this ontopic response in the other thread can go here too ...
tho it remains the question why at all to all such hype would be important, was indeed christian-zionism back then such hype, that needed also sci-fi boost!?, or maybe some expedition racketeering was in question so jewish bankers would be appeased!?
@Pelin, the post you're responding to here covers Orson Pratt's shell theorem objection, the Le Sage pushing-gravity tradition running from Fatio de Duillier through Lord Kelvin, Lamprecht's borehole gravitational constant anomalies, Cater's gravity-as-radiation model, and Harrigan's surface-attraction thesis. That is a specific physics discussion with named authors, cited works, and testable claims.
Your entire contribution to this thread is a link to your own post in another thread and the line "maybe some expedition racketeering was in question so jewish bankers would be appeased." You didn't address a single physics argument. Not the shell theorem. Not pushing gravity. Not the borehole data. Not a single one.
I've responded to your cross-posted material at length in the Culmer thread.
The short version: your sources are forum posts you wrote yourself, a YouTube comedian with no history credentials, and a man who claims to have been a vampire. If you wanna know about vampires, go watch some of Harry Hubbard's videos and read the Encyclopaedia Judaica. Seriously good shit there. But none of that touches the physics models @GeorgePlymale2 laid out here.
If you want to engage this thread, engage the physics. Pick an argument from the post and show where it breaks.
That's what this forum is for man!
physics models, that I dont even try to catch up 
about mainstreamers mechanistic cosmology I have completely derogatory stance, try grasp why [1] and while I do grasp the expanding earth theory as logical [2] still mormon sticking to some beneath earth roots even its plausible that cavern world exist due to logic of expanding earth theory yep gives extra space for questioning whole its posture as christian ferries heresy [2] here cant say exactly what is word actually, the claim is that mormons emerged from beneath'earth'exile later in usA, or should end up there!?, in whatever case, for me its kind of from hollow to empty creepy ancestral lineage chasing!, and why so would claim utmost ancient exceptionalism, resting on what visions, which by all logic rest on by dominionist 19 century splash [3][3] and which obviously consumed mormons too, only question is why himself JohnS didnt boosted extra that hollow earth narrative, or how actually he embraced dominionism himself, hm, I havent explored this second notion at all [4][5] altho there are many that will directly tie its emergence to freemasonry instead coz own dispensationalist hype ex-freemason reshifted an masonic temple and organizational structure in Christian Ethos, what could be as well logical, simply freemasonic sect where Christianity is main pivot instead the regular universalism, i.e. Jesus Christ superstar meme in specific circumstances [6][6][6] "Smith was claimed to have stated that Mormonism had "true Masonry"; other leaders like Brigham Young said Masonic rituals were an "apostate endowment" corrupted from the rites given in Solomon's Temple that Smith had restored to its original form." [6] so to all the earlier solomons spin projections, later to pop up additional hollow earth spins as back up, tell me isnt that personality cult hype in this case, actually many examples around the world [7] that once JosephS got removed made martyr from him and that motivation for cult survival, not that I imply he would become mass murderer anyhow, but the point is the power of hijack that can fool people even on mass suicide, altho to me, looks like freemasonic infiltration with other aims, maybe experiment went wrong and drift away, or everything was intentionally rolled like that [7]
eh, I was assuming there is some interesting story, but not that the main story is from some hieroglyphic translation of the kindhook plates, from which actually came the supposed story about the lost tribes ... hm, didnt know that the obsession of smiths with gold plates is coz they were consumed by the gold rush too, so built narrative that would be appealing story for [itching ride or recruiting diggers!?, evident by the two most hyped ideas of mormonism, whether for kindhook'plates or mormon'book'plates [5][5][5] isnt obvious the repeating forgery pattern, actually someones visions used as new christian personal cult, to which hooked others, regular trap in all ages, eg. here in balkans such spin were bogomils which as paulicians tried to spin own Christianity [6][6-9][6] there was secret book tho, but the same couldnt survive the atmospheric hardships!
