Dual Earth Theory Overview

[JRowe]

This thread will outline the DET model. It has been updated based on input from readers, to hopefully render it clearer.

Start at the beginning, and progress. Please do not continue past the end of a section, if you do not understand that section. This is structured in such a way that everything follows what comes before. Reread the section, and consider, and think on it. Hopefully clarity will follow. If not, please use the clarification section to ask me. Guests without an account are welcome to post.
Then, I hope what follows will be clear.
The model won't make sense if you read ahead without first learning the basic, underpinning theory.

This will progress from defining aether, to explaining the subsequent structure of the Earth, the heavens, before concluding with the evidence.
The model will initially be based on logical deduction. Aether is, itself, a logical deduction about reality: the rest of the model is a conclusion drawn from what would necessarily follow. Once the model is explained, and established as reasonable (due to the logical deductions it relies upon), we can then examine the evidence. After all, evidence is meaningless if you do not know what it is evidence for.

Each section has summaries, and at the very end there are diagrams. These are not to be taken alone. They work only in conjunction with the outlined theory given in the posts. Further, some details are missing from each, whether for the sake of clarity or artistic ability.

Below this post, the outline of the model will begin.

[JRowe]

1. Aether.

The Theory of Relativity defines space to have a fabric. This is what aether relies upon. As Einstein once did, we choose the word 'aether' to define space. This is a mere definition: when referencing aether in outer space, for example, the terminology is much clearer.
Aether is also a term recognized in FET.

So there is no misunderstanding, we here define what space itself is. It is the measure of distance: to get from A to B, we move through space. If there is more space between A and B, there is more distance: if there is less, there is less distance.
It is established that this is more than a mere direction. The experiments that confirm relativity, such as Hafele-Keating, demonstrate this. It possesses certain properties. For example, if it is bent or curved, the flow of time is altered. Such bending is not relevant to DET, however: it merely illustrates that space is more then an abstract direction.

So far, nothing is new or invented.

Under DET, we simply append one more property. This comes from logical deduction.
In nature, we observe a universal tendency: things move from high concentration to low. We observe this in systems such as pressure, and diffusion. For an example, inflate a balloon: the high pressure of air within it rushes out to the lower outside. There is also the case of free expansion of a gas. An analogous principle holds for energy: all closed systems tend to equilibrium. (Closed system is a required caveat, and similar things are the case for multiple laws).
Now, we define what a law is. No law has been universally observed. For example, the second law of thermodynamics has not been examined or confirmed for every possible chemical reaction, in all places, at all times. There is no possible way that is ever happened: however, it is observed in enough systems, and it makes enough logical sense, that we assume it does indeed hold everywhere.
We simply do the same for aether. There is no reason to conclude that a universal law will not apply to one specific entity.
It is worth pointing out that much study has been done on entities that obey this law. Alan Turing, for example, proved in 1952 that diffusion doesn't necessarily lead to a totally evened out system. The result may seem counter-intuitive, but it has proven and known by the scientific community for decades. This fact will be useful later.

Thus, aether is now rigorously defined. There is no property beyond this. It is space, and it flows from high concentrations to low.

If you want to imagine a low concentration of space, think of it in terms of this analogy. A classical analogy in relativity is to imagine space as a blanket: under DET, imagine this blanket is composed of some stretchy fabric, such as woven elastic.
An object will be, say, the size of five adjacent lines of elastic. If you pinch and pull the fabric, the number of lines will not alter: however, when compared to another five lines of elastic, it is possible for an object to appear longer (by comparison) than another, same-sized object. This rarely happens in reality, but it is an easier way to think of how distance works.
For an important point of clarification, this analogy only goes so far, do not take it literally, merely as an illustration. A more direct visualization of aether would be a sea of coordinate points, but that is less intuitive.

That is all there is to aether. Something known to exist, with a known law applied to it. Remember this definition, and know and understand it fully. It is vital.

Summary

• Aether is defined to be the same as the fabric of space
• Aether flows from high concentrations to low (or, if you prefer, can be stretched thin but seeks even distribution)

[JRowe]

2. The Earth

All of this is a simple deduction from the properties of aether.
We make some necessary assumptions: this is always required for origin stories. For RET, what caused the matter for the Big Bang, and from where did the boom come? The unanswered questions for DET are analogues.
We suppose that a low concentration formed in aether, and we suppose that dust exists, scattered throughout space.

