Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Heavenly Breeze

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
1
When you cannot find any object on Earth, which was not always on Earth, and when no object has landed on Earth from elsewhere, and don’t try to tell me about some ‘comets’ or ‘meteorites’ from ‘space’ landing down on Earth, because it’s just bs, without a shred of proof for it!

The evidence of all things originating on Earth is that all things have always been seen on Earth, since we first existed on Earth, and ever since then, and every day from now, and ten or a hundred years from now, they will be on Earth.

We weren’t here to see things before we came to exist, so it’s impossible to prove it, or prove otherwise, either.

But based on the evidence that exists, with all things being on Earth for thousands of years at least, we also know that nothing has come to Earth from elsewhere, in thousands of years either.

If you think that meteorites or comets have come down to Earth from ‘space’, we’d have more than the same two objects coming from ‘space’ all the time by now, just the same two objects and nothing else, would already make no sense at all. If it were true, that is

Oh, what a mess. It’s hard to imagine more utter nonsense. Meteors have been falling towards us for a long time. What about the Tunguska meteor? or is he also just a fairy tale?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« on: June 18, 2023, 11:33:43 AM »
2. The outlines of the continents do not match. And again a reference to the first point.
In what way do they not match?
Can you elaborate to explain the issue at all?

3. Triangulation was done on the territory of the CIS, therefore the argument you cited that false assumptions about a flat earth were deliberately made is incorrect. You probably haven't watched these videos. I understand perfectly well that the earth is round and you can not prove it to me every time. I just would like an interesting discussion of some of the oddities of our world. And not to divide everything into black and white - the world does not work that way.
Probably because that is the common claim by FEers, and you have provided no details at all about this triangulation you claim which results in an altitude of 6000 km.
Can you provide any details?

4. Everyone understands perspective, but how it works and why it works this way from the point of view of physics - still there is no explanation.
There is an explanation, an incredibly simple one.
Our vision, and the vision of cameras, work based upon angles.

This turns it into simple geometry.
For example, if you have an object that is at right angles to a line drawn from your eye to the midpoint, then you can construct 2 congruent right angle triangles.
One common line will be the line from your eye to the middle of the object, with a distance of d.
They will then each have a line perpendicular to that of length h/2, where h is the "height" of the object.
The final line is the tip of the object back to your eye.
So the angle it subtends at your eye will be the sum of the angles at your eye for the triangles.
This means the angle is 2*atan(h/2d).

At large distances, tan(x)~= x, so atan(x) ~= x.
This means for large distances, the angular size of the object will be h/d (in radians).
So doubling the distance halves the size.

If it isn't at right angles, you can use the law of cosines c^2=a^2+b^2-2*a*b*cos(c).

Just what do you think isn't explained?

5. I understand that you have not encountered RHYTHMODYNAMICS (banned in Russia), otherwise the discussion would have been in a different vein. The common mistake of those arguing here is that they occupy only two points of view. Yes, I understand that these are the unspoken rules of this platform, but is it really impossible to talk about the same thing, but only in a multipolar vector?
If you understand me, then you can probably explain what the geostationary orbit actually is, and why the photos of the earth from it are always different. All of the above statements are directly related to the topic of the debate.
A geostationary orbit is an orbit with an inclination of 0, and which has an orbital period equal to the period of rotation of Earth.

Not all photos from Earth are from geostationary orbits.
And again, I am yet to see a difference that isn't expected from different angles, different distances, different cameras, and so on.


I take my hat off to you.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« on: June 17, 2023, 10:40:59 PM »
1. I tell you about Thomas, and you tell me about Yarem, We do not understand each other. You are absolutely not talking about that. With what you bring - I agree. But now try to understand what I'm talking about, otherwise you can talk about nothing ad infinitum.
2. The outlines of the continents do not match. And again a reference to the first point.
3. Triangulation was done on the territory of the CIS, therefore the argument you cited that false assumptions about a flat earth were deliberately made is incorrect. You probably haven't watched these videos. I understand perfectly well that the earth is round and you can not prove it to me every time. I just would like an interesting discussion of some of the oddities of our world. And not to divide everything into black and white - the world does not work that way.
4. Everyone understands perspective, but how it works and why it works this way from the point of view of physics - still there is no explanation.
5. I understand that you have not encountered RHYTHMODYNAMICS (banned in Russia), otherwise the discussion would have been in a different vein. The common mistake of those arguing here is that they occupy only two points of view. Yes, I understand that these are the unspoken rules of this platform, but is it really impossible to talk about the same thing, but only in a multipolar vector?
If you understand me, then you can probably explain what the geostationary orbit actually is, and why the photos of the earth from it are always different. All of the above statements are directly related to the topic of the debate.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« on: June 17, 2023, 01:01:37 PM »
This is the first time I hear about such that photos look different if the object is shot from different distances - all the curvature of images from different lenses of different cameras cannot change the photos so much. I think everyone has seen these NASA shots of different earths (size doesn't count). The pictures are really different if you compare them on a computer.
Just what differences are you talking about?

