The model is all that matters...

Oh yes, if earth is constantly accelerating, it will reach the speed of light, which would limit it.

Constantly accelerating relative to what?
Reaching the speed of light relative to what?

If it is (somehow) finally approached, time would effectively stop for all people.

And this is the big issue.
This time dilation means proper acceleration is different to acceleration for an outside observer.

So you can have a constant proper acceleration, while an outside observer sees the rate of acceleration decrease as the object approaches the speed of light.
This constant proper acceleration requires a constant energy input (assuming mass remains constant).

If you read your source you would know it isn't as simple as you make it:

Our Newtonian model is okay for nearly a year of acceleration and after that relativity wrecks this nice parabola:

Bullet trajectories is small fry. Let's go for the big prize: long range artillery ballistics.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817 (introduction)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069 (FE and RE formulas)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2106204#msg2106204 (conclusions)

I am the only FE who has ever dared to address the long distance artillery topic, no one else had been able to explain this within FET.

So explain to us why the corrections needed for the Coriolis effect are counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere, when firing long range shells in any direction that has a northern vector component? Please.

Quote from: sandokhan on March 07, 2024, 02:15:29 PM

Bullet trajectories is small fry. Let's go for the big prize: long range artillery ballistics.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817 (introduction)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069 (FE and RE formulas)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2106204#msg2106204 (conclusions)

I am the only FE who has ever dared to address the long distance artillery topic, no one else had been able to explain this within FET.

So explain to us why the corrections needed for the Coriolis effect are counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere, when firing long range shells in any direction that has a northern vector component? Please.

Sandhokan. You can't. Why?, Because no such behavior is evident on a rotating plane. There will be a Coriolis effect, but it will be counterclockwise from all positions if your shell id directed in any notherly direction.

Now perhaps you can also explain how gravity works in the FE universe, in simple English, as not all us are super geniuses like you.
BTW, you are correct. There is no working quantum theory for gravity. Loop Quantum Gravity is close, but no cigar. Many physicists are beginning to think gravity is not quantum in nature, but a macro property of space-time.
But it doesn't matter, gravity works just fine with or without a working theory.
So in simple words, explain what holds the water to your FE?

Oh yes, if earth is constantly accelerating, it will  reach the speed of light.

Well, no you will never reach the speed of light. Time won't stop. You just put more and energy increasing your mass and slowing time relative to some observer in a different frame of reference.
The real question is: What is providing this constant acceleration to the planet? Can explain?

Flat Earth General / Re: Proof that the Earth isn't round?
« on: March 21, 2024, 08:20:32 PM »
I think I get the model now. Or at least one semi-coherent version.
1. The earth is flat because that's how it appears to the casual observer close to the ground.
2. Outer space is fake, so there is a glass dome to keep in the air we breathe.
3. The stars are projected onto the dome, presumably for our entertainment.
4. Gravity doesn't exist, the earth is continually accelerating thru space at 9.81 m/s/s. Creating the illusion of gravity.
5. Magnetic north is a big secret tower of some sort. Magnetic south is a circular pole around the edge.
6. The oceans are held in place by a gigantic ice wall around the perimeter. Beyond which there may or may not be more lands, but we can't go there.
7. The sun is small and rotates above the earth plane some 3000km high.
8. The moon is a projection? Not sure I got that one. Seems not a consensus on the moon thing.
Do I have it about right,? It's a lot to absorb.

Flat Earth General / Re: Proof that the Earth isn't round?
« on: March 21, 2024, 08:20:32 PM »
I think I get the model now. Or at least one semi-coherent version.
1. The earth is flat because that's how it appears to the casual observer close to the ground.
2. Outer space is fake, so there is a glass dome to keep in the air we breathe.
3. The stars are projected onto the dome, presumably for our entertainment.
4. Gravity doesn't exist, the earth is continually accelerating thru space at 9.81 m/s/s. Creating the illusion of gravity.
5. Magnetic north is a big secret tower of some sort. Magnetic south is a circular pole around the edge.
6. The oceans are held in place by a gigantic ice wall around the perimeter. Beyond which there may or may not be more lands, but we can't go there.
7. The sun is small and rotates above the earth plane some 3000km high.
8. The moon is a projection? Not sure I got that one. Seems not a consensus on the moon thing.
Do I have it about right,? It's a lot to absorb.

