The model is all that matters...

When talking about any hypothesis - an idea that someone has about anything in life that we can all see and comprehend, it is normal and expected that whatever someone's idea might be about how something works, they would create a model of it that would accurately demonstrate how the thing works so that everyone else can look at the model and then understand the mechanics of the phenomena that the person was trying to describe.

With the use of computers, it becomes easier to make such models and especially make models that are as accurate as possible. In terms of physical objects and the way they behave, we can write software that demonstrates the model and we call this a computer simulation.

There are key aspects of any simulation especially where a simulation is attempting to model the mechanics of our environment, the sun, the moon, and the Earth, there is one critical aspect of it that must be true if the model is to ever be accepted as being an accurate model. Most of all above anything, the model MUST demonstrate the things we see with our own eyes, and if it fails to do that, then the model is no good and must be rejected.

There are only two models that I am aware of when it comes to our planet. The Flat Earth model and the Globe model.

Flat Earth theory has such a program out there being sold on Steam (A gaming site). I purchased and ran this simulation and I must say in terms of a computer simulation, the software was well written and the graphics are professional status in my opinion.

Here is a short screen recording of that software being run on my machine:



What I would like to point out about this particular model of the Earth, is that in the simulation software, it says that the sun is 32 miles in diameter and that it is 3,000 miles above the flat surface of the Earth. But there are two key points that I bring into question:

1) The moon is reflecting the light of the sun above areas of the Earth that are shown as being dark
2) The model does not show the sun rising from below the horizon nor does it show the sun setting below the horizon

What seems puzzling to me, is that it depicts the sun as shining light down like a spotlight, yet you can clearly see that the moon is reflecting light from the sun which would mean that the light that is emitting from the sphere of the sun is in fact going out in all directions, yet it shows that at any given time, parts of the Earth are dark. The only explanation offered for this is the statement that the sun will appear from a ground observer to have disappeared over the horizon just like a flock of birds will when flying away from you.

However, I have a problem with that statement. First of all, birds are not 3,000 miles in the air and are maybe 1/4 mile high at best. Second, if we take the distances given in the model and scale them down to a more manageable size, we should then be able to demonstrate that on a flat surface, an object that is proportionally as high as the sun is, we should see it disappear when it is at some distance away from the observer.

Since the diameter of the Earth is roughly 22,000 miles in the flat earth model, and since the sun does not circle the Earth at its edges, we can safely say that the furthest possible distance that an observer on the ground could be from the sun - at any location on Earth - would be around 15,000 miles - give or take.

So then if we scale the model down, take an object like a drone, and have the drone hover at a height of 30 feet above the ground, the proportional distance away from the observer that would be 15,000 miles would be only 150 feet. And a drone that is 30 feet in the air at only 150 feet away would most definitely be visible even from ground level. You could double that distance and put the drone at 300 feet away (which would be 30,000 miles in real life which is impossible) and you would still see it.

This means that the depiction of the sun shining light as a spotlight where it is dark everywhere else is false. That is in fact not how it would work if that model is to be accepted as being accurate because, in fact, the entire Earth would be lit by the sun at all times, 24 hours a day at all locations on the Earth.

So this one simple fact alone is enough to dismiss the model as being an accurate model for what we all see with our own eyes every day.

No conspiracy theories are necessary - the model straight up fails to show us what we can all see with our own eyes.

The globe model, on the other hand, does in fact demonstrate what we all see with our own eyes.

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. On the globe model, it would be at the southern tip close to the earth's axis point of rotation.

The flat earth model says that what we see there, is impossible. It cannot happen - ever. Because of the way the sun moves in the flat earth model, the southern point on the map should see the sun rising and setting every 24 hours and that is not what we actually see.

The globe model, on the other hand, does accurately demonstrate what that video shows. Here is a screen recording that I made using a software simulation of the globe Earth model. In this clip, I have the camera looking at the south pole of the Earth, which is Antarctica:



I have the simulation advance time rapidly so we can see how the sun shines on that part of the planet throughout the year.

Notice that the globe model does in fact show us what we can see with our own eyes, specifically, how at the southern tip of the planet, the sun can shine 24 hours a day for months at a time and also how it can be totally dark for months at a time while for the rest of the planet, the sun continues to rise and set (from below the horizon to below the horizon) every 24 hours.

The globe model is the only model that accurately demonstrates what we can see with our own eyes.

This, alone, is enough of an accurate depiction of what we all see such that the flat earth model can be rejected and the globe model accepted as being the most accurate.