@Pelin, I've answered the substance of these two posts at length in the Culmer thread - the Kinderhook plates conflation, the Joseph Smith Sr./Jr. confusion, the Schnoebelen vampire problem, the "clicking vortex" sourcing method, all of it. I won't repeat it all here, so folks can read it there if they want the full accounting.
What I will address here is what's specific to this thread.
You just said - in a physics thread, in response to a post about the shell theorem, Le Sage pushing gravity, Lamprecht's borehole data, and Cater's radiation model:
"physics models, that I dont even try to catch up :D"
Then you wrote over 500 words anyway. 
That's the whole problem in one sentence, @Pelin. You've told us you won't engage the physics, you've told us you've never studied LDS teachings, and your source authorities are a YouTube comedian and a self-described vampire.
And yet you keep posting walls of text across every thread @GeorgePlymale2 opens, none of which touch a single claim in a single post of his.
At what point does this stop being disagreement and start being disruption? @admins please think about this situation... Something smells really bad in Denmark.
Because from where I'm sitting, a man who openly admits he can't engage the subject matter but keeps carpet-bombing the threads with unrelated material is not participating in a conversation. He's preventing one from happening.
The expanding earth mention is the closest you've come to anything physics-adjacent in this entire exchange, and you didn't develop it - you just name-dropped it and moved on to Freemasonry. @sidharthabahadur has been interested in that topic and referred us to it off and on. If you actually want to argue that an expanding earth model contradicts or subsumes the hollow earth models laid out in this post, that would be a real contribution.
Do the work. Show how expanding earth mechanics interact with Pratt's shell theorem objection. Explain what happens to Lamprecht's borehole anomalies under that framework.
That's the thread you're in. That's the conversation that's on the table.
Everything else you've posted here belongs in a theology forum, not a physics thread.
eh, so much words in one post trying to project mine ignorance, while You've become more than obviously the ignorant, hm, did You grasp my point about physics in the 4th post, try again, what would be doable if take Your time to check in its 1st footnote context, try again [1][1] that all those go under mechanistic cosmology hype of newton which tilting in cartesian grip and atomism brought wrong mainstream physics, as then so as later to it balooned QM and GR!, probably now I am more clear 
altho if You continue throwing such logic then we have basic paradigm physics mismatch point of view, i.e. I see expanding earth theory through Aether Field Logic not mechanistic cosmology [2][3] so completely different physics ... so do take Your time
now, think when I brought the plates arguments in the 5th post above, think whatever further exploration of mine on this topic is complete waste of time!, physics, even by mechanistic cosmology will be utmost futile so would explain existence of lost tribes beneath earth, i.e. by whichever physics You'll go its obvious that the story is that story, so the lost tribes are just tilting on some bookshelves and nowhere else ... or!?
@Pelin, now this is getting interesting because you just played yourself and I don't think you realize it.
You're telling me the physics in this post fails because it rests on "mechanistic cosmology" - Newtonian frameworks that you reject in favor of "Aether Field Logic."
Do you know what Le Sage pushing gravity is? It's an aether-based model. The pushing-gravity tradition that @GeorgePlymale2 documented - Fatio de Duillier, Le Sage, Lord Kelvin - posits a medium filling space whose pressure differentials produce gravitational effects. That is aether physics. Cater's gravity-as-radiation model posits gravity as something produced and screened by matter rather than a property of mass - that's also an aether-compatible framework. Lamprecht's borehole anomalies are empirical measurements that don't care what your theoretical framework is - the data says what the data says regardless of whether you interpret it through Newton or through aether field dynamics.
You just rejected the physics in this thread on aether grounds when several of the models presented ARE aether-based.
You would know that if you had read the post. You didn't, so you assumed it was all mainstream Newtonian mechanics and dismissed it. This is what happens when you argue against things you haven't read.
