I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

Modern physics cannot explain how matter affects spacetime, so it is not my interpretation.

Gravity is non-local, it requires quantum entanglement and wormholes.

The only stable wormhole is the rotating Ellis aether wormhole.

Modern physics cannot explain how matter affects spacetime, so it is not my interpretation.

Again, saying X is bad doesn't magically make Y correct and Z sci-fi.

You need to do better for Y.
YOU cannot explain how aether and matter interact to cause matter to move to the ground.
Your nonsense is no better than using curved spacetime.

Not my "nonsense".

My bibliographical references prove each and every detail of the fact that gravity is non-local, that is requires the use of stable aether wormholes, and that weight at the quantum level can only be attained by the use of ether theory.

That is why GR cannot describe gravity: the cause is to be found at the Planck level wormholes.

I'm not JackBlack but I had to comment of this work of pure fiction!

At the quantum level what matters is WEIGHT and not "mass".
Here is the absolute proof:
Here is the W = -mg formula at the SUBQUARK/GRAVITON level:

Rubbish! The following paper never mentions WEIGHT, SUBQUARK nor GRAVITON.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13386630_Gravity_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation_force [equation (62)]



(where, of course, g = Gm/r2)

No! g is a value determined by experiment! On the surface of the Earth it is about 9.81 m/^s.

But did you read even the Introduction to Pultoff's paper?

Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force by H. E. Puthoff
I. INTRODUCTION
Gravitational theory, whether in its scalar Newtonian form or its tensor general-relativistic form, is recognized to be essentially phenomenological in nature. As such, it invites attempts at derivation from a more fundamental
set of underlying assumptions, and six such attempts are outlined in the standard reference book Gravitation, by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (MTW).
Of the six approaches presented in MTW, perhaps the most far-reaching in its implications for an underlying model is one due to Sakharov; namely, that gravitation is not a fundamental interaction at all, but rather an in­
duced effect brought about by changes in the quantum­ fluctuation energy of the vacuum when matter is present.

And in that, Pultoff never casts any doubt on "Gravitational theory, whether in its scalar Newtonian form or its tensor General-Relativistic form" as a description of what gravitation does. He is just saying, as others have said, the there is a quantum theoretical basis for gravitation.

Thus, WEIGHT is the fundamental force which manifests itself at the quantum level.

Then, we have the weight of a subquark/parton/graviton formula derived by three of the top physicists in the world:


(m = W/g)
https://web.archive.org/web/20190228190940/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf
It was published in the Physical Review A:
https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.678

Where do any of you papers even mention weight?

It's little point carrying on because your papers do not seem to agree with your own claims.

Not my "nonsense".

Yes, all the nonsense is yours!

The papers in my last post seem to have supported both Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity but simply sought to give more fundamental Quantum mechanical explanations.

I suggest that YOU read your papers first.

My bibliographical references prove each and every detail of the fact that gravity is non-local, that is requires the use of stable aether wormholes, and that weight at the quantum level can only be attained by the use of ether theory.

Your bibliographical references prove nothing of the sort and I can't find "weight" mentioned in them but "mass" is mentioned numerous times in the papers in my last post.

That is why GR cannot describe gravity: the cause is to be found at the Planck level wormholes.

Sorry, but GR describes gravitation very well and those papers say nothing against that assertion.

Does antimatter fall up?

Does antimatter fall up?

Antimatter does not have negative mass. In our universe, there is no such thing as negative mass observed. Mass only comes in positive form.

Which means antimatter and matter fall in the same direction.

GR and CPT are compatible only if there is gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter.

Gravitational repulsion is the result of an effective negative gravitational mass.

Then, everything rests on the existence of the antigraviton.

If you want the unification of GR with QM you need antigravitons.

Your responses always fall within the boundaries of mainstream science which is a pity.

...Here is the W = -mg formula at the SUBQUARK/GRAVITON level:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13386630_Gravity_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation_force [equation (62)]



(where, of course, g = Gm/r2)

Thus, WEIGHT is the fundamental force which manifests itself at the quantum level.