You forgot the ice giants and dragons. Santa claus and the easter bunny also control a lot of what happens on flat earth. You also forgot that nobody can find the edge to the flat earth or touch the dome, and somehow weight and density is not defined by gravity.

Remember - flat earth is all about fantasy and letting your imagination run wild, to hell with science and common sense.

Quote

Before showing you the simulation, I'd like to point out this video, which is a time-lapse video recorded from Antarctica over a period of nine months:



This is in fact what we see in the SOUTHERN sky from a location that on the flat earth map would be central and south at the very bottom of the map

This video doesn’t at all show what we see, unless you have fish-eye vision or something. The entire video is worthless by that alone, so it’s moot to discuss the rest of it at this point.

You of course would have to say that and there sits the conundrum.

This forum is completely dishonest in how it operates in its ring fenced intellectually stunted way that totally ignore the actual reality of the world. Rather than putting importance on real world facts and the evidence that supports those facts the emphasis is on belief and people’s own personal interpretations of the world.

As I’ve stated many times ignorant libertarian personal thought rules here;

“what I think must be the truth and to hell with anything else”

People like Jack Black jump up and down in an apoplectic fit when anything to do with any recent space mission is posted as of course this blows flat earth belief clean out the water. Articles relating to such matters is in the news on a daily basis. It’s the herd of elephants in the room that the poor flat earth believers on this site must never be exposed to and never asked to address in a coherent way.

When I posted a video of the latest Starship mission that blasted off last week witnessed by millions Jack Black blew his top while claiming Musk was a liar!!!! That was the basis of his  argument.

You could have personally stood there and watched that craft blast off into orbit and Jack Black would have dismissed the clear evidence of your experience all because of his unsubstantiated claim that Musk is a liar and it’s a topic not allowed on this site.

Personal experience is only allowed if it’s the kind of personal experience that he allows such is the dishonesty of the non debate on this site.

Flat earth believers need to get to grips and deal with the reality of what’s happening in the real world never mind acknowledging the clear evidence of a flat earth simulation.

The contorted non debate that goes on here is akin to people have a fight with both legs and arms tied up.

Even a game available on Steam that illustrates all those flat earth beliefs in software is rejected when it clearly shows the impossibility of their world.

People like Jack Black jump up and down in an apoplectic fit when anything to do with any recent space mission is posted as of course this blows flat earth belief clean out the water.

No, I just pointed out how you offer nothing constructive to the topic, and the stupidity of linking footage from a known conman.

But because you don't like rational objections to your religious BS, you throw a tantrum.

his unsubstantiated claim that Musk is a liar and it’s a topic not allowed on this site.

It is quite well established that Musk is a liar. He was even sued by the FTC for it.
He had restrictions put in place over what he could say because of his deceit.
And yet he continues.
Musk has 0 credibility to any sane person.

Quote from: Cameron 1964 on March 24, 2024, 02:51:05 PM

Flat Earth General / Re: Proof that the Earth isn't round?
« on: March 21, 2024, 08:20:32 PM »
I think I get the model now. Or at least one semi-coherent version.
1. The earth is flat because that's how it appears to the casual observer close to the ground.
2. Outer space is fake, so there is a glass dome to keep in the air we breathe.
3. The stars are projected onto the dome, presumably for our entertainment.
4. Gravity doesn't exist, the earth is continually accelerating thru space at 9.81 m/s/s. Creating the illusion of gravity.
5. Magnetic north is a big secret tower of some sort. Magnetic south is a circular pole around the edge.
6. The oceans are held in place by a gigantic ice wall around the perimeter. Beyond which there may or may not be more lands, but we can't go there.
7. The sun is small and rotates above the earth plane some 3000km high.
8. The moon is a projection? Not sure I got that one. Seems not a consensus on the moon thing.
Do I have it about right,? It's a lot to absorb.