I have seen the continents appearing to be different sizes, due to being viewed from different distances.
Here is a simulation for a house:


An an example for a RE, including using a physical globe:


The other effect is colour, which can be off due to different cameras, or different white balance on a camera, and plenty are false colour images, e.g. images taken in IR, which are then shifted.

And some are composites, where they take lots and lots of photos and stitch them together.

So can you explain what you think is so different that isn't simply an affect of the above?

With graphics at home, you are fundamentally wrong! It doesn't work that way from long distances. The ratio of angle to detail size will always be virtually the same when the object is very far away. And then everything was filmed from orbit, where the distance is always more or less the same. I think that at this point no one will be able to explain what the cameras really shot, since no one still understands how perspective works. As I understand it, there is no answer why any triangulation of the sun will result in a point source with a distance of up to 6000 km. And its appearance is like diverging rays from the sky, while the rays from it are actually straight, passing through the whole earth without the slightest angle to it ...

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« on: June 11, 2023, 11:13:01 AM »
This is the first time I hear about such that photos look different if the object is shot from different distances - all the curvature of images from different lenses of different cameras cannot change the photos so much. I think everyone has seen these NASA shots of different earths (size doesn't count). The pictures are really different if you compare them on a computer.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« on: June 11, 2023, 10:49:58 AM »
I don't think I can satisfy your curiosity about torsion weights in any way. In view of the complete blocking of all Russian sites in our country. You can search the Russian sector for the information you are interested in. But keep in mind that now the whole history is being rewritten in Russia. On this, this part of the topic can be closed due to my lack of evidence base. For no one else in the world is interested in such experiments with torsion balances. Because the state of the art has advanced a lot.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« on: June 10, 2023, 11:18:59 PM »
Then why do the torsion weight - (крутильные веса) react not to the apparent position of the stars, but to their true - calculated? On where the star should be according to the calculations of its movement in time. The fact is officially confirmed, but silent.
Until now, everyone believes in the gravity of the sun, and the deflection of light rays from the stars, and this is based on fake photographs of a solar eclipse. I understand that the earth is not flat... but what we are told is not always the truth! And what is most interesting, all the photos of the earth from space are real, but here's the catch, the earth itself is different on them. This brings to mind many things. There is a theory that we live in a time loop of 120 years, and outside of it the world will change for us. Perhaps because so many discussions are going on at the expense of all these photos and videos, that now they do not always correspond to what we see in our present ???

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« on: June 10, 2023, 06:16:04 AM »
Well, I find the flat earth perspective explanation just insane.
And at the expense of the real perspective - it cannot be explained by simple calculations of angles. It is so incomprehensible why information about the true positions of distant stars spreads instantly, ignoring all known laws of physics.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« on: June 09, 2023, 09:14:51 PM »
All photos work with perspective. I am still amazed at how our world is structured. Until now, no one can explain what this perspective is. In fact, the sun is so big that its rays must directly pass through the entire space and completely wash the earth. But we always see how the rays scatter from behind the clouds, creating the illusion of a spotlight. I can't explain it.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« on: June 09, 2023, 09:06:17 PM »
easy all the CGI artists are killed after they are finished the government has them come up with a few 100 pictures that satisfy the sheep of the public then whack them and get the next one if you look closely you can see slight style differences in all of them why? because of different CGI artists and for your second claim the governments just lied to us they created photoshop in the 50s and when they created a more advanced tool they released it to the public playing you all for fools

I have never seen more stupidity  :o

11
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: May 03, 2021, 09:55:56 PM »
Look at the reports from Russia - you will understand that they are not joking. Already because they cannot fly into space ... Ha ha - now why should they all lie if their rockets fall and they get out of the space race.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How can the earth be forever accelerating
« on: March 17, 2021, 11:49:14 AM »
I agree, based on my limited understanding of the topic.  I was just pointing out that people here agreeing on something doesn’t necessarily mean all that much.
That's exactly why I was pointing out that it's not just people here agreeing though - it's a question that has been addressed by very well educated people on the subject. I'll paste a link below that talks specifically about a rocket that, for anyone on board, is accelerating at a constant 1G and discusses how it would be perceived from a couple different frames of reference. (There are, of course, plenty of other references available on the internet, Google is your friend, yada yada yada and so on...)