...

If this was true there would be no variation of gravity on different parts earth, which there is. Gravity would not peak underground like it currently does. Weaker gravitational fields would also not exist. Objects on the moon would have have the same acceleration as on the earth. This of course is not seen.

So tell us. In your model, why does a 10kg sphere "absorb" more ether when it's sitting on ice above the Arctic Ocean than anywhere else on the surface of the earth? Why would the 10 kg sphere "absorb" even more if it was over 2,000 km underground?

Did you miss part where sandokhan tells us it is published by best Quantum researchers in world?

Variation of gravity = variation of density of aether and of the rotation rate of the wormholes of the gravitons.

If you want objects on the moon, you first have to prove the Earth is spherical and it is orbiting the Sun.

In your model, why does a 10kg sphere "absorb" more ether when it's sitting on ice above the Arctic Ocean than anywhere else on the surface of the earth?

Same thing happens as in the BIEFELD-BROWN effect: an object can become heavier or lighter. A volume of Pu is much heavier than the corresponding volume of an apple, since it has many more gravitons than an apple, thus constituting a denser target for the dextrorotatory ether waves. The gravitons of the 10kg sphere form a string with the dextrorotatory waves: it is the rotation rate of the wormholes of the ether waves which is being transmitted to the object itself, depending on the altitude.


Some of the best quantum physicists in the world fully believe that antimatter consists of negative mass. Since m = density x volume, it means that the density is negative. Since density can be defined in terms of specific weight and g, it means that for antimatter weight is negative. Positive weight: absorption of aether, negative weight: emission of aether.

GR and CPT are compatible only if there is gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter.

There is no difference in mass between matter and antimatter.
Only the electric polarity of electron vs positron, proton vs antiproton, and the antineutron's opposite baryon number (+1 for neutron, −1 for the antineutron).

Electron and positron have the same mass, proton and antiproton have the same mass, neutron and antineutron have the same mass.
All those masses are positive.

What is the connection between that and the "gravitational repulsion"?
Repulsion can be magnetic or electric, but electricity and magnetism have their polarities.
There is no mass polarity.

Not my "nonsense".
My bibliographical references

In no way back you up.
None indicate that this would only work on a FE, rather than a RE.
None claim that this is a perfect mechanism in any way better than the mechanism of gravity.

Instead the closest you get is one claiming that it is better than GR as it doesn't have a singularity.

But the vast majority of your claims have nothing at all to do with your references.
You even misrepresent Newton, whose "subtle invisible matter" is not cosmic rays, but the aether itself.
i.e. he, just like your reference on an aether sink hole, are claiming that aether is flowing, hitting matter and making it move.
There is no claim of absorption of aether there giving weight which cosmic rays then strike to make matter fall.
Likewise your other reference discussing aether has matter absorbing and re-emitting aether to make it fall.

But what they all have in common is no mechanism at all to explain how the aether interacts with matter to make it move.

If you want the unification of GR with QM you need antigravitons.

And why should the graviton not be like all the other bosons and be its own anti-particle?
Just like how the photon is its own antiparticle?

Again, you are just spouting baseless garbage to pretend there is a problem and avoid providing a mechanism.

Now again, where is your mechanism which clearly explains how aether moves matter?

Did you miss part where sandokhan tells us it is published by best Quantum researchers in world?

Why don't you tell us what "is published by best Quantum researchers in world"?

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on June 29, 2020, 12:50:54 PM

Did you miss part where sandokhan tells us it is published by best Quantum researchers in world?

Why don't you tell us what "is published by best Quantum researchers in world"?

Quoted part of this ( https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85986.msg2264956#msg2264956 ) post

Modern physics cannot explain how matter affects spacetime, so it is not my interpretation.

Have you forgotten Erik Verlinde and many of your own recent references?

Gravity is non-local, it requires quantum entanglement and wormholes.