Given the well-defined nature of aether, we may follow what necessarily happen.
Aether would flow towards the low concentration. With it, dust would be carried as the space it exists in moves. Now, clearly, there is no viscosity to space: such a thing would be incoherent. (And on a semi-technical aside: space has no mass, and anything at a fixed point in space would have no acceleration or velocity even if the space itself moves. It's a more meaningful case of a reference frame; the object does not move, so no force is required). All that means is that there is no friction: there is nothing to damp the movement of space.
Further, there is nothing to limit the movement of space. That is, the low concentration wouldn't immediately even out, because aether wouldn't flow perfectly to remove any alteration in concentration. the next paragraph will be a lengthy analogy to illustrate this principle.

Imagine you have a box, with an open top. You slide a divider down the center, and fill each resulting section with water. The left will be filled almost to the brim, while the right has only the barest trickle inside.
If you lift the divider up just a crack, the water will even out slowly: there is resistance to the motion (the presence of the divider, limiting how much water can move).
If, instead, you rip the divider out all at once, quickly, you'll see the water will immediately rush together: and it will slosh, and cause waves. This is because more water than is necessary moves to fill the lower concentration. Of course, in this case, the waves eventually slow and fade due to friction, but the gist is clear.

The point is hopefully, therefore, simple to grasp. When the aether flows in, it will leave a low concentration in its wake. Once you recall that aether will be drawn to the low concentration in all three dimensions, the subsequent motion should be readily apparent. For a flattened depiction of the top half of the flow:

We see aether flowing down, to the low concentration. Then we see it flowing to the low concentration to the sides (that resulted from an earlier inwards flow), and flowing back up to fill the low concentration left by the initial descent. This repeats, over and over, for there is nothing to reduce the force. Further, it could continue more or less indefinitely, once the cycle is established.
In addition, some have asked about the possibility of a flow of aether moving away: this clearly could not happen, as there would be nothing to cause flow to go outside, when there is an established low concentration inside.

We seem to have forgotten about the dust. Let's include it, again, and consider how it will move. Clearly, it will be carried by the concentrations (as previously stated). We will have dust flowing towards the low concentration: it moves with the aether. As such, we will have two forces meeting, with a constant force pushing the dust together. We would end up with a flat disc (circular as a result of the concentration). In fact, what we end up with is in fact closer to two disks: while, at most points, there is no aether (distance) between the top and bottom, at the very center of the concentration there is a 'bubble' of aether, as it is the center where all of the aether flows towards.
The contents of this concentration of aether, within the Earth, will be covered in the next post.
Now, the DE model defines one disc to be what's called the northern hemisphere, and the other to by the southern. By convention I say the top is the northern hemiplane, and the bottom is the southern hemiplane. This addresses both the distinct existence of each pole (verifiable through travel and the midnight Sun), and the lack of any major distortion in travel times in each side of the world. There are other advantages, which we'll get to.

First of all, the obvious question to ask is: what happens at the equator?
This may seem odd at first glance, but if you understand the definition of aether, it is simple. Please refamiliarize yourself if you're lost. There is a low concentration of aether within the Earth: that is, there is no distance between the top, and the bottom. If you stand at the equator, a foot on the top and a foot on the bottom, there will be no distance dividing your body.
Nothing special happens at the equator. You can see one half from the other as light clearly moves through space: that's all that's needed. There is no new assumption, nor any abnormal behavior. This is all as the definition of aether predicts.



To explain the full path of the observer, recall that they simply travel the path laid out for them by aether. There is no distance to cross, but there is still a specific force acting on them. If you trace out the flow of aether, they will go in, and then out the other side, as well as curving (to right themselves) due to the upwards/downwards (depending on your perspective: skywards may be a better term) flow of aether on the far side.
Some have wondered why a person would turn. This is actually fairly simple to explain: anyone who would travel such a path, over no distance, could not change direction. They would have to travel in a perfectly smooth, infinitely differentiable path: if you try to, for example, trace out a path where they end up on their head, or backwards, you'd end up with sharp corners. This would be impossible. The easiest way to tell which path is feasible is to simply trace it out. Their initial direction cannot be ignored (so they must head to the other disc) and the flow of aether within the disc also cannot be ignored (so they must go to the far side), and the only smooth path which achieves this is the one I have described.