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html


Do you think that the earth is connected with the dome by a force field that envelops all visible space like a bubble?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How can the earth be forever accelerating
« on: March 17, 2021, 11:45:36 AM »
If the earth is accelerating all the time, then the sun and the moon must keep up with us in order to hang in the sky all the time.
But the masses are different near the earth and the sun - the question is, how does the physics of acceleration work then?

14
Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« on: March 14, 2021, 01:22:53 AM »
so where does gravity really end?

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Dear friends, the earth can not be flat.
« on: January 12, 2021, 12:29:46 PM »
The General Theory Of Relativity Is Wrong : The light of the star does not bend when passing by the sun. The position of the stars change apparently in the presence of the sun. Because the sun rotate around the earth.

Yes, the light of the stars does not deviate, and this is because the sun, like the earth, is hollow.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: October 23, 2020, 07:45:00 PM »
Hello. Reading recent threads with sandokhan, he ofter brought pressire of water/air in it.

(Pharaphasing)

For example, why doesn's bathroom scale measure tons of atmosphere above it, or why doesn't water crush down life inside it? This, as far as I see,it has goal to debunk gravity.


Form google Search i found this:

"So the pressure of the atmosphere is the same as lying under 10 m of water. However, we don't feel the weight of atmosphere. This is because the pressure pushes in all directions."

http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/BAMA/11-14/aerosch4pg1.html




I wonder how Sandohan can explain this.
I saw it myself, it happened a kilometer from my house.


17
Flat Earth General / Re: Calculating the diameter of the stars
« on: October 11, 2020, 09:57:41 AM »
Reading through the flat Earth repository I found this

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77969.0

In which Wise presents us with an image of the far side of the Moon (and therefore taken from space) and includes a claim that according to FE theory, the craters of the Moon have been formed as a result of falling stars.

I'm not going to reply directly to that thread as the last reply to it was in October 2018. However I would like to ask how FE theory has reached the conclusion that lunar craters are caused by falling stars rather than meteoroid collisions. Mostly during the time of the LHB.

Because the stars explode ... and they are clearly larger than meteorites





18
Flat Earth General / Re: Netflix Flat Earth Documentary
« on: August 18, 2020, 10:43:04 AM »
Here is another opinion of the villagers about the shape of the land.
The track from the plane is not rounded, so the ground is flat.
Sorry, the file in Ukrainian will be appreciated by anyone who knows it partially.

https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=295024498580400&id=100042185550896&d=m&vh=i

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« on: June 30, 2020, 08:51:01 PM »
It all sounds very clever but what does it actually mean and is any of it even relevant?
It's a fair question yet If you look at the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth :o!

Work that one out!

Not really.

Its just one of the many things having an opinion matters, not a jot. The people who work in that sub-atomic field on a day to day basis say they don't exist, and that is good enough for me. Unless you have a particle accelerator in your back yard that can do more than 14TeV then it should be good enough for you.
I never gave an opinion on the existence or otherwise of subquarks or preons though the fact that they might not have yet been detected means nothing.

But what I did say was
Quote
the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth

I think the fact that they have never been detected is very significant, just as unicorns have never been detected, nor flying pigs. Or do you still think there is a case for airborne pork chops?

Um ... unicorns lived only 400 - 800 years ago, in what is now Siberia. There are reliable descriptions of these creatures, as well as their skeletons. This can be seen in museums in Russia.

20
Quantum entanglement requires wormholes.

The Einstein-Rosen bridge is not traversable.

What is required is a stable traversable wormhole.

Traversable wormholes require ether: the Ellis wormhole.

Only a rotating Ellis wormhole is stable.

Gravity can function only using rotating Ellis ether stable wormholes.

