Jane's FE Compendium

So, while I’m a REer, I enjoy taking the time to learn FE models. As such, it helps to be able to express them in my own words, and explain them; that’s always a good trick for being able to understand something.
I am making no claims as to the accuracy of any of the models and explanations, simply presenting them as-is. Please do not debate the contents. That’s not really suitable for IR anyway.

This is basically just going to be a place where I write up everything I know about the various models. It won’t necessarily be a complete reference, especially not for a while. It’s limited by how much I can find in the way of detailed explanation, and how much I can understand. Equally, some of the posts may be quite dense. There's not much I can do about that, though I've tried to make it concise.

Honestly it’s as much for personal use as anything, but some people might find it useful to have all the information in one, semi-organized place. I’ve had a document like this since trying to understand the models, but it seemed other people might have a use for it too.
Please navigate by using the sort-of contents below. The direct links to various posts ought to be clear enough, and if you use that instead of scrolling around then I can write the posts in any order, and it allows other people to post in this thread. Please do feel free to post if there’s any point you find unclear, or any topic you’d like to make sure isn’t omitted. Equally, if a FEer would like to fact-check their model, please do so.
This isn’t intended to misrepresent.
This also isn’t meant to exactly be an FAQ, I’m not going to answer every objection to every model, just explain what it is those models contain. If I’ve learnt anything from the main forums, if we start a debate on whether one aspect of one FE model explains reality, we’ll be here for ages. It’s just a reference point so FEers don’t have to explain their models endlessly. This just comes from what I’ve seen and discussions I’ve had over the forums.

It isn't complete yet. Other headings may be added, and I have not yet gotten to all sections.

Miscellaneous
These are bits and pieces that do exist in FE models, but are ones that can be pick-and-mixed to a degree. There’s no sole distinct model that exists for these elements. There may be, for example, multiple explanations of what causes gravity. As many of these aspects are shared between otherwise contradictory model, I give them all here. They’re more common beliefs.
Later sections will give details on more niche FE models.

Explanations for what keeps us on the Earth's surface
Universal Acceleration
The Law of Density

The movements of stars
Celestial Gravitation
Celestial Gears
Whirlpools
Photoelectric Suspension

Other
Conspiracy
Bioluminescence and the Moon (Moonshrimp)
Atmospheric Haze
The Ice Wall
The Anti-Moon and Shadow Object
Mach's Principle
Satellites
Bendy light/Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory

The Denpressure Model
This model was developed by forum user Sceptimatic. It’s named for one of the better known aspects of the model, a density-pressure based explanation for what keeps us on the Earth’s surface.

The Model of Matter
The Layout of the Earth
Denpressure 
 

Dual Earth Theory
This model was developed by forum user JRoweSkeptic. The name was chosen by him. It features a two-sided disc, intended to answer many recurring questions.

Aether
The Layout of the Earth
Stars and Celestial Objects

Non-Euclidean Model
This is the model championed by Flat Earth Society secretary John Davis, founded on the idea that the Earth is a non-Euclidean surface.

Non-Euclidean Space
The Ferrari Effect

Infinite Earth Theory
This model is used by a number of people and, as the name suggests, supposes that the Earth is infinite, and has no edge.
 
Gravity on an Infinite Plane
Expanding Space

Sandokhan's Advanced Flat Earth Theory
This model was developed by forum user Sandokhan, and draws from a number of sources. It has its own thread in the Believers section.

Foreword/Related Reading
Vortex Model of the Atom
The Layout of the Earth and Celestial Bodies

The Biblical Model
This is the model often held by FEers who take their inspiration from the Bible. There is some minor variation, but in general they follow this:

The Layout of the Earth

Universal Acceleration

This is one explanation for gravity. It follows from Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, which is most often illustrated by the following analogy.
If you were in a sealed pod, like an elevator, and could not see the outside world, then you would not be able to tell the difference between being stationary on the Earth’s surface, or being in space and accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s/s. That is, the force exerted by gravity would be indistinguishable from a force that accelerates you in the opposite direction.
If you’re in a car that accelerates, you find that you can get pinned against the chair behind you.

Universal acceleration, UA, follows much the same idea. There is a universal accelerator, that pushes everything in the universe upwards. It accelerates the Earth at a rate of approximately 9.8m/s/s, and so the Earth in turn pushes everything on its surface.
If you throw a ball into the air, it begins by moving slightly faster than the Earth, and the two are travelling upwards. Then the Earth accelerates, until the point comes where they’re moving with equal velocity; this is the apex of the ball’s flight. Then the Earth just accelerates up to meet the object while said object still ascends.

