The Davis Relativity Model

  • 31 Replies
  • 6465 Views
*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
The Davis Relativity Model
« on: September 19, 2017, 10:58:56 PM »
Before I put this up on FE-Debate, will put some explanation, comments, and answer questions on what I have come to accept.

I call it The Davis Relativity Model because:
1. John Davis put this out as a flat earth model originally.
2. It heavily relies on Relativity, General relativity specifically. It is like "The Relativity Universe" as the term "The magnetic Universe" is to the Magnetic Flat Earth theory.

However, it is important to note that my way of explaining it will not be like Davis may describe it, in fact, I may track off of what the model was originally perceived to be, but this is how I look at it, and interpret it. 

Links I recommend for some further explanation of it: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat


The Earth is a flat plane including the sun, moon, planets, and stars. The Earth is no more unique in terms of its physical geometry than the other celestial bodies. The universe consists of aether (basically space-time), which is bent around any large mass. Think of any mass as ‘displacing’ the aether, a large mass will bend aether around it. All large masses will bend aether around them in a similar way, following that distortion of otherwise “flat” space. This means that the Earth bends aether around it, including the moon, sun, planets, and distant stars.
Aether is a term that represents the fabric of the 4-dimensional space-time continuum, in which times and distances between event pairs vary by the inertial frame of reference in which they are determined, while any event pair remains independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Aether can bend due to energy/mass, which is basically described in Einstein’s field equations, basically put out as:
Gμν=8πTμν
Where Gμν is the Einstein Tensor (with the geometry of space-time), and Tμν is the stress-energy tensor, which describes the movement of matter and energy through aether.
Please note that this is how aether is defined into this specific flat earth model, and is not to be taken into the context of other models.
Now, it is important to define “flat plane” in this model because this model does fall under the category of being a flat earth model. Flat in this case, does not mean two-dimensional, anyone could agree that the existence of mountains is not something that defines the geometry of the Earth when we are talking “flat” or “round” Earth. Rather, it is something based on space and how it relates to the Earth. A flat plane would be defined by the ability to traverse it in a straight line between two spatial coordinates. A “straight line” would be a line in a constant direction in three dimensional space, or any tangent vector on the surface always touching across it would be a flat surface and therefore a flat earth. So, if the Earth is able to be traversed in a straight line, it follows under the definition of a flat plane. Due to the fact that space is bent around the Earth, a straight line traversing the Earth in bent space will appear to curve relative to an observer in flat space around it, while maintaining a straight line since space curves independent of this line. This means that it maintains itself as straight but in simplistic terms, ‘space curves instead of the line’. With this, we start jumping into Frames of reference, which is an important concept in relativity. In curved aether, all frames are non-inertial, with it having acceleration in respect to an inertial reference frame. A great analogy is an elevator in space accelerating in a direction at 9.81 m/s/s (accelerating by going 9.8 meters per second faster for every second that goes by), which is indistinguishable from standing on Earth.
We can deduce that in the Earth’s non-inertial reference frame, the bending of space makes travelling through it as if in a straight line through flat space, but the space distortion around it changes its direction from a frame of reference independent of this bent space, so, we can define the path of an object through this linear direction as straight, and therefore flat. Flat can also and accurately be defined as the straight path of an object according to Newton's first law, which would be considered a satellite. Such a path defined as parallel to a straight path through space defines the path as flat, and therefore the Earth as flat. If we were to leave the Earth and look back at it, it would indeed appear as a curved spheroid, this is because the aether bends around it and therefore it becomes apparent when you can see across it, but from this appearance, we certainly can’t distinguish whether it is flat or literally round as we cannot perceive how space is being affected from your standpoint away from Earth (The Ferrari Effect). The same applies to the sun, moon, and planets, they are perceived as spheroids from our standpoint on Earth, but you couldn’t leap to the conclusion that it is surrounded by flat space from visual appearance. Due to the fact that aether bends due to mass like objects displace mediums, the Earth is flat and so are other masses throughout the universe.

