with some means of acceleration that mean it moves upwards; so long as the rate at which its coordinate points change is greater than the rate at which the coordinate points flow down, the object will move up. Any non-uniform flow of aether will create friction between the molecules of an object as they will move at different speeds relative to each other. Theoretically this could tear an object apart, but more likely the strength of the bonds will hold it together, the only consequence being energy. This is a worthwhile time to say that this is just for the purposes of visualization. I'm aware that this is tacitly endorsing an objective frame of reference with respect to an object being stationary, or at least a way to tell if something is 'truly' stationary. The easiest responses is to just view aether as just another entity in motion, albeit with more unique properties, and it just comes down to whether an object is stationary with respect to aether. There would naturally be consequences to this. It's easy to draw connections to phenomenon such as gravity where space itself acts to draw things towards masses. There are also predictions to be made. For example an object within a vacuum chamber will heat up some slight degree if it is in motion, despite the lack of frictional forces. (The problem here being the 'slight,' variations in aether density are minimal near the Earth's surface, which is yet another thing I'll be getting to later but this is enough for right now. Like I said above, I'm interested in explaining, not overwhelming).

So, first off, full disclosure. I'm a Flat Earther. I am well-aware of all the preconceptions that comes with, I can only promise that I am not the stereotype and hope my actions live up to that. (Honestly I'm compelled to mention that most of the time the stereotypical closed-mindedness is simply a reaction to being met with bad arguments; to take one cliche there are some that believe the Earth is a disc accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2 as an explanation for gravity, not a belief I hold, and the most common response to that is that we should have reached the speed of light by now, even though relativistic velocity addition does not work that way. It is too common for disagreement with a conclusion to lead to someone using anything, no matter how illogical, to object to the premises, and if someone is faced with that a lot exhaustion leads to expecting it rather than giving objections a fair shot). In the interests of that I want to work from ground level up. At the very least this forum seems to be filled with people who enjoy analysing alternative options, whether or not they believe them, and hopefully won't begin with automatic hostility. Flat Earth Theory is never as simple as just replacing a ball with a disc and expecting everything to continue as normal, a lot more is different. I'll go into the first bit here. And this opening ramble has gone on long enough, so my last note will be on evidence. I will give it when I can, but I do need to make one note. I dislike how often discussions like this come back to someone implicitly believing evidence only points in one direction. That's never the case, evidence points in the direction of anything that can be used to explain it. What matters more is the quality of that explanation. I'm unlikely to be pointing out controversial gaps, while my model does predict things that would be unexplained by the mainstream they are behind my current resources and capabilities to test so I won't be using them as evidence. I'm just more concerned with providing a better explanation. Opening preamble over. I want to begin with the fabric of space. I find its uniformity to be an unjustified assumption on the part of the mainstream; while the idea of 'curvature' is accepted, the notion of concentration if you will, or density, or even thickness goes unexplored. This is particularly strange to me because the notion of strict binaries in existence, of something either being there or not with no sense of degree, is absent anywhere else. Even the fundamental concept of existence is murky at the quantum level; it's all just probabilities that coalesce on a macro scale, but close examination tells a whole other story. There is the concept of a quantum, the smallest discrete amount of something, but close analysis of the properties of quanta demonstrate that they don't 'exist' in any way comparable to macro-scale objects. By the same token, the idea of space (also referred to as aether, both to harken back to Einstein's original term and to avoid confusion when I use the colloquial definition of space as just an area or volume. It is not luminiferous aether) to just be there, or to not be there, if always being there in any situation we're concerned with, feels scientifically untenable. Whether there is some quantum of aether, a basic building block, or if it is all the classical blanket of the analogy, there should be some concept of degree. In one place there can be more aether than there is in another. To visualise this, I like to use springs as an example. If you traverse a spring along the coils, from one end to another, the distance is always the same. However you can stretch that spring out, or compress it, or lay multiple compressed springs by the side of one stretched out; comparatively they appear to join the same point A with the same point B, but the actual distance between those points varies even if they both seem to be geodesic/straight lines. Aether/space could be 'stretched' or 'thinner,' a lower concentration, and it would thus take you less time to go from point A to point B than it would if you were in a higher concentration. The uniformity of spacetime is a postulate of relativity assumed for the sake of convenience, not scientific muster. Now I have no beef with relativity, it certainly works well enough given that any variation in aether density is negligible in the realms of normal human experience, but I do find this to be an assumption that lacks justification. Whew, ok, that's enough for now. I'll get back to this with more development, going into the consequences, and hopefully answering any questions/objections/omissions pointed out. This is not complete by any means, it's just getting long. If you want me to hurry up to practical applications I'll do so, just wanted to lay out the groundwork first.