The universal accelerator also accelerates the Sun and stars, and all things we observe above the world.
There is typically a dome-like absence of the accelerator above the Earth, meaning that the objects on the Earth’s surface are not accelerated, save by contact with the Earth. The reason for this gap varies between models. In some, the accelerator is much like a current, and the Earth acts as a blockage. The flow reforms some way up, nonetheless leaving a gap.

The question of what this accelerator is varies between models. It has variously been called a flow of tachyons, aether, and dark energy. The latter is used simply as a placeholder term, as it is in RET: it causes acceleration, but not much more is known about it than that.

It is possible for an object to accelerate endlessly, despite the fact the speed of light functions as a universal speed limit, because at high speeds the formula used to sum velocities is not the same as the Newtonian format. If an object moving with velocity u moves an amount v faster, they are summed by using:

Where c is the speed of light, and u=v+u’, making u the sum of both velocities. Note that, for a u’ and v much smaller than the speed of light, this is just u+v. At high speeds however, we can accelerate endlessly and yet never reach c.

Some models believe that the force that keeps us on the Earth’s surface is the same, all over the world. That is, the force we think of as gravity does not vary dependent on location or altitude.
Some models believe that there are variations in the force that keeps us on the Earth’s surface, and that this is because the Earth does not perfectly block the accelerator. There are points where some upward force essentially reaches through the Earth, to apply a slight upwards force to objects. This is of course far overpowered by the fact it is only a mere fraction of the power behind the accelerator. Even so, it causes some places to have less of a downwards force.

Celestial Gravitation

Many FEers do not believe gravity, the attraction of mass to mass, exists. If they do, it is believed to be limited: for example, only some kinds of matter may exert a gravitational attraction, or matter may only exert gravitational attraction in specific circumstances. For most models, the Earth does not.
The Cavendish experiment is not always accepted as reliable, but when it is applying the conclusion to mass in general rather than just the specific element tested is not viewed as any more reasonable than assuming, for example, every metal is magnetic.

Some believe that the stars do exert a gravitational force, however. In this case, it is a far weaker force than the one that keeps us on the Earth’s surface, but it is still there.
This would mean that, at higher altitudes, the net downwards force on any object would be weaker due to the attractive force exerted by the stars.

Celestial Gears

This model is connected to celestial gravitation. Here, the stars also exert a gravitational force.

First, a word on terminology. The Northern Celestial System are the stars which rotate above the Northern Hemisphere. The Southern Celestial System is, naturally enough, composed of the stars that rotate above the Southern.
The combined gravitational force of a system of stars creates an object akin to a gear. This is not a literal gear, rather it is an entity made of the strong gravitational force that connects all the stars in that system.
This allows for there to be more than one gear. The Northern Celestial System rotates in one direction, while the Southern rotates in the other.

The consequences of this are as follows: we may see stars rotating around more than one distinct point in the sky, and combined with celestial gravitation we will find some small rotational force imparted to objects on the surface of the Earth, in opposite directions on each side of the equator. This is the Coriolis force.
The Sun travels around the point where the gears rub together, and shifts between two ‘tracks,’ moving closer and further from each of the celestial systems. This is what causes seasons.

The exact set-up of these gears will vary based on the map, or approximate map, held to. Bipolar models have a System over each pole, while maps which are centred at one pole and have one system over the centre, and another viewed as a circle with teeth, rotated by a series of smaller gears in between that outer circle and the central gear. The Southern Celestial System would then be the circular ‘gear.’

Matter Under Denpressure

We begin from scratch. The most basic form of matter may be visualized as a hollow ball; or rather, a ball with one small hole in. It is not rigid or solid; rather, it can be contorted and stretched and squashed depending on the forces applied to it.
Now, nature abhors a vacuum, so the default state of such a ball is so expand, so long as it has the energy to do so. A ball with access to no energy will freeze and be stuck in one shape and size, while a ball with plenty of energy (heat) will expand for as long as it can.
If you apply force to a ball, to compress it, you can squash it similarly, and the ball will simply contain potential energy. The moment the force used to compress it lessens, it will expand.

Now then, imagine you have multiple such balls in your hand. You close your hand into a fist, letting none escape, and squeeze: the balls will all be pressed tightly together. In fact, many balls will slide inside each other. As a hole exists in each ball, they will seek to occupy less space (thanks to the force your fist exerts) by sliding through that hole.
This creates an object not unlike a jawbreaker. If you google a cross-section, you’ll observe many balls layered inside one another, on and on. This idea of a jawbreaker is what composes most of the matter we see, under force from, say, the borders of the vessel it’s in, or from air pressure.
If you have many such jawbreakers forming when you squeeze your fist, then when you release your fist all the balls will seek to expand again, and leave one another, the jawbreakers emptying out.