Einstein gave us the theory of general relativity. In his theory, he said that gravity is actually the bending of spacetime and that gravity is NOT a force. He said that the more dense an object is, the more it would warp spacetime and that objects in the vicinity of the more dense object would naturally follow their warped path of spacetime and would then head towards the center of that warp which in the case of the Earth would be the center of the earth. This means that from every point on the Earth, gravity is always pulling objects towards the center of the Earth and that is why we will always stand upright and feel as though up is up and down is down no matter where we are standing on the globe.

This is the truth of our planet and our reality and the globe model is the only model that actually works and demonstrates what we can all see with our own eyes.

NASA is not required to prove that the Earth is a globe. The model is all we need.

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.

This video doesn’t at all show what we see, unless you have fish-eye vision or something.

Which in no way negates what the video does show.
If you have a brain, and are honest, you can still make comparisons.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 02, 2024, 05:22:02 PM

This video doesn’t at all show what we see, unless you have fish-eye vision or something.

Which in no way negates what the video does show.
If you have a brain, and are honest, you can still make comparisons.

After it shows a distorted Earth that looks like a view through a snow globe, with ridiculously cranked sped up footage that don’t show s$)( that’s flying across in milliseconds, they are morons or bs artists, or both, it’s worthless at that alone to go further into it.

Using your brain would have told you that this false and distorted video is garbage, and no garbage used in an argument is worth s&)$.

After it shows a distorted Earth that looks like a view through a snow globe, with ridiculously cranked sped up footage that don’t show s$)( that’s flying across in milliseconds, they are morons or bs artists, or both, it’s worthless at that alone to go further into it.

And if you had a brain and chose to use it, you would recognise that statement is pure BS.
It is a time-lapse video, so a long period of time compressed into a short period of time.
With a wide angle lens.
If you had a brain and chose to use it, you would understand what it is showing, and how this compares to the FE and RE models, and how it shows the FE model is wrong.

But because you can't think of a better way to dismiss it, you pull this pathetic BS.

When talking about any hypothesis - an idea that someone has about anything in life that we can all see and comprehend, it is normal and expected that whatever someone's idea might be about how something works, they would create a model of it that would accurately demonstrate how the thing works so that everyone else can look at the model and then understand the mechanics of the phenomena that the person was trying to describe.

Go ahead and explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water adhere to the outer surface of a geoid. Use either TGR (unfortunately for you this option is no longer available as you will see) or quantum gravity. There ain't anyone who has ever managed to explain the attractive mechanism. You have nothing, absolutely nothing, to back up the RE claims.

Einstein gave us the theory of general relativity. In his theory, he said that gravity is actually the bending of spacetime and that gravity is NOT a force.

You haven't done your homework at all.

You are just repeating things you learned over at the vickypedia, without any meaningful research at all.

General relativity HAS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE GRAVITY.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

Dr. Erik Verlinde:

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

Please describe the attractive mechanism by which a molecule of water is attracted by the Earth's iron/nickel core.

No one else can explain how mass/matter interacts with spacetime, not even Einstein.

Einstein could not explain how mass warps space. What's worse is that with the advent of the Aharonov-Bohm effect (electromagnetic and gravitational) physicists found out that Einstein's general relativity is incomplete, since it cannot detect the gravitational potential:

G. 't Hooft discovered that "by using light rays alone, one cannot detect the scalar component of the energy-momentum tensor":

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6675.pdf

Feynman resolved the energy-momentum tensor problem by the field approach: the gravity force between Newton's apple and the Earth is caused by the exchange of gravitons. Gravitons (real and virtual) are mediators of the gravitational interaction.

Then, you have a huge problem: how do gravitons produce curvature?

Again, general relativity DOES NOT offer any kind of a mechanism.

That is why physicists have to rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model.

So, how do two gravitons attract each other? You haven't got any idea at all, just like all RE physicists.

Let me explain to you the real life problems.

Have you ever thought about the enormity of this problem?

You have two choices to start with: either gravitons are being emitted continuously by the core, or they were emitted only once as soon as the atoms of iron were created in the stars. If I were to press the matter further and have you explain the origin of the atoms of iron, you'd be left speechless, since you cannot explain the helium gap paradox.

The first option means that there is a continuous loss of mass, not only by the core itself, but by each and every object/body on the surface of the Earth. The second option means you have to explain the incredible stability of these gravitons: five billion years with no loss of energy whatsoever.