The only stable wormhole is the rotating Ellis aether wormhole.

So what?
Your own references seem to show that "quantum entanglement and wormholes" could explain both Newtonian Gravitation and Einstein's General Relativity.

Haven't you read this paper, for example?

Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force by H. E. Puthoff
A careful examination of the details of averaging over the rapid spatial variation (see Appendix B) indicates that the particle experiences an average force (F) given by the leading term in (61). With Γ given by (23) and ω_c by (39), (F) can then be written in Newton's law form (with no adjustable parameters required),
                       

That is the expression for Newtonian Gravitation from "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force".

Quote from: rabinoz on June 29, 2020, 03:05:33 PM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on June 29, 2020, 12:50:54 PM

Did you miss part where sandokhan tells us it is published by best Quantum researchers in world?

Why don't you tell us what "is published by best Quantum researchers in world"?

Quoted part of this ( https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85986.msg2264956#msg2264956 ) post

Where he quote mines a small part of an old paper, and there is no basis at all to claim they are the best Quantum researchers in the world.

And like so often, he doesn't even honestly represent the paper.

In their explanation, they appeal to the equivalence principle of GR, setting g=-Gm/r^2

They appeal to the mass of the particle through several steps of the derivation, long before trying to use it to explain gravity.
But he ignores all of that and pretends that one equation near the end of the paper somehow magically makes weight the fundamental basis rather than mass.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 29, 2020, 03:05:33 PM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on June 29, 2020, 12:50:54 PM

Did you miss part where sandokhan tells us it is published by best Quantum researchers in world?

Why don't you tell us what "is published by best Quantum researchers in world"?

Quoted part of this ( https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85986.msg2264956#msg2264956 ) post

Sandokhan just says "ONLY FET can explain WEIGHT at the quantum level: the papers were written by the best quantum physicsts in the world".
When you read the papers he references, however, they say no such thing!

They don't mention "FET" or, as far as I can find, even "WEIGHT" but they do mention "mass" a great deal.
I would appreciate it if you could find where in any of his papers you can find anything like "ONLY FET can explain WEIGHT at the quantum level".

Sandokhan  seems to read things that aren't there and totally ignores where Newtonian Gravitation is derived from the "zero-point-fluctuation force" (ZPE):
From my previous post:

Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force by H. E. Puthoff
A careful examination of the details of averaging over the rapid spatial variation (see Appendix B) indicates that the particle experiences an average force (F) given by the leading term in (61). With Γ given by (23) and ω_c by (39), (F) can then be written in Newton's law form (with no adjustable parameters required),
                       

And look in Footnote 7 of the same paper:

⁷     In the sense that gravity as a non-Minkowskian curvature effect can be treated in first approximation as a Newtonian force in flat space-time, so can it be treated as a van der Waals-type force in flat space-time, and it is this basic con­cept that is addressed here. Although beyond the intended scope of this paper, an intimate connection between flat­
space-time van der Waals and Casimir effects and vacuum curvature effects can be traced as a problem in the restructur­eing of vacuum energy, as in B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rep. 19, 295 (1975), especially pp. 303-308.

Thus the connection between a flat-space-time approach and gravity as a curvature effect can be established as in General Relativity generally.

Sandokhan's own references refute what he says!

Variation of gravity = variation of density of aether and of the rotation rate of the wormholes of the gravitons.

But the variations are explained by the different density of the earth. That would also mean ether doesn't flow from high density to low density. That doesn't make sense. Further more objects inside of other objects would weigh less.

If you want objects on the moon, you first have to prove the Earth is spherical and it is orbiting the Sun.

It's 2020.

In your model, why does a 10kg sphere "absorb" more ether when it's sitting on ice above the Arctic Ocean than anywhere else on the surface of the earth?