If we fill a jar with various densities of matter, jawbreakers with various different amounts of layers, until the jar is tightly packed, and we shake, then the less dense objects will begin to rise. They require less force to compress, as fewer balls are trying to expand. They’ll be able to squeeze through the gaps, and slowly rise.
We'll get on to why they move in that one direction specifically when we get on to denpressure itself.
It is worth noting, as a companion to this jar analogy, the forces acting on each jawbreaker-molecule. The less dense objects, with fewer layers, are being acted on and being forced to compress, but there would not necessarily be enough force to compress them enough to go inside another object. Similarly, the jawbreaker molecules seek to expand, and the interior layers to expand enough to escape, but to do that they would need to exert a lot more force to compress their surroundings enough to get out. It is not the case that all molecules will equalise their number of layers if there isn't sufficient energy to do so.

There are three states of matter; gas, liquid and solid. Solid matter typically has less energy, and so is trapped in a jawbreaker form. When it is given energy, it manages to expand out, becoming a liquid, and then a gas.
It is known that an object may be made to stay solid at extreme heat when a great deal of pressure is force upon it.  Here, this is because the pressure ensures there is no room for the jawbreakers to expand, regardless of how much energy they have. When the energy of the jawbreakers can overpower the pressure exerted on the object, that is when the state changes.
On a similar, flipside note, then if you bring a jawbreaker to a vast, infinite, empty vacuum then they will expand for so long as they have energy. When that energy is used, they will essentially be solid, even at zero pressure, because they do not have the means to expand any more.

Finally, there is the matter of vibration and frequency. All matter vibrates: that’s all heat is. In a jawbreaker, all the balls are vibrating, and they’re all compressed a different amount, meaning unique combinations of overall frequency are made, for a jawbreaker with each amount of layers.
This is partially what defines an element: the number of layers in the overall jawbreaker. Their properties (from state at a certain temperature, to reactivity…) are determined by their frequencies. However, it is worth noting that as you heat and cool an element, the number of layers in a jawbreaker in fact change. 

Whirlpools

This is often connected to the model of universal acceleration. If it is, often the accelerator, whose current was blocked by the Earth, will have the absence made by the Earth form a dome-type shape. At the bottom is the Earth, and at the top is a point where various flows recombine, and create rotational motion that is not unlike a whirlpool.
These have also been called aetheric whirlpools, for models that use the term aether.

The underlying idea, independent of UA, is just that some entity flows above the Earth in a whirlpool-like form. This creates rotational motion, and it is in this that celestial objects exist.
For example, the stars exist in such a whirlpool. As a result, they will appear to rotate about one point. The same will also hold for the Sun and moon.
In the case of the Sun, however, as it travels in a circle, the radius of this circle changes. This is what causes seasons to change. Sometimes there will be 24 hour sunlight at the central pole, but when the Sun is further out no sunlight would reach it.

The number of whirlpools vary depending on model. There may be one, or the flows may recombine at multiple altitudes. This is used not only to have objects rotating at multiple altitudes, but in some cases to explain how gravity can vary based on altitude. The higher you go, the more upwards force there is.

 Aether

This is the definition of aether within the Dual Earth model. This is not a universally relevant definition. If you see the term aether used, it might mean something entirely different. The word is also used within Dual Earth Theory (DET), however, so it will be used and defined here, with the understanding that the definition applies only to this one model.

In essence, aether is defined as ‘the fabric of space, following the law that all things flow from high concentrations to low.’
Let’s unpack this.

First, the fabric of space. As those who are familiar with the theory of relativity know, space is not just an abstract dimension: it may be manipulated and altered. In the case of relativity, this manipulation happens because of mass.
If space is the means by which we measure distance between two objects, then clearly more space would mean there is more distance between them, while less space would mean less distance between the objects.

Second, we consider the law. This is behaviour noted to occur everywhere, such as in diffusion, osmosis, pressure systems and thermodynamics. There is a natural tendency for concentrations to want to equalize, reach equilibrium, and the way they do this is by moving from high concentrations to low.

To combine the two, we need a notion of a concentration of space. The easiest analogy is to think of space as a set of coordinate points. If you draw a grid of dots, evenly spaced, then an object may occupy, say, 3 points in a row. If, instead of being drawn on paper, this grid is drawn on elastic, then you can stretch the three dots out to appear further apart than they were before. The object, however, still occupies the same three dots: it is the same size, but might not seem it from the perspective of unstretched dots.
Sparsely packed dots give us a notion of a low concentration. A high concentration is, naturally enough, a lot of these dots pushed together.
All together, this means a high concentration of space will flow towards a low concentration. This means the points themselves move, to try and make sure all the points are evenly dispersed.

A line must be drawn however between a short distance between two objects in a uniform concentration, and a short distance between two objects in a non-uniform concentration. In the former, though there is a short distance and so a small amount of space/aether, it would not cause any flow because the concentration is uniform. Such flow relies on a variation in the concentration, and a short distance is not the same as a low concentration.