Then, you have to explain how those gravitons emitted by the core reach the surface.

It doesn't take long to infer that there must be two kinds of gravitons: an emitting graviton, and a absorbing graviton (one has a vortex which releases energy, the other one has a vortex which receives this energy).

That is, an object on the surface will have to emit gravitons as well as to absorb them: two kinds of particles, with emissive and receptive vortices.

Now, you must explain the nature of these streams/strings of gravitons.

Are these streams fixed or do they move along with the object on the surface of the Earth? Newton's law of gravitation says nothing about density: how would the iron/nickel core know how to release more gravitons if you are standing on top of a mountain, or if you climb on top of something else? You are walking on the surface, the strings of gravitons move along with you. Now, you climb on top of a tank. Due to the density of the materials used for the tank, not as many gravitons will reach you as before. How does the iron/nickel core know how to release more gravitons depending on your whereabouts? Therefore, the streams must be fixed. Then you have a huge problem. These gravitons must reach each and every cell of the body, the blood vessels, everything. Think about it. Since the streams of gravitons are fixed now, it means you will slide along the surface, and have your gravitons being removed from the previous position, while they have to attach themselves to the streams of gravitons to be found in your new position in space. You also have fixed streams of gravitons. How do these wonderful streams/strings of gravitons detach themselves and then assemble together as if nothing happened?

And these are just the start of your woes. Now you have to explain the actual quantum mechanism: what is the nature of the energy which propagates through these graviton vortices?

Go ahead and explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water

You have had that explained countless times.
GRAVITY.
You cannot show any fault with the explanation.
Instead you just repeat the same BS about demanding a mechanism; when you cannot provide one for your delusional BS at all.

You have played this game and lost.

Just like with all fundamental forces, you reach a point where it simply happens and there is no reason why.

Just like with your delusional BS you reached a point where you had no explanation.

So, how do two gravitons attract each other?

They don't need to. That is just your strawman.

Have you ever thought about the enormity of this problem?

I have.
It isn't a problem at all.
It is you fundamentally failing to understand how basically anything works, and you inventing pure BS to attack the RE, without being able to provide a viable alternative.

You are claiming that gravity is attractive. You must provide the attractive mechanism, otherwise you have nothing at all.

TGR provides no explanation at all regarding gravity. Therefore, Feynman resolved the energy-momentum tensor problem by the field approach: the gravity force between Newton's apple and the Earth is caused by the exchange of gravitons. Gravitons (real and virtual) are mediators of the gravitational interaction.

Here is the latest research on gravitons:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

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.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3552.pdf

Chiral vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity

Is made up of the right handed positive frequency of the graviton and the left handed negative frequency of the anti-graviton.


You no longer have a choice: you must explain how two gravitons attract each other, you are the one claiming an attractive mechanism. Unless and until you can provide it, you have nothing at all.


Here is another problem, one which no one else up this point has ever thought about.

How in the world do the atoms of iron and nickel know how to emit the correct percentage of both emissive and receptive gravitons? Remember, it has to be a perfect 50%/50%, nothing else is allowed or would work. You cannot have the core emitting 20% emissive gravitons, and 80% receptive gravitons. We can extrapolate this problem to each and every object on the surface of the Earth: how does each atom, of each element, know how to emit  both emissive/receptive gravitons in a perfect balance (50%/50%)? Answer: no chemical element emits any kind of gravitons. All gravitons are emitted by the heavenly bodies which cause the solar/lunar eclipse, the very Allais effect, in a perfect balance, 50% emissive gravitions and 50% receptive gravitons.

Of course, the RE have to explain the constant loss of mass (gravitons) by the inner core and outer core also, for five billions years.

How do four trillion billion liters of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere? Can't use TGR, can't use gravitons since no conceivable mechanism has ever been put forth by the RE.

Gravitons (real and virtual) are mediators of the gravitational interaction.

Would you make up your mind.  From your past posts…..

Quote from: sandokhan on June 27, 2023, 02:19:48 AM

Telluric currents (ether, gravitational/electromagnetic waves) propagate like this, in double helix/torsion fashion:

Ok?

You made this claim?

Quote from: sandokhan on June 24, 2023, 08:36:11 AM

Not my theory, check out Weyl's electrogravitational formula. You seem to be confused: electromagnetism flows through positrons, gravity flows through electrons (gravitons).

Again.  Beta radiation is actual electrons being emitted. Let’s take it to something real. An example is the radioactive decay of Strontium-90 which is a beta (electron) emitter. 