On the Zelensky comparison - yes, I know where you're going with "comedian cant be certain factor after the ukrainian war." Zelensky being a comedian who became a wartime president doesn't retroactively make every comedian an authority on whatever they talk about. But Zelensky, you know, is a puppet for the actual Deep State. Zelensky is shit and his own people don't like him. I've spoken with enough Ukrainians to know they hate that comedian dick-tater.
Jay Dyer's comedy career doesn't give him standing as an LDS historian any more than Zelensky's comedy career made him a military strategist. The comparison proves nothing except that you needed something clever and reached for the nearest thing on the shelf.
And now you're saying "whatever further exploration of mine on this topic is complete waste of time" and "the lost tribes are just tilting on some bookshelves and nowhere else."
So after multiple posts across three threads, your concluding position is that you're done exploring because you've decided it's settled - based on the Kinderhook plates, which as I explained in the Culmer thread have nothing to do with the hollow earth lost tribes teaching documented in this series.
You're declaring the investigation closed based on evidence that doesn't apply to the question. 
Your forum search links to your own posts on GizaDeathStar are not sources. They're searches of your own prior writing. We've been through this.
The offer still stands. Pick one physics model from @GeorgePlymale2's post. Engage it on aether terms if you want - that would actually be a productive conversation since several of these models live in that space. But "I reject mechanistic cosmology therefore none of this matters" doesn't work when the models aren't mechanistic.
Read the post, @Pelin.
bending arguments will not make point, I am not linking myself, again, I give directions to links in those posts on GDS ...
about the physics exactly I assume, its era of mechanistic cosmology, so I havent bother with it!, yet You dont read me again, the mechanistic cosmology brought problem especially as locked in cartesian grid system!, so eg. ...
Fatio de Duillier created a mechanical corpuscular theory of gravity in 1690 that used atomistic principles to explain Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation [1][1]
Kelvin embraced aether but sadly through cartesian mechanistic cosmology [3][3]
so now, canDance who played himself, maybe mormons coz You rush jump and roll to conclusion again for me, as I've pointed coz the shallow logic about the basic tribal vision hype, which is derived as is derived, among other by some enthusiast sailor to the north pole, for me its enough argument not to bother about, now this too, what else ... I am exhausted by this empty yet rude dribble of Yours, so cantDance anymore on this topic ...
Please Feel Free to ignore me on this topic, it would be less annoying for reading coz obviously as mormon You are ultra biased, and whatever I'll bring as claim, You will try to unlist it, as I can see in the other thread even with ridiculous meme, why such urge to negate something even in vain, do try examine neatly mine propositions if care what I claim!
@Pelin, I'll give you this much - you finally looked at the physics. That's more than you did in your first five posts combined. But you've made an error in your reading.
Yes, Fatio's original 1690 formulation was corpuscular, and Le Sage followed in that mechanical tradition. Noted. But the pushing-gravity concept itself - external pressure producing gravitational effects rather than mass-to-mass attraction - is framework-independent. You can run that through a superfluid dynamic aether just as easily as through Le Sage's mechanical corpuscles. The mechanism changes, the structural principle doesn't. That's what makes it useful across paradigms.
And you still haven't touched Lamprecht's borehole data, which is empirical measurement. Gravitational constant readings from deep mines coming in above laboratory values doesn't care whether you frame it in Cartesian mechanics or aether field theory. The numbers are the numbers. Engage those or don't, but you can't dismiss measurements by complaining about the philosophy of the people who interpreted them.
That said - you've now told me "I give up" in two separate threads and asked me to ignore you. But one final note:
This is the fourth time you've speculated about my religious background. Four times. Not once has it produced an argument. Whatever I am or am not doesn't put a single word into the Deseret News or take a single page out of Culmer's treatise. You keep reaching for that card because it's easier than reading the sources. It always has been.