One may be curious about the inside of the Earth. As the low concentration, what happens to all the flow towards it? Well, as it turns out, there is a 'bubble' of a meaningful amount of aether right at the center. This will be covered in more detail in the next section. Above, below and around it, however, is the near-zero concentration mentioned above.

There are a few questions left to be addressed, so we to turn our gaze upwards. What happens when the flow of aether (just mentioned), moving up from the sides of the Earth, meet together? As happens in many such cases of forces meeting, the end result is circular motion. The term is aetheric whirlpool, adapted from a classical FET term. Indeed, there will be many such whirlpools, all caused when aether meets, all aligned over the poles, and all causing circular motion.
This motion is important. It explains the phenomenon of stars rotating around two distinct points in the sky, as well as more down-to-earth examples such as the Coriolis Force.
The higher you go, the more aether there will be around you, as you would be in the sum of the various whirlpools. This is why the rotational force increases with altitude, to the point that it can move stars. This will be further explained in the next section.

The last major question remaining is that of gravity. What keeps us on the Earth's surface?
This, too, follows from what is already stated. The aether flows down to the low concentration within the Earth, and as it does so, it will drag matter down with it. This includes us, and indeed anything on the Earth's surface. The downwards force caused by aether will not be constant, however. Beyond the rotational motion far above us, it will decrease with altitude: when you ascend past a whirlpool, there will be less aether above you to push down.
Also, it will increase when you get closer to the poles, as the poles are the 'focus,' of sorts, for the whirlpools. More aether meets closer to them, leading to a greater downwards force.
Note that the whirlpools do not rely on aether having friction, it is simply yet another instance of high concentrations moving to fill low. Flows from various directions meet, and as ever low concentrations are left in the wake, but now other flows are present to move around and fill the low concentration. This results in the circular motion.
While the Earth is approximately stationary as the forces acting on it are balanced, the disc will tilt just slightly, as the whirlpools rotate.

That, I hope, is the design of the Earth well explained. Next, the heavens will be covered, as well as related aspects.

Summary

• The overall layout of the Earth can be reflected in the horizontal axis, and features a downwards flow of aether which then turns up and moves inwards again, the upwards flow forming a kind of dome.
• If you move off the top right side of the disk, you cross the no-distance connecting it to the bottom left.
• Above the Earth, the flow of aether creates circular motion in 'whirlpools.'
• The aforementioned circular motion happens at the Earth's surface, and becomes more powerful the higher you go.

[JRowe]

3. The Heavens

There is only one other kind of entity in existence: stars. These form in the whirlpools, where dust is carried and forced together, until solid objects are formed. These objects will be rounded, a metal, denser core surrounded by rock, with the metal exposed. I hope it is clear how this would form: just note that the dust will be pushed together, until it is made to take on an actual shape:



When viewed from the side, you will just see rock. When viewed from beneath, you'll see metal.

Now, in the whirlpools, friction will act on these stars. This needs to be clarified, however. As I've said, the aether cannot exert friction: however, it does move the matter contained within it. As this matter shifts, it will rub against adjacent matter: this causes the friction. When acting on a star, this will cause the metal to begin to glow white-hot, while the rock remains dull. (Note that the heat required to melt rock can be twice that required to make metal incandescent). The end result will be a spotlight effect, where the star is visible while above you, but as its horizontal distance increases, it will wink out.

When you look into the night sky, it is these stars you see. They rotate in the whirlpools, at various altitudes, providing different patterns over each hemiplane.

Not all stars form completely, however. It will take time for enough dust to coalesce for an object to become solid, and much longer for it to gain the size or sturdiness required for a star. Any that slip out of a stable location (kept up by the upwards flow of aether) will end up caught in the downwards motion: they will fall to Earth. Some may be torn apart by the gap between whirlpools. These will become meteors: dull rock and metal falling from space.