You forgot the ice giants and dragons. Santa claus and the easter bunny also control a lot of what happens on flat earth. You also forgot that nobody can find the edge to the flat earth or touch the dome, and somehow weight and density is not defined by gravity.

Remember - flat earth is all about fantasy and letting your imagination run wild, to hell with science and common sense.

Well they could come up with a better model.
How about:
A two sided disc so one side is the north of the equator and the other side south of the equator?
And the dome is now a sphere, but when you reach the edge, the dome magically transports you to the opposite side.
That fixes many of the issues with the current obviously ridiculous model, like a rotation axis above the south pole and reversing Coriolis south of the equator.
Still doesn't fix the navigation problem, since you can't use spherical trigonometry to navigate on a flat plane.
Oh and the sun setting and rising problem, but mysterious optics in the atmosphere could account for all those issues.
Sandhokan's aether sucking worm holes can replace our non-existent gravity.
And wahlah, much better. Almost like reality, but still super secret and suppressed by 'they'
😉

Don't you just love this? The final version of the RE concept of gravity is... the gravitational theory from FE. Amazing!

For those who are dreaming about balloons, they must explain this first:

"The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases."

Sandhokan, You need to get some science references later than the 1850s.
Scientists explanation for gas mixtures gas nothing to do with strong winds, don't embarrass yourself.
It's gas kinetics and thermodynamics. Gases don't separate based on density or specific gravity, that's 100% incorrect.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of Coriolis on a flat plane. Maybe your working out the math. Do you know what Coriolis is?
Hint: 2*Vxw where w is the rotation rate. Simple vector dynamics in a rotating frame of reference.
It's a good thing you weren't a WW2 artillery guy. You never would've hit anything.

As for Riemann' hypothesis, are you claiming you proved the zeta zero problem? You must've collected the million dollar prize. Good for you.

tap, tap, tap...still waiting....

I'll agree with you only when somebody else (other than me) will present the following: the algorithm for the zeta zeros (without using mathematical analysis), and thus solve the Riemann hypothesis for good; as a good measure on top of that to invent a new formula for the logarithm using only the square root function. It ain't gonna happen. Until then, I am better than they are, you should know this by now. Talk to any high-ranking mathematician and show them my algorithm, they'll slap your face for free for having doubted me.

Since you don't know much about gravity in general you might be surprised to find out that the mechanism for gravity (sorry, it is not attractive) has been put forth, and all physicists agree on that.

Pay attention.

Gravity is a wormhole in the center of a right-handed graviton which absorbs aether.

Got it?

In 1969, Dr. H.G. Ellis published his famous paper in which he had proved that the only working model of an wormhole is that which absorbs aether. Imagine trying to publish a paper whose title includes the word "ether drainhole" in 1969 in the most famous and prestigious journal of mathematical physics in the world. It took four years for the peer-reviewers to verify each and every equation, since they could not believe it could be true, and finally, in 1973, his paper was published in the Journal of Mathematical Physics:

Ether flow through a drainhole: A particle model in general relativity
Journal of Mathematical Physics. 14: 104–118

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

The weight of an object is given by the amount of aether which can be absorbed.

One cannot have quantum gravity without particles, unless a non perturbative observable can be defined in their place

"Absence of particles means absence of Poincare invariance, no standard Fock space.

Particle physics is defined by local perturbative quantum field theory (Poincare groups).

However, Planck level physics is governed by general covariance.

That is why quantum gravity must be defined in terms of loops/knots.

Knot theory is the physical theory that classifies the independent physical states of the quantum field.

Genuine quantum gravitational physics is non perturbative.

General relativity forced in the quantum perturbative framework doesn't work."

Dr. Carlo Rovelli
Are knots quantum states of spacetime?
Knots, Topology And Quantum Field Theory (pg. 51-69)

A graviton is a string with closed loops.