If Strontium 90 creates a field of electrons why isn’t it a gravitons/gravity generator?

Yes, you numskull.

That's the explanation for FE GRAVITY!

YOU must explain the attractive mechanism. You don't have any? Then refrain from posting your drivel on this forum. How do four trillion billion liters of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere? By pure magic you say.

Yes, you numskull.

That's the explanation for FE GRAVITY!

Again…

It’s a fundamental force like strong and weak nuclear forces.


Now.  You explain if you think gravity doesn’t exist…

Is it false that it takes an unbalanced to accelerate an expansion object.




Why it takes energy to lift a baseball off the ground.

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.

You are embarrassing yourself in front of everyone here. You were asked to explain the mechanism of attractive gravity. You are unable to do so.

Your dishonesty is in full view of your readers.

It is your claim that gravity is attractive. Then, explain the concept of attractive gravity: use any reference you wish. Perhaps this is the first time you were asked to research this subject; very quickly you will find that no one can explain the notion of attractive gravity.

As your last message abundantly proves, you haven't the foggiest idea of what gravity is, let alone explain how it would be attractive. If you cannot explain the mechanism of attractive gravity it means you are wasting everyone's time here.

Then, explain the concept of attractive gravity:

Gravity is a fundamental force like strong nuclear forces



Simple answer.  Humankind still has lots to decode.  Like the composition of neutrons, electrons, positrons, and string theory.


Speaking of electrons, you made this statement.

Telluric currents (ether, gravitational/electromagnetic waves) propagate like this, in double helix/torsion fashion:

Beta radiation is actual electrons being emitted. Let’s take it to something real. An example is the radioactive decay of Strontium-90 which is a beta (electron) emitter. 

If Strontium 90 creates a field of electrons why isn’t it a gravitons/gravity generator?

You are fucking required to explain the mechanism of attractive gravity, since it is your claim that gravity is attractive. You are saying that it is a fundamental force, but also that it is attractive.

You are dodging the most fundamental issue. Here is your golden opportunity to put to rest every FE belief on this forum: explain the mechanism of attractive gravity, which is required to justify your claim that four trillion billion liters of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere.

Here is your last chance to do so. If you are unable to do so, have the honesty to explicitly say so. Then, your RE hypothesis belongs to the realm of pure magic.

You are embarrassing yourself in front of everyone here.

You’re the one that made the blatant lie airlines throw people out to sea to fake flights south of the equator?


You’re the one that can’t be honest and have to butcher other people’s work and lie about that work to create a false narrative.

In the context it takes unbalanced forces to accelerate an object, is that false.

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.

Understood.

You are unable to provide the slightest reasonable explanation for attractive mechanism. Your entire set of beliefs is a miserable fraud. No one here will ever take you seriously. You are dismissed.

You are unable to provide the slightest reasonable explanation for attractive mechanism.

Your the one running from what you posted….



Speaking of electrons, you made this statement.

Telluric currents (ether, gravitational/electromagnetic waves) propagate like this, in double helix/torsion fashion:

Beta radiation is actual electrons being emitted. Let’s take it to something real. An example is the radioactive decay of Strontium-90 which is a beta (electron) emitter. 

If Strontium 90 creates a field of electrons why isn’t it a gravitons/gravity generator?

You are fucking required to explain the mechanism of attractive gravity, since it is your claim that gravity is attractive. You are saying that it is a fundamental force, but also that it is attractive.

You are dodging the most fundamental issue. Here is your golden opportunity to put to rest every FE belief on this forum: explain the mechanism of attractive gravity, which is required to justify your claim that four trillion billion liters of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere.

Here is your last chance to do so. If you are unable to do so, have the honesty to explicitly say so. Then, your RE hypothesis belongs to the realm of pure magic.

Sandy, you play your role of an asswipe so well!! Lol! (Nobody takes Diapa seriously anyway.)

I don't really want to help the newb (DiapaOverFlow) but doesn't all he have to say is, "The mechanism of attractive gravity is all matter is attracted to all matter?"

Every FE belief on this forum is now dead. Nice meeting you. Time we all went home.

If you want an explanation of how all matter is attracted to all matter, ask your God. It's a law of the universe, or at least in our part of the universe.

"The mechanism of attractive gravity is all matter is attracted to all matter?"

Only someone who has inherited the IQ of an ape would write something like that.