Same thing happens as in the BIEFELD-BROWN effect: an object can become heavier or lighter. A volume of Pu is much heavier than the corresponding volume of an apple, since it has many more gravitons than an apple, thus constituting a denser target for the dextrorotatory ether waves. The gravitons of the 10kg sphere form a string with the dextrorotatory waves: it is the rotation rate of the wormholes of the ether waves which is being transmitted to the object itself, depending on the altitude.

Density is well understood. Molar mass is well understood. The mass of atoms is well understood. Also I need to mention you claim the volume is heavier since it has more gravitons, but why doesn't it fall faster? Doesn't make sense. You disproved yourself. And no the RE formula won't save you.

Some of the best quantum physicists in the world fully believe that antimatter consists of negative mass. Since m = density x volume, it means that the density is negative. Since density can be defined in terms of specific weight and g, it means that for antimatter weight is negative. Positive weight: absorption of aether, negative weight: emission of aether.

So much ad hoc.

Your responses always fall within the boundaries of mainstream science which is a pity.

Oh yeah, what a pity!  Those mainstream scientists are no doubt missing out on all the progress being made on the flat earth discussion boards.

Variation of gravity = variation of density of aether and of the rotation rate of the wormholes of the gravitons.

Evidence thank you, Mr Sandokhan!

If you want objects on the moon, you first have to prove the Earth is spherical and it is orbiting the Sun.

The Earth has been proven, within reasonable doubt, of being spherical centuries ago!

In your model, why does a 10kg sphere "absorb" more ether when it's sitting on ice above the Arctic Ocean than anywhere else on the surface of the earth?

Same thing happens as in the BIEFELD-BROWN effect: an object can become heavier or lighter. A volume of Pu is much heavier than the corresponding volume of an apple, since it has many more gravitons than an apple, thus constituting a denser target for the dextrorotatory ether waves. The gravitons of the 10kg sphere form a string with the dextrorotatory waves: it is the rotation rate of the wormholes of the ether waves which is being transmitted to the object itself, depending on the altitude.

Evidence thank you, that a volume of Pu has any gravitons.

Some of the best quantum physicists in the world fully believe that antimatter consists of negative mass.

Evidence thank you, that "Some of the best quantum physicists in the world fully believe that antimatter consists of negative mass."

I'm sick of your spouting that sort of thing with no basis in fact.

Since m = density x volume, it means that the density is negative. Since density can be defined in terms of specific weight and g, it means that for antimatter weight is negative. Positive weight: absorption of aether, negative weight: emission of aether.

Says you! But that's nothing but your empty words!

Whether you like it it not mass is a fundamental property not weight! Weight depends on the value of g and that even varies with altitude and latitude.

The only stable wormhole is the rotating Ellis aether wormhole.

The reverse rotating Bullwinkle-Rocky wormhole is more stable.   

Quote from: sandokhan on June 29, 2020, 05:11:43 AM

The only stable wormhole is the rotating Ellis aether wormhole.

The reverse rotating Bullwinkle-Rocky wormhole is more stable.

The rotating cowgirl wormhole is stable but only for a minute or two, then the axis erupts violently.

The Platonian gravitonic wormhole rotates both directions at once but if you try to observe it, it transports itself superluminously to its entangled location where both rotations reverse themselves

Do people over 3 km underground in the gold mines of south Africa float around because of the less ether? Surly 3 km of ground would use up quite a bit of ether.

Since you are back, care to respond?

The crust of the Earth is packed with ether waves: remember Tesla's use of telluric currents to transmit energy.

The best work on ground energy:

https://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal_lanterns.htm

That doesn’t explain your theory of gravity. You need flowing ether from a certain direction. Also you need antimatter to make said either.

Read the paper, you'll find out amazing things about telluric currents.

Two directions: east-west and west-east ether drift + shower of cosmic rays (subquarks).

Each object, atom, everything is half matter, half antimatter.

Matter = receptive wormholes, antimatter = emissive wormholes.

The papers don’t support your claim.

If ether drift is East to west, how do objects know which way is down?

Why did you previously claim the flow was from the sky down towards the earth?