None other than the greatest mathematician of all time, B. Riemann, had said this about gravity:

B. Riemann stated in 1853 that "gravitational aether sinks toward massive objects where it is absorbed, at a rate proportional to their mass, and is then emitted into another spatial dimension".


Quantum Gravity is not a quantization of the spacetime coordinates, metric.....If this were the case, one would have had quantized the spacetime coordinates long ago. In String Theory, from the two-dim world sheet point of view , the spacetime coordinates are nothing but a finite number of scalar fields whose quantization is essentially trivial by selecting the conformal or orthonormal gauge. The same arguments applies with the ( linearized ) spin two graviton. Quantum Gravity it is something much deeper than the naive notion of coordinates and gravitons. It is something that doesn’t need any spacetime background nor metrics whatsoever. Morever, it involves something that disposes of the ill-conceived notion of having a fixed dimension. The classical spacetime that we perceive with our senses is just a long distance averaging effect associated with a quantum network of processeses of a deeper underlying Quantum Universe. To merge Quantum Mechanics with Relativity it is necessary to enlarge the Einsteinian view of Relativity to a New Relativity Principle.


Quantum entanglement is the needle that stitches together the cosmic zero point energy tapestry.

All subquarks, bosons and antibosons are connected by gray wormholes (receptive/emissive) created by the counter-rotating tetrahedrons (one is a shadow of the other) located in the center of the pyramidion.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.3035.pdf

Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.08444.pdf

Recovering Geometry from Bulk Entanglement

A version of the ER=EPR conjecture is recovered, in that perturbations that entangle distant parts of the emergent geometry generate a configuration that may be considered as a highly quantum wormhole.


https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-holes-prove-that-anti-de-sitter-space-time-is-unstable-20200511/ (Horava-Lifshitz ether model wormhole requires anti de-Sitter space)


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1503.pdf

Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.2448.pdf

Rotating Wormholes in Five Dimensions


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.02143.pdf

Wormholes Immersed in Rotating Matter

We here add a new twist to this quest by immersing the wormhole throat inside rotating matter, which we take as composed of a complex boson field, since this allows for the possibility to impose rotation on the bosonic field by the choice of an appropriate ansatz.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05253.pdf

Geometry of Spinning Ellis Wormholes


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0508117.pdf

Rotating Scalar Field Wormhole


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502099.pdf

Phantom energy traversable wormholes


Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

The tangled web that is gravity

He found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two entangled quarks, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole. More fundamentally, he says, gravity itself may be a result of entanglement. What’s more, the universe’s geometry as described by classical gravity may be a consequence of entanglement—pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.



http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.1667.pdf

A Scenario for Strong Gravity in Particle Physics

At the Planck scale it may well be impossible to disentangle black holes from elementary particles.

G. ‘t Hooft, On the quantum structure of a black hole, Nucl. Phys. B256 , 727 (1985)

We suggest that the behavior of these extreme dilaton black holes….can reasonably be interpreted as the holes doing their best to behave like normal elementary particles.

All particles may be varying forms of stabilized black holes.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9202014.pdf

Black Holes as Elementary Particles


https://mappingignorance.org/2013/11/22/entangled-through-a-wormhole/


https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F1-4020-4339-2_6



The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf

Universality of Gravity from Entanglement


At this point you might ask, what about other wormhole models? They are not stable, only the Ellis wormhole is a true working model.

Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet wormholes

EGB wormhole model: dilaton and electrovacuum.

The EdGB is unstable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.11170.pdf

The electrovacuum has huge issues with it as well.
 
The causality constraints of higher curvature models were studied, and it was shown in
particular that a theory such as EGB has to be supplemented with massive higher-spin fields in order to be free of causality problems. Causal structure of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet (EGB) theory has also been studied in [29,30], where different notions closely connected to causality are studied in detail, such as the relation between Killing horizons and characteristic hypersurfaces, hyperbolicity in the near horizon regions.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.6737.pdf


Kaluza-Klein wormholes

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.064018

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9807086.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1320.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9909102.pdf

Aether compactification of the Kaluza-Klein dimensions:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.0521.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20150319104103/bourabai.ru/winter/relativ.htm (Planck plasma)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1920865#msg1920865 (Kaluza-Klein particles, Planck ether, two consecutive messages)

Kaluza-Klein wormholes must use ether.