One thing it is worth noticing, is that space is frictionless and not intelligent, so the amount that flows from a high concentration to a low concentration will not be the precise amount that is required to even it out. In fact, often too much could flow to a low concentration, meaning that low concentration is now a high concentration, and it must flow back to the low concentration left in its wake (or, more likely, an adjacent high concentration will fill in the new low).

Conspiracy

In nearly all cases, FET will require a conspiracy of some description; however the depth of this conspiracy can vary. In general, though, the form of conspiracy can be placed in one or two categories. I use the terminology ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ conspiracy, but I’m not aware of anyone else who does the same. It’s a convenient shorthand for this thread.
It is worth noting that a handful users, most likely those who follow the non-Euclidean model, do not accept that there is a conspiracy of any form.

Weak Conspiracy
This is by far the most common sort in the FES. A weak conspiracy is one where the secret only extends as far as space travel. Space travel is faked for financial and political gain, the former from the money that would be spent on rockets etc, and the latter in the case of the Cold War era origin of space travel. In this case, the conspiracy would not extend beyond a small handful of higher-ups in space agencies, and the astronauts/cosmonauts themselves. There is no reason for it to extend any further than this; some say the President would know if NASA was faking it, but this would not necessarily be the case.
This conspiracy is believed more generally than FET, as well. A number of people, even those who think the world is round, believe at least some of space travel is faked.
Images from space of a globe simply showed what it was the scientists expected to see. As RET is the dominant theory, photos from space depict it.
There is no other aspect to the conspiracy, in the ‘weak’ formulation. All other scientific incongruities are simply honest mistakes. Only space travel is faked.
This does not require a unified shadowy organization. Some suppose that space travel is impossible under their FE model, and so each company that tries it fails, and then lies to save face with no inkling that all of space travel is a lie.

Strong Conspiracy
This model is rarer, but not unheard of. More often than not, it is held by those who came to FET as a culmination of multiple counts of what are called conspiracy theories. In this case, the conspiracy extends beyond just space travel. For example, some (often older) models posit the existence of 'ice wall guards,' people hired to prevent investigation into the rim of the Earth, in models where there is an accessible ice wall.
As is always the case with conspiracies, the precise details of who hides what and why are unknown. If such secrets were widespread, it would hardly be a conspiracy. Often, though, is it believed there is some class aware of the true shape of the Earth, and acting to hide this.
The motive may be anything from religion, to social control.
Research will be quashed, scientific knowledge misrepresented. In the case of the strong conspiracy, often it is believed the true map of the flat Earth is the depiction of the azimuthal equidistant projection in the UN logo.

I'm just going to link this old thread for breaking a lot of proposals down:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.0

Gravity on an Infinite Plane

One FE model features the Earth going on endlessly. While the part of the Earth that we live in is only some finite section, the matter of the Earth itself is endless.

In this case, the typical model of gravity, mass attracting mass, may apply.
There is no way for an infinite plane to be pulled into the shape of a ball. Similarly, the horizontal component of the pull of gravity on any object on the disc’s surface would be balanced: there’s the same amount of mass to each side, meaning a net force of zero.
The downwards force of gravity caused by an infinite plane is dependent solely on the depth of said plane. The thickness can be calculated, I believe, to be approximately 4,250km.

Moonshrimp

This is a rather light-hearted term, but the gist is simple enough. The moon is inhabited by bioluminescent creatures, colloquially referred to as moonshrimp, though the exact details of the form of life are not known.

Much of this model is little more than speculation. There is no firm knowledge as to what ecosystem or food chain, if any, that they are a part of, though some have made some deductions.
However, comparisons have been drawn to the Earth-based alpheidae shrimp, hence the name, which are capable of causing sonoluminescence: causing a tremendously bright flash of light. A large quantity of such creatures would be able to illuminate large areas constantly.
It is also said that there is bioluminescent fungus. This idea could stand alone, but is also used in combination with moonshrimp, positing the moonshrimp as a species that kill and consume said fungus. This would account for how the light from the moon can vary in brightness.
Further, the shrimp migrate to where the fungus grows, accounting for waxing and waning.

Various other assumptions about the life cycles of these creatures, such as breeding seasons, can be used to explain such observations as lunar eclipses.
More general bioluminescence could take the place of sonoluminescence, but there are a number of models.

The DE Earth

This follows entirely from the Dual Earth model of aether.

Firstly, if an object is and has never been under any force, then it is stationary. This means it occupies a fixed point in space; it takes a force for the object to gain speed. However, DET allows space to flow, so an object may appear to move with reference to another object without requiring forces; this is because the objects themselves remain occupying the same points in space, it is just those points that move.
This a crucial point.