Also, we must address the Sun, moon and what are called planets. All these entities are stars, by the DE model, but I'll use the RE names so my meaning is clearer. Ultimately, they are similar to classical stars, appearing as luminescent bodies in the sky. Indeed, when viewed from Earth there is a distinct visual similarity between stars and planets. When viewed with a telescope however, the appearance is different: and the sight of the Sun and moon is clearly also different.
The reason for this is down to location. The stars are above, while these alternative celestial bodies are below.
I will clarify this in a moment. First however, let's look to the interior of the Earth. Aether flows to it, from both sides, and the rotational motion will continue. This is the environment that stars are formed in; so it is fair to say that a star will form here. I hope the consequences of this are clear. It will produce geothermal energy: heat transmitted to beneath the Earth (focused in a more horizontal direction, as aether would be more focused in the vertical, meaning more distance for heat to travel). Also, as a spinning orb of metal, it will act as something akin to a dynamo, and produce the Earth's magnetic field.
These are the obvious consequences. However, just as importantly, we must take into account the effect of aether.

Aether will flow through the location of any stars that form in the center of the Earth. It will carry with it the light emanating from the lit face, up to a point in the dome-like shape of aether. Thus, we will see a projection of their image in the sky. Note that the Sun, as it is further inside the disc, will have its image appear very high up. You can see this more clearly in the diagrams, but if you want a simplified depiction, simply imagine the flows of aether as the surface of a hemisphere. Close to the Earth, you stay close to the inside of the Earth when you cross the equator. Higher up, you are further away. As high up as the Sun, and you are as close to the center as you can be.
This is one of the details of DET that may seem odd if you are used to thinking in terms of a different model. However, as is apparent when you examine everything already established, it makes perfect sense under DET. The stars within the Earth will be visible in the sky.

In the very center, we will have the Sun. The largest (at the core of the aetheric flow), which rotates. Its image will be projected to the top and bottom, and it will rotate on the spot due to the whirlpool. As it turns, the location we view it to be will vary, until it faces away from us: at that point, we will observe a sunset, as the non-illuminated rock faces the flow of aether that carries the sunlight. There will also be a slight variation in vertical inclination as the Earth tilts, varying with the time of the year. This causes the seasons, and acts as an analogue to the classical FE answer: the light of the Sun (and the stars) is sometimes more directed to the northern hemiplane, and sometimes more directed to the southern.
The planets too exist within the Earth, projected similarly as brightly lit orbs in the sky.
The moon is the final such entity. The same basic principles hold, though it doesn't exist in the center. Instead, it rotates around the Sun, as well as on its own access: hence the phases. As it rotates, it will have its image projected by the same flow of aether, to the top and bottom. Sometimes this will be a full moon, and sometimes less of the face will be visible.
Common belief is that the same face of the moon faces us at all times. this is an optical illusion: any notable features will still be visible on the tilted moon, so we will certainly observe some similarities. The moon is too far away for us to say anything more.
To quickly cover eclipses, it is clearly possible for the moon to, at some points, cross the lit face of the Sun: when it does so, and blocks the light, there will be a solar eclipse. A lunar eclipse occurs when the moon shines at a different angle, past the Sun: the increased distance meaning light will scatter.

Observations of the heavens have here been covered. This is certainly the trickiest part of the model to fully visualize, but so long as you remember the currents of aether, and the definition of a star, I hope this will remain clear.

A final related topic is spaceflight. As with classical FE models, it does not exist under DET. What needs to be emphasized however is that there is no flat Earth conspiracy: merely a space travel conspiracy.
When space travel first began, it was the Cold War. Russia and the US would have claimed anything for political advantage. They certainly attempted space travel, but would soon find it was impossible: this is what DET predicts. The higher concentrations of aether and the whirlpools at those altitudes would tear apart anything that tried, just as meteors are torn apart when caught between two whirlpools.
While space travel is impossible, the benefits of claiming it (at that time) were clearly very real. And at this point, no one wants to admit to being the first country to fail. So the conspiracy is naturally maintained, by the countries that try, fail, and refuse to admit it from pride.
The photos of a round Earth stem simply from images faked by people who assume the RE model is accurate. Since then, however, the RE model has been treated as unquestionable, because no one wishes to claim space travel is impossible.