You better say sandokhan - how can lunar eclipses occur over flat stationary earth? And why does gravity change in those places that are obscured by shadows? I think that none of your theories about omnipotent ether will help you.
You do not have a mechanism for this case, or am I wrong?

You shoud make new thread talking about sandokhan model, since his model is fundimentaly diffirent form other Models of Flat Earth

Like: Diffirent map, more like Mercator projection but in srcle, and antartica bieng "real", 15 km sun height and Sun literaly setting, no perspective or something other

Yes, I argued with him about the gyrocompass and his advanced theories. Alas, he could not explain to me how the gyrocompass works in his advanced theory. Indeed, the gyrocompass is affected by the hemisphere in which it is located.


Alas, it’s not interesting for me to create more topics and organize large-scale debates. And only this topic suits me, because from it I take entertaining information from sandokhan. I have never seen such nonsense anywhere. But here I am very concerned about the persistence with which sandokhan does not want to admit that he is not able to cope with gravity. And he writes complete nonsense. I had to spend a lot of time translating to understand that it refers to empty places. Why make a fool of people?

21
You do not have a mechanism for this case, or am I wrong?

You are wrong.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208296#msg2208296

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2209362#msg2209362

Instead of wasting everyone's time here, you could have looked that up: this means you are either too lazy to perform such a simple task, or that you shouldn't post in the upper forums.

The videos do not prove anything, or rather just prove that lunar eclipses occur over the ball. But this does not apply to this thread.
And in general, I asked about the mechanism of change in gravity in the areas covered by the shadow or opposition of the moon during these eclipses, both solar and lunar - you do not have an explanation of the mechanism of change of gravity even with your ether. And this is a fact that makes you angry, you need to come up with a new theory. Although the explanation is so simple, if you understand what gravity actually is.

22
Stop making bullshit.

STFU.

You have been trolling this forum for way too long.

No one knows WTF you are talking about.

My ideas are backed by the best references in the world.

So STFU.

No, I have already described my mathematical model of flat earth (only calculated). If you have not read - well this is your minus. Nobody provides me with a resource on this site - like you here. I don’t need to troll you, because, really reading your links, I don’t understand anything, because it says something completely different (since I have to carefully translate each paragraph).

Once you ask, I will dedicate you a sandokhan. The only version of a flat earth from the standpoint of physics, which explains both solar and lunar eclipses, as well as all the effects that we observe, and this is the triangulation of the sun at an altitude of 6000 kilometers above us, and the radar of the moon and other objects of our solar system , radio communications through the moon, and when TV shows are watched where it is impossible to watch, because of the bend of the earth’s crust ...


The meaning of the theory is that a vortex in the form of a Merkaba figure emerges from the center of flat earth. In which both the sun and the moon with stars are located - in general, our cosmos. Time flows there with a slowdown with a rise up. This is a mathematical calculated model meaning that such a field can really exist. The satellites height and other effects are settled on this field intensity field. But that's just it all works as long as you are on Earth. Having ascended into space, the theory does not work, therefore it is necessary to prohibit flights into space and say that they are fiction.

23
Quantum entanglement requires wormholes.

The Einstein-Rosen bridge is not traversable.

What is required is a stable traversable wormhole.

Traversable wormholes require ether: the Ellis wormhole.

Only a rotating Ellis wormhole is stable.

Gravity can function only using rotating Ellis ether stable wormholes.

You better say sandokhan - how can lunar eclipses occur over flat stationary earth? And why does gravity change in those places that are obscured by shadows? I think that none of your theories about omnipotent ether will help you.
You do not have a mechanism for this case, or am I wrong?

24
You need urgent psychiatric help.

You have just been caught lying to your readers on a massive scale in order to hide the truth!

You just shrug your shoulders and post again as if nothing happened?

Let's see how this creep tried to knowingly lie to his audience.



Stop making bullshit. If I brought all the places in which you Sandokhan refer to supposedly scientific papers explaining your stupid ideas, this would take up a lot of space. Moreover, even I who do not speak English - I understand perfectly well that you come up with your theory from scratch! Trying to invoke the authority of others. This is foul.
When I developed one of the variants of the mathematical model of flat earth, I did not refer to false information like you. Even the real one - a slight deviation of the orientation of the satellite antennas from the calculated ones, is completely settled both in flat ground and spherical. Since I now understand why this is happening.

I will return to the very beginning, the Earth is a ball, but some effects are not always explainable from the position of official science, but this does not mean at all that the earth is really flat!