Under DET, the Earth is composed essentially of two discs. These formed in a low concentration of aether. In between the two there is the lowest concentration of all, but the higher your altitude the higher the concentration becomes. The maximum thickness is just past the edges of the Earth, and this may be viewed as the ‘default’ thickness of aether. Right in the centre of the Earth, in the middle of an otherwise low concentration, is a pocket of thicker aether. This exists because of the flow of aether, explained in the relevant section and detailed below.
As previously stated, aether flows from high concentrations to low. As such, from both above and below aether flows towards the centre of the Earth. The point where these two flows meet is the higher concentration in the middle. However, as explained before, the flow of a high concentration leaves a low in its wake. This must in turn be filled in by the adjacent aether, which in turn leaves another gap to fill in…
Because of this, the aether that flowed to the middle of the Earth has the opportunity to flow out again, through the sides of the Earth, to rejoin a current that flows up or down, and flows inwards; after all, the environs of the Earth are a much lower concentration than all the space that surrounds.
As the more distant aether is ‘unaware’ of the low concentration, only the adjacent aether knows to flow.

Each side of the disc basically reflects the other. A dome-like shape may be sketched out from the concentrations of aether; the currents from all around flowing inwards. Where the opposing flows meet, a whirlpool (rotational motion) results. Multiple whirlpools form, each above the other. As each of these whirlpools turn, syncing and desyncing, they alter the slight tilt to the disc.

This is the basic set-up. Next is what this means in practise.
The rim of the disc is the equator. It may easily be crossed however. If you stand with one foot on either side of the equator, one would be on, say, the top right hand side of the Earth, while the other would be on the bottom left. Each side is joined by the low concentration of aether through the Earth; there is no space in which to notice any discontinuity.
The downwards flow is what causes gravity. The space all objects exist in descends. The higher you are, the more whirlpools you are past, and the less powerful the downwards force. Similarly, the closer you are to the poles, the stronger the force is as it is at the central point of multiple flows inwards.
Crossing whirlpools is minor at lower altitudes, but the higher you go the greater the difference between them. At extreme altitudes crossing a whirlpool will tear you apart as part of you will be moving at a different rate to the part of you that has not yet crossed. This is why space travel is said to be impossible under DET.

This downwards flow is in turn why we cross the equator. Instead of just stepping out off the disc, we are pulled down, and when you reach the edge of the disc you would be pulled inside, and you would follow that direction on to the far side (and through the Earth, again due to the direction of the flow). Due to the low concentration you move through however, you notice nothing. It happens essentially instantaneously.
The same happens for people and planes. While there is a low concentration inside the Earth, you would have to be at an extreme altitude to reach it by crossing the equator.
An object right in the middle, however, would appear to be both above and below the Earth at the same time. It occupies the same kind of location as a person with a foot on either side of the equator.

The tilt of the Earth causes the seasons. The varying focus of the whirlpools also causes tides, reaching spring and neap tides depend on how synchronized they are.

Non-Euclidean Space

Euclidean space, how we conventionally think of space, can be defined a number of ways. Perhaps the most intuitive is to think of it as the space in which Pythagoras’ theorem holds. If you have x and y axis and you choose two coordinates (for simplicity, let’s say (0,0) and (3,4)) then to find the distance between those points you note that you can form a triangle, and the distance between them is the length of the hypotenuse, easily found by Pythagoras’ theorem. Here, it gives 5. Thus, Pythagoras gives us the distance between any two points.
Non-Euclidean space may simply be thought of as one that calculates distance in another way. This would allow for, for example, a surface that exhibits no curvature to also have a triangle with three right angles, despite the impossibility of that in Euclidean space.

More technically, we can look at Euclid’s postulates. One states that any line segment may be extended infinitely into a straight line. If we alter this we can create a non-Euclidean space where any line segment can be extended in a straight line to intersect itself; that is, walk far enough in one direction and you’ll end up where you started.

Typically, this is all the model states; that in non-Euclidean space you can easily get the distances to explain flight times, and even have two distinct poles.

I should emphasize the following is not inherently the model, but it proves a convenient way for an REer to see how this could work. If you accept RET, then an easy way to create a non-Euclidean FE model is with a mathematical mapping. There are a number of mathematical ways to project the surface of a sphere onto a plane, or a plane onto a sphere. To extend that, you can map all of RET to a flat disc in non-Euclidean space, essentially by ‘unpeeling’ the Earth, and allowing for sufficient travel in one direction to bring you back where you started. It would similarly warp space. This mathematical mapping, as it follows on directly from a model you believe to be accurate, would in turn perfectly explain how light moves, how the moon and planets move…