Many classical FE answers will hold, on the matter of space travel. For example, satellites are simulated by stratellites: transmitters on entities that fly within the atmosphere. Dishes are aligned to point at a certain angle: and the straight line that is claimed to end at a satellite, instead ends at a much shorter distance. The satellites are simulated points: two dishes may be aligned to point at the same spot, but the transmitters themselves are much lower down, and there is more than one.

This should be the heavens under the DE model covered, and with them the last of the overview of the DE model. All that is left to be covered is evidence.
Please do check the FAQ, for the common questions that have no natural position in this overview. It is constantly under expansion, for when questions are asked.

Summary

• All celestial objects are a metal core surrounded by rock. The metal may be heated to shine by friction.
• Stars rotate in the whirlpools above us.
• The Sun and planets rotate in the whirlpool within the limited concentration inside the Earth, and are visible by the same flow that enables us to cross the equator.
• The Sun spins and so causes the Earth's magnetic field. Its location also allows it to cause geothermal energy.
• Space travel is not real.

[JRowe]

4. Evidence

This section will be more standalone, but some claims within it will not make sense unless you understand DET. Here, we will examine what evidence there is in favor of the DE model.

The obvious first question to ask is: what is evidence? The many discussions I've had on this have often ended up with the other party invoking a double standard, perhaps unwittingly. It is important to note that we should not have a bias towards any one model: we should ask ourselves only what is implied.
What is evidence? The first answer would be observation. Ultimately, this is what we rely upon: observing an event. Even experiments are no more than a special case of observation, setting things up in such a way to remove variables. Observation is what we rely upon: however, alone, it's not enough. You have to know what it is you're looking for evidence for.

Examples: if you see something vanish in the distance bottom-up, what is that evidence of? Well, it could mean that you're on a round Earth, or it could mean you're by a hill, or it could be down to perspective. There are multiple explanations, as is the case for everything. There is not one observation in the world that has only one explanation. Everything can be explained multiple ways. Even experiments may have multiple interpretations.
So observation alone would not seem to be enough. You have to have a model to compare those observations with.

Therefore, we have our definition of evidence: an observation that is in line with what a theory states.
That's all. If you disagree, or feel it seems inaccurate, you are welcome to consider. Can you think of any piece of evidence for anything not met by this definition? I have asked this question many times, I have never heard an answer, and the reason is simple: this is the only meaningful definition of scientific evidence.

Ultimately, this is all we need to establish. It is readily apparent, from what has already been given, that DET does indeed explain observations. That is, that what we observe is in line with what DET predicts. You may believe another model explains observations: this would not contradict that. The same observations may have multiple explanations: treat DET simply as an alternative.
If you wish to perform an experiment, then pick any. There is no need for me to be specific: this is a general rule, widely applicable. It is not vague, it is not elusive, it is a clear standard which you yourself can apply to more experiments than I can list. If the results of an experiment are in line with DET (as all are) then it qualifies as experimental evidence for DET, as we have established. This is the same standard to which all science is held.
We can go from the numerous experiments demonstrating gravity and its variations, to observations of the night sky and circumpolar stars, to travelling over the southern magnetic pole, to the midnight Sun... If an observation is answered by the DE model, there is your evidence.

So, there is a mountain of evidence in favor of DET. Of course, this would not be important if another model had a greater mountain: so we must ask the question. Why should DET be accepted over an alternative?

There are many ways to sort between competing models. The easiest is to see if one is contradicted by observation: and there are many proposed flaws with the likes of RET. However, they are open to debate, and so shouldn't be used as the foundation for a model. And, as has been shown over the course of this thread, DET successfully explains observations. If we assume another model may do the same, how do we sort between them?
Some might say this is a pointless task: two models that explain the same observations may as well be the same model. However, this is clearly not the case here, if we compare DET with RET. The sizes of each hemiplane will vary, the possibility of space travel will vary, and there are other alterations (which I'll get on to).
The best known tool for sorting between competing theories, such as this, is Occam's Razor. Before we apply it, we define it.