Conformal Weyl gravity wormholes

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.05054.pdf

https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/0801.4401/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.04145.pdf

Weyl ether:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.00285.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.06355.pdf


Palatini f(R,T) wormholes

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0703132.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.1141.pdf


Cartan wormholes

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9802046.pdf

We also discuss wormhole throats in the presence of fully antisymmetric torsion and find that the energy condition violations cannot be dumped into the torsion degrees of freedom.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9901020.pdf

The Cartan torsion theory is a dynamical degenerate case of the more general Poincare gauge theory of gravity. The NEC would always have to be violated for such a specific torsion even in the more general Poincare gauge theory of gravity.

The resulting forces from the Einstein-Cartain torsion theory are some 27 orders of magnitude smaller than the gravitational effects of GR. Further, the EC theory applies to static field geometries around rotating objects.

Dynamical Ricci torsion is some 21 to 22 orders of magnitude larger than EC torsion.


Ricci flow wormholes

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.0957.pdf

Spacetime foam = zero point energy = ether

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.5264.pdf


Do not ever doubt that I am very good at what I do.

correct me but most of these papers seem oddly theoretical...

"correct me but most of these papers seem oddly theoretical..."

Yes very deep theoretical physics. Loop Quantum Gravity is a popular topic in the field.
Currently it doesn't really work right if you try to work back up to classical scales, like everyday things like planets, stars, and galaxies.
And there's no evidence yet that gravity is even quantizedm

From now on, I will be using only your RE physicists' words to describe gravity. Remember, these are 100% dedicated heliocentrists.

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

The tangled web that is gravity

He found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two entangled quarks, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole. More fundamentally, he says, gravity itself may be a result of entanglement. What’s more, the universe’s geometry as described by classical gravity may be a consequence of entanglement—pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.

Brian Swinglea and Mark Van Raamsdonk

Department of Physics, Harvard University
Department of Physics and Astronomy,University of British Columbia

The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”


What are you going to do now, deny your own brightest RE scientists?

Steve Lamoreaux has performed experiments, in full vacuum, at Yale University, using two plates, which were pushed towards one another, no attractive gravity.


The best physicists from MIT, Harvard are telling you that gravitons are connected by quantum entanglement (a superluminal highway) through wormholes which absorb aether (the only stable, working wormhole model).


Now, I have published the correct description for the mechanism years ago, and it is only in the last couple of years that physicists have begun to realize that I was right.

These are my quotes:

All subquarks, bosons and antibosons are connected by gray wormholes (receptive/emissive) created by the counter-rotating tetrahedrons (one is a shadow of the other) located in the center of the pyramidion. (June 2020)

All gravitons are distinct wormholes and are connected by a hyperspace which manifests itself in the very center of the gray wormhole. In the center of the wormhole is the mechanism which provides the constant torque necessary for the wormhole to rotate at very high speeds. Without that torque being applied constantly, all wormholes would collapse instantly, there would be no atoms, no visible matter. All gravitons/antigravitons consist of billions of bosons/antibosons.

The torque is being provided by the counter-rotating tetrahedrons (one is the shadow of the other) to be found in the center of the boson/antiboson:

https://www.reunitingall.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/tetaedro-estrella.gif

A constant source of acoustic power is needed to keep the counter-rotating tetrahedrons spin at a tremendous speed: each tetrahedron has imbedded in itself an acoustic turbine in the shape of a swastika. One swastika is emissive, the other one is receptive.