@GeorgePlymale2's work stands where it stood before you arrived. Untouched.
in this case also, why I would run around the sails when the hull is carried away!?, simply mainstream physics (at least for me) is obsolete alchemy, so to use it anyhow as argument that would be obsolete argument, and thats why I didnt bother, but I've propose other possible way around through expanding earth theory seen from aether field perspective, yet even seen like that the very basic premise for lost tribes seen in vision, in time of similar hype in occult alchemical west, which on top is secured as deciphered info from some supposed gold kinderhook plates, aside that all folklore hype then was exactly such in usA, an fantastic esoteric juggling that brings exceptionalism, blame it on freemasonry&co, so combined in explosive Christian trance, such mythos became as we could se genealogical truth for mormons, what by all means is wrong to kept alive even nowadays, tho guess such hook secure exceptionalism which is utmost needed grip coz from Christian theological aspect the rest more than probably is huge issue stack in apostasy!
@Pelin, I've already answered every point in this reply across our previous exchanges and I'm not going to run the same laps again. Your horse is dead and you let it die of thirst while running laps.
The Kinderhook plates have nothing to do with the hollow earth lost tribes teaching. Answered.
"Mainstream physics is obsolete" doesn't apply when the models in the post are aether-based. Answered.
The hull metaphor doesn't work when you haven't put a hole in a single source. Answered.
You're restating claims that have already been addressed as if the responses never happened.
That's not debate, that's a loop - and you're dragging a dead horse around it.
@GeorgePlymale2's sources remain uncontested. I'll leave it there unless you want to actually engage.
claims who simply You dont want to grasp my points, or tend to evade them by spins, 1. the physic around and about is fiasco, 2. the plates point to fakery pattern, add to that their kind of special hieroglyphic deciphering, 3. JosephS manufactured utmost unique christian heresy and by itself generated further and further various other spins like the lost'tribe'hype, denying such reality is possible only by blind followers not ready to learn and compare their knowhow to the True Theological Tradition of the Early Christian Church, is it possible all those Holy Apostles from antiquity or Holy Prophets from bronze age to be wrong, noone from them pointed to such prophet like JosephS, aside that Jesus Christ Himself said be careful many will try to change the Word but not even slightly will be changed, and mormonism yep it changed The Holy Bible teaching pretty much, adding new prophet after that is on level of instant apostasy for whatever Christians ... yes maybe its better the theological arguments to be left for JayD yt channel so would not push the thread in extra offtopic chitchat, so the ship would not sink faster than it should, we need to leave place for lifeboats helping around ...
@Pelin, you just numbered three points. Let me number the answers you've already received:
The physics "fiasco" - these are aether-based models. Aether physics is mechanistic by nature. You endorse aether. You're rejecting your own framework because you don't recognize it when someone else presents it. Answered twice.
The plates - the Kinderhook plates have zero connection to the hollow earth lost tribes teaching. Different topic, different sources, different decade. The teaching documented in this series comes from D&C 133, 2 Esdras, and George Reynolds. You are refuting an argument nobody made. Answered twice.
JosephS manufactured heresy - that's a theological opinion and is 100% false if you study history and religion to any degree beyond listening to provacateurs. It's not a response to dated newspaper articles, published treatises, and documented belief transmission among named historical individuals. @GeorgePlymale2 isn't asking you to become a Mormon. He's documenting what specific people believed and when. You don't have to agree with the belief to engage with the evidence that people held it.
And "go watch Jay Dyer" is still not an argument you're making. Jay Dyer is full of shit and I've shown you why. It's an argument you're pointing at from across the room and you have done no work on your own except listening to an idiot.
Three claims. Three answers. Same ones as last time.
2. obviously You dont see the pattern!?, "The "Ham" Connection: According to the journal of Smith's secretary, William Clayton, Joseph Smith looked at the plates and stated they contained the history of the person with whom they were found, who was "a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt"" [2][2]
4. altho first I've used JayD like quick mormon debunking argument, now there is bonus, I am proposing him also as safety solution for those that will drop their mormon vibe, not so would come down gently, but to raise up as in True Christian Tradition, simply I dont see mormons as nonchristians but Christians trapped in apostasy due to denominational errors that appeared in their own time, tho once someone wake up, surely need some safe harbor ...
This conflict here is ending now. If things don't become civil, we are likely going to lock and/or delete this thread and similar threads.