However, it is not right to say that this model is just RET. It is a flat disc, in non-Euclidean space, not a globe in Euclidean space (although technically space isn’t Euclidean under RET, but we’ll get to that).
A good analogy here is the difference between heliocentrism and geocentrism. Ultimately it is just a choice of reference frame; choose one in which the Earth is stationary, and you can mathematically describe everything just fine. The model works. The reason RET favours heliocentrism now is explanatory power; heliocentrism can explain why the Earth goes around the Sun, and explain retrograde motion, while the geocentric explanation is questionable.
With the non-Euclidean model, it is the same. Mathematically it all works, the only real questions are why anything behaves the way it does. The path of light depends on the space it’s in, so that isn’t an issue. Celestial objects, such as the Sun, however are said to move at a constant speed in a straight line. In the non-Euclidean space defined, this will take the form of an orbit, an object ending up where it started. As it is not altering velocity, no new force is required to maintain it.

Theoretically the non-Euclidean model can also allow for space travel. The moon is still the moon, orbits are perfectly possible, and due to the path light takes it is more than possible to view a globe from space. As I said, it is possible to create a non-Euclidean model where everything would look the same as in RET.
It is worth emphasizing again that the non-Euclidean model will not necessarily line up with RET. Many might still disagree with distances, or disagree that space travel occurs, or have any number of other departures.

The last question would be why space behaves like this. However, space is not necessarily going to be Euclidean; we simply assume that because it works that way on small scales. In fact, the space we live in under RET is Minkowski space; its properties are rather different to Euclidean space, and there is no reason to treat Euclidean as the default except for the fact we are used to doing so.

The Earth in the Denpressure Model

The Earth itself is a flat disc. It is centred at the North Pole, and right in the middle is a hot, bright light source formed of carbon, which functions the same way as a carbon arc light. This is the primary source of heat for the whole Earth, providing heat from under the ground also.
When you are far away from this light source, you get closer and closer to absolute zero. At a certain distance, even the air itself will freeze. This forms a dome, a solid barrier no human can reach because of the sheer cold of the temperatures it exists it. It extends around and above the disc of the Earth.
The light source is surrounded by crystal, which scatters the light up in a myriad specks. These reflect off the dome, creating what we see as stars. Similarly, the moon and Sun are also reflections of this central light. The Sun is the brightest, and so the hottest. The crystal is rotating, causing the motion of all the various lights.

Essentially, at the very centre of the world is a graphite electrode rapidly ascending and descending, beneath a layer of crystal. This crystal too ascends and descends, altering the inclination of the reflected stars, Sun and moon and thus being responsible for seasons.

The point where the Sun shines on the dome is heated up. With this extra warmth, the dome evaporates, rising up; then, when the Sun moves on, it cools down and refreezes again. In this way the dome can be said to ‘breathe,’ the roof going up and down.
As this follows from the denpressure model of molecules, the least dense molecules rise, and expand more and more as they do. When they run out of the energy to expand, this is where the dome forms.

Am I allowed to post here?

This is a cool thread.

Am I allowed to post here?

This is a cool thread.

Thanks!
Always appreciated the FEers that have easy access to their model, so you don't have to keep asking the same questions that've been asked before. Hopefully this'll help some of them, and hopefully let REers make more relevant arguments.

Feel free to post, though I'd rather not get into a debate of what works/doesn't work here, they go on forever. But if there's something you want covered, or part of it that's unclear, let me know. The way this is set up, the original post will link to the right topic, no matter what discussions go on in between. So long as I keep the posts updated, it ought to work.

Thanks for all the work you've put into this!

Also, if anyone wants to debate what is in this thread they should start a thread in the appropriate forum.

Stars Under DET

According to the DE model, everything off of the Earth’s surface is one particular type of entity. The variations are only in size and location. This entity we will call a star. It is an approximately round object, with a metal interior and rocky exterior, and the metal core is visible at some point on the outside.
These exist in the aetheric whirlpools above and below the Earth. Within these whirlpools, the flow of aether is not entirely uniform. Thus, some points in space are moving at a different rate to another point in space; so long as the relative motion caused by this is not too large, the structure of the star will not be damaged. However, friction will result from particles rubbing together, heating the metal until it is white hot. 
As a result, the star has one lit face, while the rest of it, covered in rock, is not illuminated, rendering it a spotlight-type object.

The stars rotate around two separate points, one above the North Pole, one above the South. All of them are lit like this.
As mentioned before, an object in the very centre of the Earth will appear above and below the disc, much like someone with a foot on either side of the equator. There is one of these stars there. Instead of circling, as it is in the centre it simply rotates on the spot, shining down onto the top and bottom of the disc, before turning away and appearing ‘cut off’ by the rock that surrounds it. This star is the Sun.
There are other stars inside the Earth, which are called the moon and the planets. They rotate around the Sun, but from a perspective on Earth may sometimes appear behind the Sun, or in front.