Acoustic turbines were introduced in the 19th century, for the first time:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Armen_Sarvazyan/publication/46034486/figure/fig1/AS:377905155723265@1467111018623/Acoustic-turbine-of-V-Dvorak-and-A-Mayer-Koenig-1889.png

In the center of the two counter-propagating tetrahedrons we find the source of the sound which is being emitted and the connection to the hyperspace.

The energy levels of the boson are created by four counter-propagating Riemann zeta function waves on two single segments which are to be found to the left, respectively to the right, of the counter-rotating tetrahedrons:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2006301#msg2006301

The zeros of the zeta function constitute a fractal applied to those two segments.

At that sub Planck scale, mathematics becomes physics, and physics merges with mathematics. (June 2020)


This paper was just published last year:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.03707.pdf

Do a search with "riemann", "zeta", "Gutzweiller", "gluing", "wormhole".

The author presents the Cotler-Jensen wormhole (an abstract or virtual version of the Ellis wormhole) and then states that the actual wormhole is constructed/glued together by the Riemann zeta phase function. He even obtains a trace formula similar to the Gutzweiller trace formula which features the Riemann zeta zeros.

Here is another paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.03081.pdf

Ellis drainhole solution in Einstein-Ćther gravity and the axial gravitational quasinormal modes

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but aether does not exist, does it?

Quote from: sandokhan on March 05, 2024, 03:21:19 AM

Yes, you numskull.

That's the explanation for FE GRAVITY!

What cause a baseball thrown straight up to slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.

If you’re worried about “thermodynamics” and you don’t believe in gravity, what causes the ball without gravity to stop, change direction of travel 180 degrees, and accelerate back to earth.


. At least I’m honest, and not like you creating lies by taking other people’s work out of context. Misrepresenting their works.  And ignoring the majority of their work.  Don’t you use the lie airlines are pushing people off flights for travel south of the equator.  You use such obvious lies, your a joke.

That can probably be explained. Say you have a disk accelerating upwards uniformly at acceleration g at velocity v. Now a ball is thrown upwards with some velocity u. The instant the ball stops being in contact with the disk, the ball is moving uniformly through the air at velocity u+v. Now relative velocity of the ball and the disc as observed from the disc is u and 0 respectively. So if you use 8th grade physics, you'll realize that time taken for disc to reach velocity u is u/a and this corresponds to when the ball reaches maximum height. Once you have time t, you can use it to get maximum height reached (ut-(at˛/2)) and time taken to fall to ground (2t) and it all corresponds to experimental data.

EarthisRotund,
The existence of aether depends on your definition of said aether.
Prior to the acceptance of general relativity, the aether was thought to be an ideal fluid thru which everything traveled. if so, there should be a difference in the speed of light depending on which direction it travels on earth. Mikelson and Morely did many good experiments on this and found no difference. These results were one of the key motivations for Einstein.
So, no aether. Put to bed in 1905 and confirmed in 1922.

Yep, the exact same aether michelson Morley experiment disproved

But if you don't believe in science, I guess it's easy to dismiss as fake or forgery or the use of CGI before it even existed.
So no FE true believers will accept the reality within which they live. They don't even believe they're own eyes when looking out across the ocean and seeing a ship disappear over the horizon.
So logical/physical arguments are irrelevant to them, yet, besides Space Cowgirl, none can or are unwilling to explain why the powers that be want to keep the flat earth knowledge suppressed.
Other words, they lack en explanation of the means, motivation and opportunity to keep the FE secret.

The moon landings look like CGI to you? They look corny and crude today, being 60’s sci fi effects look like crap today.

They used the effects of the day, now they look brutally crude.

Used wires for jumping on the moons 1/6 gravity, how did they ever know that before going there and walking on the moon, but I guess they just knew everything about the moon before going there!

The first films of Apollo 11 were slowed to 50% of actual speed.

But the other missions footage was only slowed down by one third speed, for some reason.

After Apollo 11, we had movie cameras with half speed settings on them. So they changed it to 1/3 speed for the next footage of their other missions. Our cameras didn’t have that speed setting back then, only producers had it.