How do you know gravity is attractive, if you have no mechanism for it? All you have is a worthless hypothesis. Have you fucking lost your mind to declare that gravity is attractive with no proof behind your statement?

Here is your best chance to win the entire dispute: simply explain the attractive mechanism. Use any reference you need. Let me help you: how is a molecule of water from say Lake Ontario being attracted by the iron/nickel core? That molecule of water is emitting gravitons (notwithstanding you also have to explain the stability of such particles for the interval of five billion years), and so are the atoms of Fe/Ni. Provide a mechanism for your desired attractive gravitational setting. If you cannot, it means you are trolling this forum.

Or Sandy, that the mechanism isn’t nailed down by scientists way cleverer than me and most definitely you, but that the gravity well analogy and subsequent equations works to get almost all we need done.

That this continuing search gives morons such as yourself free reign pontificate and posture to the uneducated is a price we must pay in a universe that is probably more complicated than we currently have the capacity to fathom, but you do you, it’s still mildly amusing.

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.

I'll agree with you only when somebody else (other than me) will present the following:

Who’s spamming the thread know.


It’s foolish to think the mind of humankind will solve every mystery.  Or be able to comprehend all aspects of creation


Do you agree?


Anyway.  Back to what you’re trying to push off into the background.  The things you can’t explain.

Telluric currents (ether, gravitational/electromagnetic waves) propagate like this, in double helix/torsion fashion:

Beta radiation is actual electrons being emitted. Let’s take it to something real. An example is the radioactive decay of Strontium-90 which is a beta (electron) emitter. 

If Strontium 90 creates a field of electrons why isn’t it a gravitons/gravity generator?

You’re the one that can’t be honest and have to butcher other people’s work and lie about that work to create a false narrative.

In the context it takes unbalanced forces to accelerate an object, is that false.

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.


All your ranting sandokhan, yet your lies are well known. And your impotence leaves one underwhelmed. 

Since you don't know much about gravity

I really didn’t know the opening post was all about gravity.

I thought the opening post was more about….

Here is a short screen recording of that software being run on my machine:



What I would like to point out about this particular model of the Earth, is that in the simulation software, it says that the sun is 32 miles in diameter and that it is 3,000 miles above the flat surface of the Earth. But there are two key points that I bring into question:

1) The moon is reflecting the light of the sun above areas of the Earth that are shown as being dark
2) The model does not show the sun rising from below the horizon nor does it show the sun setting below the horizon

What seems puzzling to me, is that it depicts the sun as shining light down like a spotlight, yet you can clearly see that the moon is reflecting light from the sun which would mean that the light that is emitting from the sphere of the sun is in fact going out in all directions, yet it shows that at any given time, parts of the Earth are dark.

Care to address the actual opening post.  (Seen this used in another site). Instead of changing the subject and throwing out flack? 


But it does beg the question what keeps the sun aloft with the moon on a flat earth?  Where the sun is a physical object that emits radiation and light that are physically blocked by a moon during a solar eclipse?  🤔

You are claiming that gravity is attractive. You must provide the attractive mechanism, otherwise you have nothing at all.

We have evidence of matter attracting matter.
You complaints about a lack of mechanism is just an irrelevant deflection.
No fundamental force will have a mechanism.
Until you can provide a complete mechanism for your delusional BS, all this is is dishonest BS from you to reject anything you don't like.

We know that gravity exists due to the mountains of evidence, and it explains why water remains on a sphere.

Now care to address the sun?

You are embarrassing yourself in front of everyone here. You were asked to explain the mechanism of attractive gravity. You are unable to do so.
Your dishonesty is in full view of your readers.

Quite the opposite.
The dishonesty of such a pathetic demand was pointed out, and YOU were asked to provide a mechanism for your BS to prove your BS any better, and you just fled.

If you want to complain about a lack of a mechanism, you need to provide a better alternative.

That means if you want a mechanism for how mass bends space time, you need to provide a mechanism for how your BS replacement works.

The fact you ignore that and instead just repeat a demand for a mechanism for gravity shows YOUR dishonesty.
The fact you ignore the sun, and the problems it causes for a RE shows YOUR dishonesty.

zeta zeros

Has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
This is yet another demonstration of your dishonesty.
Can't deal with what has been said, so just spam BS on another topic.

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

No. You haven't provided a mechanism.

What is the mechanism for that absorption of aether?
What is the mechanism for this making an object fall?

You can skip all the BS and just try to explain that, or you have no mechanism.

