Post by JRowe on Dec 11, 2015 19:47:13 GMT
This post will be kept updated as more questions are asked. Ask in the Q&A forum, and if it as obvious oversight, I will add an answer here.
Can you explain tides?
Tides are caused by the motion of whirlpools. As the name whirlpool would suggest, they would not be uniform: at some points, there would be a greater concentration. This in turn means the downwards force is greater. Clearly, this would result in tidal motion: at some points the water is pushed down with more force, thus forcing more sea water to other points in the ocean.
These whirlpools also cause the movement of the moon, hence the correlation. However, correlation does not always imply causation: there is simply a common cause in this case.
Can you explain earthquakes?
The basic cause is well-understood, and constant. the primary question is how the waves are transmitted through the Earth: this is clear. Certainly, there are some gaps within the Earth, which would dampen some waves, but other waves may still be transmitted. As aether is not always present within the Earth, there are many points the waves can simply be transmitted from one side to the other.
Why is the Earth flat?
From how the world was created, flow towards a low concentration, this concentration would need to be a perfect sphere for the flow of aether to remain level and equal. This is unlikely to the point of absurdity. Even independent of observation (which is, at best, ambiguous: there is no observation that claims to prove RET, that cannot be explained under FET or DET) the slightest peturbation in a spherical low concentration would result in the flow of aether condensing it. While aether certainly moves in a cyclical pattern now, it did not always do so: the low concentration had to begin to exist.
The increased flow along whichever sides were longer would have resulted in a flattening.
Why should I accept DET over any alternatives?
Not only does it rely on fewer assumptions to explain all observations (setting it above RET and classical FET models), but it remains unrefuted and, ultimately, unaddressed. When presented, the model is met with mocking, but there is rarely any attempt to actually address the model, and more often than not those attempts are addressed in the model itself.
If you disagree, and believe you can refute the model, you are encouraged to do so. I do not object to disagreement, only dishonesty.
How do you explain the fact ships seem to sink on the horizon?
This is simply to do with the downwards flow of aether. Light can be modelled as travelling in straight lines. However, when the space these lines move in shifts, the light itself will. Relative to aether, the movement is still straight (and so the image will appear to be viewed head-on), but there is a downwards curve. The light from the sea has to go up to reach your eyes. From a ship, however, the light from the lower part of the ship will, over long distances, be drawn down into the sea. The higher part of the ship has much further to go before it would be rendered unseen, and so can be viewed slowly descending into the sea.
This also explains how altitude allows you to see more: at a high point, you're seeing the light waves that went higher. There's less obstruction.
How can you say that your model is simpler?
There is a difference between complicated and complex. In the relevant definition of Occam's Razor, complexity is determined by how many assumptions are made, not how hard something is to understand. Most science is complicated, that doesn't necessarily translate to complex. DET seems hard at first glance, and no doubt odd, just because it's new. Once you understand the definition of aether, however (which is itself simple), and see how naturally the idea follows once you accept that it's a departure from the RE model, most of DET is very clear. Know the definition of aether, that's the most important thing I can say.
Can you explain tides?
Tides are caused by the motion of whirlpools. As the name whirlpool would suggest, they would not be uniform: at some points, there would be a greater concentration. This in turn means the downwards force is greater. Clearly, this would result in tidal motion: at some points the water is pushed down with more force, thus forcing more sea water to other points in the ocean.
These whirlpools also cause the movement of the moon, hence the correlation. However, correlation does not always imply causation: there is simply a common cause in this case.
Can you explain earthquakes?
The basic cause is well-understood, and constant. the primary question is how the waves are transmitted through the Earth: this is clear. Certainly, there are some gaps within the Earth, which would dampen some waves, but other waves may still be transmitted. As aether is not always present within the Earth, there are many points the waves can simply be transmitted from one side to the other.
Why is the Earth flat?
From how the world was created, flow towards a low concentration, this concentration would need to be a perfect sphere for the flow of aether to remain level and equal. This is unlikely to the point of absurdity. Even independent of observation (which is, at best, ambiguous: there is no observation that claims to prove RET, that cannot be explained under FET or DET) the slightest peturbation in a spherical low concentration would result in the flow of aether condensing it. While aether certainly moves in a cyclical pattern now, it did not always do so: the low concentration had to begin to exist.
The increased flow along whichever sides were longer would have resulted in a flattening.
Why should I accept DET over any alternatives?
Not only does it rely on fewer assumptions to explain all observations (setting it above RET and classical FET models), but it remains unrefuted and, ultimately, unaddressed. When presented, the model is met with mocking, but there is rarely any attempt to actually address the model, and more often than not those attempts are addressed in the model itself.
If you disagree, and believe you can refute the model, you are encouraged to do so. I do not object to disagreement, only dishonesty.
How do you explain the fact ships seem to sink on the horizon?
This is simply to do with the downwards flow of aether. Light can be modelled as travelling in straight lines. However, when the space these lines move in shifts, the light itself will. Relative to aether, the movement is still straight (and so the image will appear to be viewed head-on), but there is a downwards curve. The light from the sea has to go up to reach your eyes. From a ship, however, the light from the lower part of the ship will, over long distances, be drawn down into the sea. The higher part of the ship has much further to go before it would be rendered unseen, and so can be viewed slowly descending into the sea.
This also explains how altitude allows you to see more: at a high point, you're seeing the light waves that went higher. There's less obstruction.
How can you say that your model is simpler?
There is a difference between complicated and complex. In the relevant definition of Occam's Razor, complexity is determined by how many assumptions are made, not how hard something is to understand. Most science is complicated, that doesn't necessarily translate to complex. DET seems hard at first glance, and no doubt odd, just because it's new. Once you understand the definition of aether, however (which is itself simple), and see how naturally the idea follows once you accept that it's a departure from the RE model, most of DET is very clear. Know the definition of aether, that's the most important thing I can say.