25
Here is the true gray wormhole:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e1/e7/0e/e1e70e552bda4aafa6dadc10e208acd1.gif

This is the center of the wormhole providing the torque for the vortices of the wormhole itself. One tetrahedron is the shadow of the other.

Here is how subquarks can connect to each other:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2256867#msg2256867

I think sandokan - you will like it.

How to create a mole hole - physicists published detailed instructions

Everyone wants to have a personal wormhole. In the sense that who wants to travel the universe in the usual way, when a trivial flight from one star to another can take thousands and tens of thousands of years? It is much more interesting if you can drop into the nearest hole of a wormhole, take a short walk in it and find yourself in some exotic remote corner of the universe.

However, there is one small technical difficulty: wormholes, which are so strong bends of space-time that form a short tunnel between two points in the universe, are catastrophically unstable. For example, if you send a photon into a wormhole, then it will collapse faster than it flies through it, that is, faster than the speed of light.

But a recent article published in arXiv on July 29 showed a way to build an almost stable wormhole, which, of course, collapses, but is slow enough to send messages through it - and possibly even things - before it collapses. All you need is a pair of black holes and several infinitely long cosmic strings.

As easy as pie.

Problems of creating a wormhole

Basically, building a wormhole is pretty simple. According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, mass and energy deform the fabric of space-time. And a certain special configuration of matter and energy allows you to form a tunnel - the shortest path between two remote parts of the universe.

Unfortunately, even on paper, these wormholes are fantastically unstable. Just one photon passing through a wormhole triggers a catastrophic cascade that breaks it. However, a certain amount of negative-mass matter can counteract the destabilizing effects of ordinary matter trying to get through the wormhole, making it passable.

There is, however, one catch — a substance with a negative mass does not exist, so we need a backup plan.

Let's start with the wormhole itself. We need entry and exit. Theoretically, it is possible to connect together a black hole (a region of space from which nothing can escape) with a white hole (a theoretical region of space where nothing can enter). When these two unusual space objects combine, they form a completely new structure: a wormhole. Thus, you can jump to any end of this tunnel, and instead of scaring people by dropping books from endless shelves in a black hole, you will fly out from the other side without any harm to yourself.

True, white holes also do not exist. It's getting harder, isn't it?

Charge the black holes!

Since there are no white holes, we need a backup plan for the backup plan. Fortunately, smart mathematicians tell us a possible solution: a charged black hole. Black holes can carry an electric charge - yes, they don’t acquire during the natural formation of a charge, but we use what we can get. There is a strange place inside any black hole with the so-called gravitational singularity: this is perhaps the most unusual area in the universe in which most basic physical theories do not work, and the quantities describing the gravitational field become either infinitely large or indefinite. And if for an ordinary black hole this region is generally a point in its center, then for a charged one it can be distorted, and for two oppositely charged black holes they can even be connected by a bridge.

Voila: we got a wormhole using only what really can exist.

But this wormhole, created using charged black holes, has two problems. Firstly, it is still unstable, and if something or someone actually tries to use it, it will fall apart. The second problem is that two oppositely charged black holes will be attracted to each other by both gravitational and electric forces, and if they merge, then you just get one big neutrally charged and completely useless black hole.

Cosmic String Game

Thus, for all this to work, we need to make sure that the two charged black holes are safe, far enough apart, while the wormhole tunnel can remain open. A potential solution to this new challenge is cosmic strings.

Cosmic strings are theoretical defects in the fabric of space-time, similar to cracks that form when ice freezes. These cosmic remnants formed in the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang. These are truly exotic objects, no wider than the proton, but only an inch of their length outweighs Mount Everest. You will never want to meet them, because they will cut you in half, like a cosmic lightsaber, but you do not need to worry very much, because we are not even sure that they exist and have never seen them in the universe.

However, there is no reason why they cannot exist, so we don’t cunningly use them to create stable wormholes.

When it comes to wormholes, cosmic strings have one very useful property: great inertness. In other words, they really don't like being pushed. If you pierce a wormhole with a cosmic string and allow it to pass along the outer edges of the black holes, then the string tension prevents them from attracting each other. In simple terms, cosmic strings here act like steel cables that attach to the shores and keep the bridge from falling.