The Sun, as a rotating metal core of sorts to the Earth, is responsible for its magnetic field. The moon’s rotation is responsible for its phases; when it is seen side-on we might only glimpse a crescent of the light, for example.

All meteors are stars like this that did not get to form properly, and were torn apart when they moved between whirlpools.

Well done Jane. I think you've done fantastically well and I appreciate the effort and time you've put into all of what you have in this entire topic compendium..

Well done Jane. I think you've done fantastically well and I appreciate the effort and time you've put into all of what you have in this entire topic compendium..

Thank you, I hope I accurately represented your model. Please feel free to correct me if I missed anything.

Isn't a model supposed to be a representation of reality,  whether it's a mathematical model,  graphical model or indeed papier-mache and coathanger wire model?
All the above seem like wild hypotheses rather than models of anything.   

Just a thought, could there be a "Return to top" function at the bottom of each post, to save me from having to scroll all the way back up every time?

Brilliant work though - very informative and helpful.

Just a thought, could there be a "Return to top" function at the bottom of each post, to save me from having to scroll all the way back up every time?

Brilliant work though - very informative and helpful.

Do you not have the black circle with the up arrow in the lower right corner?

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on June 26, 2017, 05:17:42 PM

Just a thought, could there be a "Return to top" function at the bottom of each post, to save me from having to scroll all the way back up every time?

Brilliant work though - very informative and helpful.

Do you not have the black circle with the up arrow in the lower right corner?

Sshhh I am very intelligent.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 26, 2017, 05:30:30 PM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on June 26, 2017, 05:17:42 PM

Just a thought, could there be a "Return to top" function at the bottom of each post, to save me from having to scroll all the way back up every time?

Brilliant work though - very informative and helpful.

Do you not have the black circle with the up arrow in the lower right corner?

Sshhh I am very intelligent.

I've been on this forum years and this is the first time I've noticed that. So, uh, you're not alone.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on June 26, 2017, 05:17:42 PM

Just a thought, could there be a "Return to top" function at the bottom of each post, to save me from having to scroll all the way back up every time?

Brilliant work though - very informative and helpful.

Do you not have the black circle with the up arrow in the lower right corner?

On my phone it is at the lower left next to the page numbers and says, "Go Up."

Atmospheric Haze

This is based on the fact that air is not perfectly transparent. Over short distances you don’t notice anything, but over long distances you’re looking through more and more air, and it becomes harder to make things out clearly due to the water vapour and the like in the medium you’re looking through.
This is why we cannot see on endlessly. Even if there were no obstacles between you and an object in the distance, even though the Earth would be flat you couldn’t see it through the accumulated haze.

The impact of atmospheric haze is greater at ground level, however, as air is thinner at higher altitudes. As such, if you want to see further (or be seen from further away) it is beneficial to ascend. The higher you go the thinner the air and the atmospheric haze are, and so the easier it is to see or be seen.
Similarly, if you look up you can see the more distant Sun, moon and stars despite how far away they are because the haze is much thinner above you. At sea level though, haze can obscure far more easily.

Denpressure

This follows on from the rest of the denpressure model; both the model of matter, and the layout of the Earth. It is the explanation for what keeps us on the Earth's surface under this model, named for the two key components: density, and pressure.

The molecules in the air seek to expand; this exerts pressure on everything it touches. However, it would not do so equally in all directions; they are typically free to expand upwards, until they reach the point where they have no more energy and freeze, forming the dome. As the sole major source of heat in this model is the Sun, the further a molecule is from the Sun the more it has expanded, until it freezes. Nearer the Sun, molecules have the energy to compress and push against and inside one another.
Given the location of the Sun in the denpressure model, this in turn means there is more (and denser) air closer to the Earth's surface. The higher you go the less there is, and the further out you go the less there is.
This creates a kind of pyramid-stack; at the bottom are a whole host of molecules, but the higher up the stack you go the less there are.

The first question you might ask is why we are pressed to the Earth's surface, rather than any nearby wall regardless of inclination. This is tied to the Sun.
A useful analogy now is that of an inflatable chamber. Picture a large, flat metal circle with stretchy rubber lain over it and attached at the sides. It begins flat; then, when you pump air in, the rubber will expand up, and up, until it forms a dome-like chamber.
If you were inside said vessel during the inflation, you would find yourself pinned to the metal surface.
Now, if you were left inside the chamber for some time after the inflation had finished, the air would even out, and you'd have equal pressure acting on all sides of you; this is due to the lack of a force preventing the air from reaching equilibrium.
In the denpressure model, the movement of the Sun prevents the air from settling down, perpetually exciting some of it, varying based on time of day. In turn, this means the dome of the Earth is much like a chamber as described above perpetually being inflated, and so keeping everything pinned down to one surface.