@Pelin If you want to debate religion, we will consider allowing this specific subcategory for such debates, but most of what you have brought to threads so far has not offered actual value to the discussions and is both difficult to understand and disconnected from the threads you are posting in.
Moreover, a number of your remarks contain what appear to be endorsements of bigotry and discriminatory remarks towards a number of groups. This is not allowed on our forum, per forum rules. This is an official warning. Keep your remarks civil, or risk further actions to be taken.
At this point, most interactions that you are making @Pelin are easily seen as pollution to the topics. You have hijacked several threads that were made in good faith about historical topics, which were not inviting this kind of polemical back-and-forth. Hijacking threads to transform them a platform for one's personal, ideological soapbox is also against forum rules.
@Western0bserver The same warnings apply to you as well. I have not examined all of the numerous posts across the recent debate threads here, but you are to refrain from insults and any similar conduct as noted above. I have not detected such in what I've seen thus far, but I have not read every new post here thoroughly.
@Pelin, I'll keep this civil per @admin's request and address your numbered points one last time.
You're saying aether field theory is not mechanistic. A physical medium with physical properties producing physical effects through pressure, flow, and density variation is a mechanical process. That is what the word means. "Mechanistic" doesn't mean "Newtonian" and it does not mean "Cartesian." It means explanations grounded in physical mechanisms rather than purely mathematical abstractions. Aether physics is mechanistic by definition. If your version of aether has no physical properties and produces no physical effects, it isn't physics - it's metaphysics.
The Kinderhook plates and Joseph Smith's comment about Ham. Yes, that happened. It's documented. The LDS Church itself has acknowledged the plates were a hoax. But this has nothing to do with the hollow earth lost tribes teaching. The teaching @GeorgePlymale2 is documenting comes from D&C 133, 2 Esdras, George Reynolds, Willard Richards, and Frederick Culmer. None of those sources reference the Kinderhook plates. You're pointing at one acknowledged problem in early LDS history and asserting it invalidates a completely separate line of documented belief with completely separate sources. That's guilt by association, not source analysis.
You're welcome to believe the lost tribes teaching is wrong. Nobody in this exchange has asked you to believe it's right. The question was never "is the hollow earth real." The question is "did these specific 19th century individuals hold and publish this belief, and can the transmission be documented." @GeorgePlymale2 has answered that question with sources. You haven't contested a single one.
and 5. are theological counsel for Mormons. That's your prerogative, but it isn't a response to historical documentation, and per the admin's guidance this thread probably isn't the place for it.
I think we've both said everything we have to say on this.
why last time ... it can be time that lasts maybe You've said, I can tho push the flow further, especially coz now there is ontopic space for various digressions around mormonism that could be helpful as I've said in the other ontopic thread response [1] for removing the mormon hollow'earth'hype as argument coz it can be misused easily for gaslighting about whatever provable HE model ...
... as I've pointed that aether physics model is wrong, yes coz newton actually was standardized finally mechanistic cosmology ... here is the OP where we've come from actually so would be clearer ...
the plate hoax points to the JosephS character, spiritual con artist and that more than enough clue that using mormon lost'tribe'hype is wrong HE argument ... what do You think moon landing footage is guilt by association or prove that nasa something hides [2] in his case he didnt hide nothing but inventing many things, also later the elites in lds followed similar inertia, so using anyhow mormon hype would be wrong for HE community here on MR ...
now, we can continue debating the physics in the original OP, just have patience if dont respond instantly coz have some work around the house, after that I'll try with all my lowliness to engage in exploration and explanation of those by mine logic wrong AFT models ...
Stepping in on one point here, because there's a conflation running through this exchange that will keep generating confusion until it's separated out.