Another important part of the model here is geocentricity. Flat Earth models are generally geocentric. In this model, the universe is considered as geocentric as well. In relativity, only the motion of two material bodies relative to each other can be physically detected, but the motions taking place are not absolute, they are relative. So, relative to our frame of reference, geocentrism is equally valid to heliocentrism since either can explain the relative motions, to say one is false and the other true implies that the physical motions taking place are absolute, but they are in fact not absolute according to relativity. In fact, on Earth, we take geocentrism as a valid framework since we are observing bodies in motion around us. Telescopes track and move with celestial bodies, it is just as if it is us as stationary and the celestial bodies rotating around us. It turns out to be not only a valid framework to assume geocentrism, but also a more relevant one, since us as observers are stationary relative to the Earth. This ties back into the elevator vs gravitational field example. Imagine that we are in a closed room with Mass m suspended on a spring. We suddenly observe the spring expand. What is the cause of this? We can give two explanations, either, the closed room has received an upward acceleration which the inertia of m giving a downward pull that is opposite of the direction of acceleration, or, a gravitational field that is directed downward has arisen, or at least a greater pull. It is impossible to distinguish between the two given that they cannot see outside of this closed room. Same thing applies to throwing an object up, in an accelerating elevator, the floor would accelerate up to meet the object. In a stationary room in a gravitational field, gravity would pull the object down relative to the stationary gravitating mass that "turned on". They are essentially equivalent, and so sometimes the phrase "ground accelerates up to meet the mass" is used as a representation of an object falling. Now, how is this relevant? The relative mechanics involved here give out an equivalence, a rotating heliocentric Earth and a stationary geocentric Earth under Machian mechanics. Under relativity, there are no "absolute" rotations, it is relative to the co-ordinates you choose as a frame of reference. The Earth is the most basic one for us as we are observers on Earth.
What about Foucault’s pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and the eotvos effect? According to Mach’s principle (by Ernst Mach), the local reference frame has a direct relation to the movement of the celestial bodies around us. This would mean that the effect of the rotation of celestial bodies around Earth influencing our local reference frame is indistinguishable from the rotation of the Earth itself. A great analogy is a bucket of water. Imagine we have a stationary bucket of water; they are both stationary relative to each other and an independent observer. Now, if I stir the water, it will rotate relative to the stationary bucket from our point of view. However, if we were to instead rotate the bucket relative to the stationary water, the water would begin to move with the bucket, with the water and bucket both rotating from our observation, so the rotation of the bucket produced the same effect as the rotating water relative to the stationary bucket. This analogy applies to Mach’s principle; the rotation of the celestial bodies relative to the stationary earth would be able to produce the same effects as a rotating earth due to the pull of the celestial bodies. These would pull the pendulum along and cause the Coriolis Effect due to the change in rotation speed of the stars in the celestial sphere with latitude, since it is an inertial force. The pull of the stars would give a greater centrifugal force around the area of the pull of largest perimeter of the celestial sphere, the equator. Remember, from our framework of geocentrism, the rotation of the stars is assumed rather than the Earth, so they are indeed rotating like the Earth would be accepted to be like, with them rotating on the Polaris and Octantis axis of rotation. The North Star would be nearly stationary. Here is a very informative paper on the topic of Mach’s principle: http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/machs_principle_and_the_concept_of_mass_fos_v16n3.pdf
Now, how are the celestial bodies “pulling” along the Earth in this model? That would be the bending of the aether with the celestial bodies rotating around earth, also may be known as frame-dragging. As the celestial bodies rotate around Earth, they bend aether and move around Earth which directly affects our local frame of reference by distorting it slightly,which gives it a “pull” by a change in space geometry. The aether bend keeps us to Earth, acting as acceleration, like the elevator example. It is essentially a non-inertial frame of reference. The bent aether is equivalent to acceleration and flat aether is equivalent to freefall. Think of a bowling ball on a trampoline, all balls near it will roll towards it, or circle around it given a rolling motion to circle it. Larger masses will bend aether more, making it “steeper”, so acceleration is increased.

The Pillars of this Model
This model has a few main supports that keep it standing; crippling any of the supports will damage it.
The Pillars:
1.   Theory of General Relativity
2.   Mach’s principle
3.   Aether (not the luminiferous aether medium of the late 19th century, but rather a term for space-time, which is influenced by mass)
4.   The Ferrari Effect

The Ferrari Effect is something not so well known outside of the Flat Earth Society. The Ferrari Effect is basically the effect of viewing the Earth and it appearing round (spherical) due to curved space. The appearance is actually an illusion due to how we interpret space in our minds, when viewing space as curved, we can’t distinguish it from a round Earth at a glance, just like the accelerating elevator and standing on Earth with the gravity to give it that acceleration. The Earth’s geometry following the curved space is what makes it flat, so we can essentially say that areas of high density in molecular clouds collapsing into stars is them “flattening out”.