Andy Warhol made a film entirely at one third speed a bit earlier on. NASA used that speed after Apollo 11 and every other mission.

They decided to change the speed fearing it would be found out by us, I think, no other reason to do it.

But they made a huge mistake. It’s easy to compare the Apollo 11 footage speed to the others, it is clearly at slower speed than the others are at.

Watch how they are moving their arms and hands, how they walk or jump up, it’s not the same speed, clearly.

I’m sure you’ll say they look the same speed, it’s very obvious it’s faster in the other footage.

Look closely at how their arms and hands move in Apollo 11 footage, compared to the other footage.

Then speed them both up to twice that speed. The result is amazingly funny.

Apollo 11 footage at twice the speed looks normal speed, because it is at normal speed again.

But the other footage was only slowed down by a third, not by half, so they look like a Benny Hill skit at high speeds moving around here. It’s hilarious to see it.

That shows they are at different speeds, and nothing can excuse it or hope it disappears as an issue.

The moon landings look like CGI to you?

No.
But more importantly, why are you bringing this up here?
Have you realised that you cannot defend your delusional BS so you now need to spam irrelevant BS to deflect from your failure?

Used wires for jumping on the moons 1/6 gravity

Prove it.

how did they ever know that before going there and walking on the moon

Simple math along with observations of the moon.

The first films of Apollo 11 were slowed to 50% of actual speed.

Prove it.
You are yet again just spouting delusional BS with no connection to reality.

Then speed them both up to twice that speed. The result is amazingly funny.

People moving around at 2 times speed often looks funny.

The moon landings look like CGI to you? They look corny and crude today, being 60’s sci fi effects look like crap today.

They used the effects of the day, now they look brutally crude.

Used wires for jumping on the moons 1/6 gravity, how did they ever know that before going there and walking on the moon, but I guess they just knew everything about the moon before going there!

The first films of Apollo 11 were slowed to 50% of actual speed.

But the other missions footage was only slowed down by one third speed, for some reason.

After Apollo 11, we had movie cameras with half speed settings on them. So they changed it to 1/3 speed for the next footage of their other missions. Our cameras didn’t have that speed setting back then, only producers had it.

Andy Warhol made a film entirely at one third speed a bit earlier on. NASA used that speed after Apollo 11 and every other mission.

They decided to change the speed fearing it would be found out by us, I think, no other reason to do it.

But they made a huge mistake. It’s easy to compare the Apollo 11 footage speed to the others, it is clearly at slower speed than the others are at.

Watch how they are moving their arms and hands, how they walk or jump up, it’s not the same speed, clearly.

I’m sure you’ll say they look the same speed, it’s very obvious it’s faster in the other footage.

Look closely at how their arms and hands move in Apollo 11 footage, compared to the other footage.

Then speed them both up to twice that speed. The result is amazingly funny.

Apollo 11 footage at twice the speed looks normal speed, because it is at normal speed again.

But the other footage was only slowed down by a third, not by half, so they look like a Benny Hill skit at high speeds moving around here. It’s hilarious to see it.

That shows they are at different speeds, and nothing can excuse it or hope it disappears as an issue.

No they look like they were shot on the crappy 8mm movie camera that was used. Given the weight limitations posed by space flight they couldn't really carry a high end movie camera.
Such nonsense. I watched it live in TV in July 20, 1969. An amazing accomplishment, denigrated by do nothing's like yourself.
Do something positive for once in your life. See if you can contribute something, anything useful instead of attacking the accomplishments of thousands of people who worked there butts off to pull off that moon landing. Nevermind the pilots willing to risk everything to do it.
Mindless idiot.

Quote

Before showing you the simulation, I'd like to point out this video, which is a time-lapse video recorded from Antarctica over a period of nine months:



This is in fact what we see in the SOUTHERN sky from a location that on the flat earth map would be central and south at the very bottom of the map

This video doesn’t at all show what we see, unless you have fish-eye vision or something. The entire video is worthless by that alone, so it’s moot to discuss the rest of it at this point.

Then why are you discussing it?