The aether that Michelson-Morley tested and that the twentieth century discarded (carte blanche - which was the completely wrong move since a dynamic aether is the correct model and is superior to the Standard Model and the Einsteinian great deception) was the luminiferous aether. Static, mechanically rigid, effectively a solid-state medium that transverse light waves propagated through, with the earth translating against a fixed absolute frame. That model carried specific commitments: a stationary reference frame, no entrainment, rigidity sufficient to support transverse wave propagation at c, and a fringe shift that scaled with orbital velocity in a straightforwardly predictable way. It had real internal problems independent of any experiment - the rigidity required for transverse propagation at that speed was difficult to reconcile with the transparency required for planetary motion through it. Those tensions were known before 1887.
A superfluid dynamic aether shares almost none of those commitments and was proven out successfully by Dayton Miller's valiant efforts in proceeding how Michelson and Morley should have done and had promised to do initially.
Zero viscosity rather than rigidity. Quantized circulation rather than continuous shear. Entrainment and boundary-layer behavior near massive bodies rather than an undisturbed static frame. Gravity as pressure differential in the medium rather than curvature of a geometric manifold or attraction across a void. Particle structure as vortex-knot topology - stable, quantized, topologically protected configurations in the flow - rather than point masses moving through a background. Propagation velocity as a function of local medium state and density rather than an absolute invariant.
Every failure mode of the luminiferous model traces back to a property the superfluid model does not have. Rejecting the second on the strength of what happened to the first is a category error, and it's the single most common error made in these discussions - by mainstream physicists dismissing aether work and by aether proponents dismissing each other alike.
On Michelson-Morley specifically: a partially entrained medium predicts a substantially reduced fringe displacement, not a null result, and the original 1887 apparatus did register displacement above its stated noise floor (so it was NOT null). Miller's subsequent work at Mount Wilson, running across years and thousands of turns of the interferometer, produced systematic non-null results with seasonal and sidereal periodicity - the signature you would expect from a real physical signal rather than thermal drift. Shankland's 1955 thermal-gradient explanation is the standard response, and it has never adequately accounted for the sidereal periodicity in the data. Frankly Shankland was a sham and there's robust evidence that he was both deceptive and wrong.
On the specific matter of pushing gravity and hollow shells: the screening geometry is what does the work, and screening is mechanism-agnostic. Whether the flux is corpuscular or a pressure gradient in a continuous medium, what determines interior weight is the differential attenuation across the shell. Fatio's and Le Sage's corpuscular formulation is a period-specific implementation of a structural principle that ports directly into continuum fluid dynamics. Discarding the principle because you object to the implementation discards the wrong thing.
Where the interesting objection actually lives is in the screening coefficient and the thermal problem - Le Sage-type models have historically had difficulty with drag and with waste heat deposition. Those are real constraints worth arguing about. A superfluid treatment addresses the drag problem directly, since zero viscosity is the defining property of the medium, but the energy accounting maybe still needs work.
The borehole anomaly data stands separately from all of this. Anomalous gravitational constant measurements at depth are empirical. There are gravitational anomalies are all over the planet. Whatever framework ultimately explains them, they need explaining and aether models are going to be the path forward from here.
this logic above is worthy for new thread ... my take is that the issue asks for complete rewriting of the physics constants, i.e. pivot to be fluid aether and to/for it to be acclimatized all the rest axioms and theorems along constants and laws ...
not that I claim utmost certainty that mine g.a.i. sessions about AFT and to it later expanded AFT+ and AFT++ theory [3-7][4] as fluid dynamic aether are final explanation for reality, surely even of were correct reasoning asks for fine tuning by dedicated physicist along engineers who will brought specific spectroscopes for measurement, coz I am not such by any means, actually half literate scientific buff, tho on some level as Nikola Tesla was, i.e. can grasp many things but go postulate it, luckily now an advanced calculator like g.a.i. brought interesting check&ballance to mine logicism, so coz I saw few things that completely fit the whole reality I am aware about (as materially so as spiritually), think potentially this would be interesting alternative theory as soberness mirror to the mainstreamers fallacies, what if indeed became case, and mainstream physics put joint effort in reexamining AFT through such lens, probably we will reach extra effective and clear Aether Model ... tho, as could be seen from the last archived sessions in the 4th footnote, "someone" has incentive to secure even more gate keeping coz in question are many currently fixed variables in its political economical and social levers, the fear is always greater pivot for elites than chances for abundance of knowledge, simply the current legacy model secures "someones" position to act like pharaohs above totally owned slaves&serfs, why would leave free flow of knowledge that could free up all of them, aside that for anathemago its easier to hijack few among "those" elites and through "dem" later to play us all as Christians than to loose such ace, thus hope for the most good but in same time expect the most evil to unravel, logically from "deir" fears, altho "dei" are already rolling inertia towards hot phase of ww3 so its possible many to evade "deir" traps and wake up, pushing extra AFT exploration effort even "deir" mainstream scientific'gate'keeping is boosted till extremes, will see!