Build stability
One cosmic string solves one of the problems - it holds black holes in certain places, which allows entry and exit from the wormhole to be open. But it does not prevent the destruction of the wormhole itself, if you really decide to use it. So, let's add another cosmic string, also penetrating the wormhole, but at the same time passing through the normal space between these two black holes, forming a kind of loop.

When cosmic strings close in a loop, they theoretically begin to vibrate violently. These vibrations mix the very fabric of the space-time around them, and with the right settings, the vibrations can lead to the fact that the energy of the space in their vicinity becomes negative, effectively acting as a negative mass inside the wormhole, potentially stabilizing it.

This is not an ideal solution: after all, the internal vibrations of cosmic strings - the very ones that can keep the wormhole open - draw energy and, therefore, mass from the string, making it thinner and thinner. In fact, over time, the cosmic string used in this way will disappear, which will lead to the complete destruction of the wormhole. But still, a wormhole stabilized in this way can exist long enough to transmit messages or even objects through it.

But first, we need to find some cosmic strings and charge a couple of black holes.

26


Universality of Gravity from Entanglement



Well dude you are so - confused everything, that it’s just horror!

How? ???


This is the same as Geordie Rose said. Standing near a quantum computer is similar to how you stand at the altar of the alien god. And you call from there the ancients.

27
But where is the aether that you insist is essential?

You are displaying, yet again, your level of ignorance.

Quantum entanglement requires wormholes.

The Einstein-Rosen bridge is not traversable.

What is required is a stable traversable wormhole.

Traversable wormholes require ether: the Ellis wormhole.

Only a rotating Ellis wormhole is stable.

This is the door to Narnia?????

28


Universality of Gravity from Entanglement



Well dude you are so - confused everything, that it’s just horror!

29
Go ahead and explain what "mass" is.

You won't be able to.

No physicist can.

...
See my next message for the direct formula of the weight of a subquark and W = -mg at the quantum level.

but in general I am grateful to you for such nonsense, this is good material for a story about pseudoscience.

30
Go ahead and explain what "mass" is.

You won't be able to.

No physicist can.

”Mass is a very important property of matter, and we have nothing in our current theory that says even a word about it”

Claude Detraz, one of the two research directors at CERN

“We are about to enter the 21st century but our understanding of the origin of inertia, mass, and gravitation still remains what has been for centuries – an outstanding puzzle”

Vesselin Petkov


You also GOT NOTHING when it comes to explaining mass.


This makes your "mass = density x volume; density = specific weight/g" totally useless.

Says who? You?

g is measured at nucleon level!

https://arxiv.org/html/math-ph/0009025


Planck length is based on G.


G is a quantum function!

Here is the correct quantum formula for G:

G = 1/δzptp2

δzp = ether/zero point field mass-density equivalent

tp = Planck time

The proof uses a formula derived by B. Haisch and A. Rueda in 2000:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190228190940/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9909043.pdf


See my next message for the direct formula of the weight of a subquark and W = -mg at the quantum level.

You have been proven wrong.

Who proves that "Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes"? Nobody that I can find.

Plenty of papers.


https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-f/f53bab12e4a2cc303dd1339c2e7cc8cd

Bell Inequality from Holographic Gravity

The Einstein-Rosen bridge uses a degenerate metric: only the Ellis ether theory can take GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850v2.pdf

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

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.


Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205


GR cannot explain quantum entanglement/wormholes:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1330/1/012001/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1330/1/012001/pdf


A traversable wormhole requires scalar fields/ether in order to function.


But nowhere does that paper say "This is how an object attains weight".
1) The paper never mentions "weight".
2) The only mentioning of "mass" are in relation to the mass of the wormholes


You dummy.

The rotating Ellis wormhole is part of every particle, gravitons included.

See my next message for the direct formula of the weight of a subquark and W = -mg at the quantum level.

Physicists have long explained what mass and gravity are, and without your stubborn ideas with black holes.
Actually, I already gave a link to material that completely refutes your crazy ideas! But you probably don’t know how to use Google, otherwise you would cease to constantly carry all kinds of nonsense.

https://www.techlibrary.ru/b/2q1c1a1o1p1c_3m.2v._2y1j1t1n1p1e1j1o1a1n1j1l1a._2007.pdf
(rabinoz - indicated that there is a translation into English.. 

 RHYTHMODYNAMICS, Second edition, revised and extended by Yuri N. Ivanov  RHYTHMODYNAMICS, Second edition, revised and extended by Yuri N. Ivanov)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15