The second question you might ask is why some objects seem heavier than others.
So far we've only covered the pressure half of the model; this is where we move on to density. All objects are, partially, porous according to the denpressure model. There are tiny, tiny little holes that can fit just molecules inside. As the air seeks to expand, it takes the opportunity to expand into these holes.
The pressure exerted by the air is based on how much air is displaced. It can be thought of as a kind of buoyancy. The less dense an object, the more porous it is, and so the more air molecules are inside those holes and the less air is displaced.
Thus the force exerted by denpressure is based upon two factors; the volume of an object, and the density of said object. The larger an object's volume the more air it displaces, and the greater an objects density the more air is displaced, so increase either of those factors and the force exerted by denpressure, the weight of the object, increases also.

Atmospheric Haze

This is based on the fact that air is not perfectly transparent. Over short distances you don’t notice anything, but over long distances you’re looking through more and more air, and it becomes harder to make things out clearly due to the water vapour and the like in the medium you’re looking through.
This is why we cannot see on endlessly. Even if there were no obstacles between you and an object in the distance, even though the Earth would be flat you couldn’t see it through the accumulated haze.

The impact of atmospheric haze is greater at ground level, however, as air is thinner at higher altitudes. As such, if you want to see further (or be seen from further away) it is beneficial to ascend. The higher you go the thinner the air and the atmospheric haze are, and so the easier it is to see or be seen.
Similarly, if you look up you can see the more distant Sun, moon and stars despite how far away they are because the haze is much thinner above you. At sea level though, haze can obscure far more easily.

and BOOM goes the Dynamite!!! Couldn't have said this better myself... just like when people RE and FE Alike ALWAYS turn to the "looking at a city on the other side of water like 45 miles away...." when NO ONE takes into account the SWELL of water as it heaves up and down.... this 100% make any sea level measurement VERY VERY VERY Inaccurate! that's why you cannot "see the bottom" of some buildings, or an Ocean Freighter off in the distance you cannot see the whole hull of the ship, and that's the easiest explanation yet they all still say itca cause of the Curvature bahaha yet this is SIMPLE physics... smh, people really cannot take the MOST simplistic Science and adhere to it!

Ice Wall

As it sounds, this is a wall made up of (usually/predominantly) ice, though there are a number of variations. The basic gist is that all around the known Earth there is a wall composed of ice. Sometimes this is at the rim of the Earth, while in others it's simply the border around our section and there's land beyond it.
The height of the wall varies. Sometimes it's just enough to keep the water in, sometimes it's high enough to render travel beyond impossible. Sometimes it goes high enough to contain the air. In some models there is in fact a tremendous dome, the walls ascending high enough and curving in to meet.

The formation of the wall varies. In some models it forms so far away from the Sun that the water has no choice but to freeze. In models with universal acceleration, it can be formed similarly to this but there is also the fact that anything that goes over the edge of the Earth will also be accelerated upwards (and often accelerated harder than the Earth, with nothing to dampen the force). Should this freeze, it could naturally result in a rather high wall.
The latter could also happen with rocks and dirt. The ice wall is not always said to be completely ice.

According to some, the ice wall is reflective and when sunlight shines up it, it reflects as though through a tunnel of mirrors to shine light all around the rim of the Earth.

Anti-Moon and Shadow Object

In some models these are the same object, while in others they are entirely distinct.

The shadow object is a celestial body that, as the name suggests, emits no light. It travels across the sky and can only be detected by the absence of light, making it very difficult to observe.
While solar eclipses are explained by the moon passing in front of the Sun, lunar eclipses are said to be caused by this shadow object passing between the moon and Sun, or sometimes just passing in front of the moon.
Often the shadow object is said to orbit around the Sun, very closely to it. This also accounts for it being hard to observe; celestial objects near the Sun will be blotted out by the light emanated from it. In some models it is hypothesized that it may in fact be a known celestial object, such as Mercury or Venus. In models such as this it has been calculated to be five to ten miles in diameter.
During a lunar eclipse the shadow object passes between the Sun and moon, and as it is closer to the Sun its penumbra is cast over the moon.

The anti-moon has an entirely separate function. It exists beneath the disc of the Earth, rotating in its own way, and exerting a gravitational influence that affects or causes tides.
Sometimes there is said to be an anti-sun also, formalising a parallel with the bodies above the Earth, but this is substantially rarer.
In some models the anti-moon and shadow object are one and the same. The anti-moon’s path will take it around, influencing the seas, before it arcs over above the disc and passes in front of the moon, before descending again. Exact data regarding its size, proximity to the Sun and such are less clear under these models.

These objects are not always the same. Some models will have one with a different explanation for the other’s effects, some will have both as distinct entities, some will have them combined, and others still will have neither.