Occam's Razor is subject to a lot of misinterpretation. The simplification is "All else being equal, the simplest model should be preferred." However, this is clearly open to multiple interpretations. What is 'simplest?'
Occam's Razor relates to the number of assumptions made. DET relies on aether, and nothing else; everything follows from this definition, and so cannot be counted as a separate assumption. Does this mean DET contains one assumption, aether? No: because aether itself is defined as more than one entity.
Aether is defined as the fabric of space formed of concentrations (1) with a property appended (2). This is two assumptions: space being able to form concentrations, and space possessing this one property. All else about it is proven, either by Relativity or by definition.
Note, however, that the second assumption is acceptable by scientific standards. While we may not directly have observed the universal law in question be applied to space, this typically doesn't matter when it comes to laws. There are all manner of laws which have not and cannot be tested for all possible entities they apply to: if there is a logical basis however, and they appear consistent, we simply say the law is universally applicable. There is no law that has been confirmed for everything, but no one will call you a bad scientist for assuming, say, the laws of thermodynamics will hold for a new experiment.
What does all this leave us with?
DET is based upon one assumption, and one assumption alone: the idea of space being able to form concentrations.

Certainly, it's possible to talk a lot about this, and explain how it certainly seems a logically justifiable notion. For example, we can talk about how nothing in reality really serves as a binary: even existence is murky at the quantum level. We could talk about how everything we observe exists in some form of concentration, even less tangible entities.
There is a lot to make this assumption reasonable. If we want to be fully rigorous however, this should still be marked as an assumption.

To compare, we may look at just one aspect of the RE model: gravity.
The model states that this is due to mass bending space, and this bending causing an attractive force. Both of these statements are unjustified: relying solely on supposing what the model predicts, over any alternatives. This is what an assumption is, and so we are left with two assumptions in the RE model.
You may feel free to analyze alternative Earth-shape models similarly. There will inevitably be assumptions contained: and if there is more than one, unless your model contains an observation not addressed by DET, it should be rejected.

In conclusion, DET is preferred over RET and competing models.

As a final note, I'll bring up variations between DET and RET. There are experiments that can be performed in order to falsify DET: for, as every respectable model should be, it is falsifiable. It has, however, not yet been falsified. These experiments however may be used to provide further evidence in favor of DET, by predicting events that would not occur under RET.
The two simplest are as follows:

1. This is harder to test. Under DET, there will be friction in vacuum, exerted by the flow of aether (in the same way the stars are kept alight). If an object moves at a horizontal velocity in a vacuum generated on Earth, it should heat up despite the lack of any resistive force understood by the RE model.
While this is a distinct prediction, and could be used to demonstrate DET over a competing model, it isn't a particularly useful experiment as the frictional force is weak this close to the Earth's surface. While it is a valid experiment, it requires incredible sensitivity and, as such, would do a poor job of falsifying DET if it fails. Even so, it could function as evidence.
It is effective as a prediction, but harder to test.

2. This one is easier to test, and is based on the existence of the whirlpools above the Earth. These will affect both the refraction of light in the vertical direction, and the downwards force caused by gravity.
Vertical refraction will increase with altitude, due to peering through more air. Gravity will decrease with altitude: under DET, this is due to fewer whirlpools pushing down. It will be possible to verify that the alteration will occur discontinuously: instead of a smooth progression, we will observe jumps at the altitude of each whirlpool.
The test itself would be simple. If you have the means to measure refraction or gravity, and you can notice a change to several significant figures between ground level, and a set altitude, then if you slowly ascend, a jump in the amount of refraction or gravity should be visible.
This will be easier to test with gravity. The downwards force should remain more or less constant, except at the jumps.

These tests, while they have not yet been performed (due to my lack of resources) provide predictions made by DET, rendering it a model that may indeed be falsified. The fact it has not been falsified is a further strength. It also confirms DET is a distinct model.
Even so, independently of these tests, the evidence for DET previously given stands.

In conclusion, the DET model as explained works, and as it matches observations while relying on fewer assumptions than the RE model, it is scientifically preferred.

Summary

• Evidence is no more than an observation (including experiments) being in line with what a model predicts.
• Theories with equal evidence are compared by Occam's Razor: the theory relying on more assumptions is rejected.
• DET, a falsifiable theory that makes predictions about the world and the only fully functioning Alternative-Earth model, is scientifically preferred to RET.

[JRowe]

A basic sketch, to demonstrate the overall set-up, is:

[JRowe]

If you have further questions, please visit the FAQ here.

If your question is not answered, post it in the Q&A section and I'll respond.