Again, we can observe the attraction of masses to each other, in a variety of environments; demonstrating the existence of gravity without needing to provide a mechanism.
This explains why water stays on Earth.
You cannot provide a better alternative.

We can explain why the sun sets. You can't.

Quote

"The mechanism of attractive gravity is all matter is attracted to all matter?"

Only someone who has inherited the IQ of an ape would write something like that.

How do you know gravity is attractive, if you have no mechanism for it? All you have is a worthless hypothesis. Have you fucking lost your mind to declare that gravity is attractive with no proof behind your statement?

Here is your best chance to win the entire dispute: simply explain the attractive mechanism. Use any reference you need. Let me help you: how is a molecule of water from say Lake Ontario being attracted by the iron/nickel core? That molecule of water is emitting gravitons (notwithstanding you also have to explain the stability of such particles for the interval of five billion years), and so are the atoms of Fe/Ni. Provide a mechanism for your desired attractive gravitational setting. If you cannot, it means you are trolling this forum.

I know gravity is attractive (Not in the same way Scarlet Johanson is attractive) from observations and scientific experiments which continue to prove it is, between all matter. The mechanism behind that attraction is irrelevant to proving that attraction occurs. It's like you telling me my car can't drive because I can't explain the mechanisms that cause it to drive, after I turn the ignition key. It drives and I can prove it drives. I don't have a hope in hell in proving the mechanism behind that attraction, and clearly neither do you.

Excuse the pun, but which mechanism behind this attraction, do you yourself gravitate towards?

You don't really believe your statement, "Gravity is a wormhole in the centre of a right handed graviton which absorbs aether", do you? I mean, I didn't even know gravitons had two hands? Do they have feet as well? So, you're saying left handed gravitons don't have a wormhole in their centre which absorbs aether, but right handed gravitons do? Left handedness really does get a bum rap in life, doesn't it, even at the at the atomic level!

The problem is with Sandy (And Tom), is they are like the ugly sisters trying to cram their horrible ideas into the glass slipper of science, whilst also denying that the scientists know what they are on about.

Remember the Solar Neutrino problem he used to bang on about?
When they finally made neutrino detectors sensitive enough to detect the suns output, they found a discrepancy based on the then standard massless model of about 34% loss.
Now take into consideration that Sandy doesn’t have a neutrino detector, and these scientists who were working on a huge sun 93 million miles away from a round earth, freely admitted to the hole in their understanding but in he jumps with his ether and cognac effect arguments to (in his mind) upstage them in front of his gullible (if they even exist) followers.

Subsequent better detectors (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory) and a willingness to admit they were wrong about the mass thing and that neutrinos oscillate between 3 states. two of which weren’t detectable in the earlier observatories, sorted the inconsistency and he probably dropped and forgot the fuss he used to make, I don’t know as I don’t read him anymore, but either way it shows his hypocrisy in using RE proponents’ science to rail against and as basis for his gobbledegook.

It is said that one day Stalin had called all of his ministers for an important discussion, and while he was looking over at them, he was overheard saying: "What a bunch of shits".

Looking at all of you here, I get the same feeling.

The best RE physicists have already found the correct description for gravity, and it is not attractive.

What they have discovered is that there are two types of particles, gravitons and antigravitons. These particles are connected by quantum entanglement, that is, classical gravity is a consequence of entanglement—pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.

We are being told that the Earth has an orbital speed of 29km/s. Then, the quantum entagled gravitons cannot explain how an object at the surface of a sphere (geoid) can adhere to that surface given this speed.

Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University) has conducted an experiment, in full vacuum, where closely placed plates were PUSHED toward each other by the outside pressure of the ether waves (he calls them negative energy).

The concept of attractive gravity is no longer feasible or even accepted at the highest level of modern physics. Gravity is caused by wormholes which are connected by quantum entanglement (a superluminal highway).

Here are the bibliographical references:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92282.msg2418397#msg2418397


The Sudbury Observatory's detections amount to nothing at all:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160310000704/http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

Looking at all of you here, I get the same feeling.

Of course you would, upset that we are exposing your dishonest BS.

Again, if you want to complain about the lack of a mechanism for a fundamental force, you need to provide a viable alternative.
Either one using a different fundamental force, or one which doesn't suffer from the problem you are objecting to for the RE.

But you can't.

Again, we don't need a mechanism to know gravity is real.

Here are the bibliographical references:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92282.msg2418397#msg2418397

No, that is a link to your delusional BS.

Now again, care to provide a mechanism?
If not, care to address the the issue of the sun?