@Pelin, the physics side has been covered by someone who knows that terrain better than I do, so I'll stay in my lane and stick to the historical record. Because the account you gave has Newton's position exactly backwards, and that error runs through everything you built on top of it.
Newton did not standardize mechanistic cosmology. He explicitly refused to supply a mechanism at all.
In the General Scholium appended to the second edition of the Principia in 1713, Newton wrote that he had not been able to discover the cause of gravity from the phenomena, and "hypotheses non fingo" - I frame no hypotheses. He said plainly that hypotheses, whether metaphysical, physical, based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. He gave the mathematical law and stopped there. He declined to say what gravity is or how it propagates.
And here's the part that matters for your argument: Newton wrote that passage specifically in reaction against Descartes' and Huygens' vortex theories - the Cartesian mechanical aether. His contemporaries went after him for it. Leibniz accused him of dragging occult qualities back into natural philosophy precisely because Newtonian gravity had no mechanical cause behind it. The Cartesians were on one side. Newton was on the other.
So when you write "Newton actually was standardized finally mechanistic cosmology," you have the dispute upside down. Newton was the target of the mechanists, not their standard-bearer.
Fatio and Le Sage were fixing Newton's gap, not extending his framework.
Fatio's 1690 work and Le Sage's later development were attempts to supply the physical mechanism Newton had refused to give. They were answering the same objection Leibniz raised. They stand on the opposite side of Newton from where you've placed them. That's the whole reason the pushing-gravity tradition exists in the first place - it was the mechanical answer to a mathematical law that had no mechanism behind it.
Kelvin unified atomism and aether. He didn't oppose them.
You wrote that "mechanistic cosmology is tied to atomism not aether as workable." But you named Kelvin yourself in your own list. In 1867 Kelvin proposed the vortex atom - atoms as knotted vortex rings in a perfect fluid, which is to say, in the aether. He built matter itself out of aether dynamics, working from Helmholtz's theorems on vortex motion and Tait's smoke ring experiments.
Atomism and aether weren't rival camps the way you're describing. Kelvin's atoms were aether structures.
And the aether wasn't set aside for the reasons you give.
You say it was rejected because its dynamics in a Cartesian closed system came out chaotic rather than fluid, and atomism was enacted in its place. That's not what happened. The aether fell out of mainstream favor after Michelson-Morley in 1887 and then decisively after Einstein's 1905 paper made it dispensable for electrodynamics. Atomism was independently confirmed in that same window by Einstein's Brownian motion work and Perrin's experiments a few years later. Two separate developments with two separate causes. Neither one is the story you're telling.
So here's where that leaves your argument.
Your objection to @GeorgePlymale2's post was that these models are mechanistic Cartesian holdovers and therefore not worth engaging. Every load-bearing piece of that objection turns out to be historically backwards. Newton wasn't a mechanist. Fatio and Le Sage weren't Newtonians. Kelvin didn't oppose aether to atomism - he made one out of the other. And the aether's fall from favor had nothing to do with the mechanism you named.
You dismissed a post based on a history that didn't happen.
Which brings us right back around to where this started. You didn't read the post, you pattern-matched it to a label, and the label was wrong. Same as with the Kinderhook plates. Same as with Schnoebelen. Same as with Jay Dyer.