I would appreciate any questions, comments, corrections, etc.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2017, 11:00:52 PM »
I defined flat Earth as the Earth being able to traverse it in a three dimensional straight line. Just like the path of a object in accordance with Newton's first law at a specific velocity.
This, on earth, would be defined as drawing a straight line from the apex of a parabolic path of a ball, forming a tangent. If it could be demonstrated that Earth can be traversed between two spatial coordinates in a straight path across, it satisfies a flat Earth.
Now, how would we demonstrate this? We can determine the nature of space's relation to Earth.
In the early 20th, Albert Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity where space is non Euclidean and is the equivalent of acceleration. Standing on Earth and an elevator accelerating at 9.81 m/s/s. This means acceleration would be indistinguishable from a gravitational field. Space curves and therefore affects the straight path of any object. If this is the case, and space bends around any object, as long as the acceleration across it is relatively constant like is the case on Earth. This is because the change in bend of space gives the acceleration and keeps things on Earth. So, from this, we can deduce that a straight line follows the bend if space, giving a flat Earth.

Now, from an outer observer, it appears as if a straight line is curved since it follows the bend in space, but the observer following the bend is following a straight line while space is bending their path relative to outer flat space.
This is the Ferrari Effect, a prediction by the philosopher and free thinker Leo Ferrari.

Now, how do we verify this prediction? Has it been verified as an accurate model?
Yes, it has. By observing distant objects in the universe, the path of light, and the deflection of radio waves near large masses. The Ferrari Effect relies on the conception of space by general relativity.
It has been experimentally verified and observed that the path of light through space deflects relative to us as predicted by the curvature of space-time.
Here's a link with basic description and sources: http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html
As you can see in the diagram presented, the straight path of light follows the curvature of space, space defines the path of an object and so a straight line in curved space implies flatness.
Now what is the angle of deflection as described mathematically with this phenomena and light?
The angle of deflection = 4GM/rc^2
Where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass, r is the distance from the mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
According to a study done with telescopes observing radio waves bear the sun, the deflection of radio waves by the sun precisely, and it confirmed the general relativity prediction of bent space time to a high degree (within 0.03 %), here it is as published in the Astrophysical journal: https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3992
This lensing effect has been observed with distant galaxies with long red shifts and the sun. Another identification published: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3661
This effect has been observed with solar eclipses and visible stars bear the sun, verifying the predictions of general relativity. www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/amp/
Also, time is affected too by this curvature, which makes it so atomic clocks on Earth run slightly slower than farther away from it, the Hafelle-Keating experiment confirmed this by  comparing clocks of planes flying east and west and a stationary clock on the Earth's surface and found an inconsistency. These clocks were cesium beam atomic clocks. Here's where you can obtain the published paper on it: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4044/166
This is a confirmation of general relativity and lacks an explanation by Newtonian gravitation (Basic Round Earth explanation with Minkowski space to explain the Earth's geometry).

 If as general relativity claims, acceleration on Earth (accelerating free fall) is the result of the bending of space-time, then the curve in time and space accelerates any object to it. Think of a stationary object moving through time even though it is stationary in three dimensional space. Time is curved and so its path is curved. This curve is like a parabola on a graph. So, this object accelerates towards the Earth. It does this across Earth almost consistently, this consistent curve in space-time has a straight line between spatial coordinates travel a straight path through space while appearing to travel a non-Euclidean path from an independent frame of reference.

The Ferrari Effect holds since we perceive space as if it were flat, even if it's not, in which in this case, it wouldn't be.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 11:19:06 PM by AltSpace »
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2017, 11:03:27 PM »
The Ferrari Effect
The Ferrari Effect is the effect of visualizing a flat plane as being a spheroid due to the curvature of aether (space-time dimensions). This was a prediction made by the philosopher Leo Ferrari that is currently a major concept in the Davis Relativity Model. Despite common conceptions, the appearance of a spherical Earth is not what defined a flat vs round surface geometry. A “flat earth” is defined by its surface geometry being so that it is traversable in a straight line as defined by the direction of linear motion according to Newton’s first law. With non-Euclidean space, a flat earth appears indistinguishable from a spheroid earth from an external point of view (just like acceleration and gravitation), what separates them is the geometry of space and its relation to Earth’s surface. Since space defines direction and geometry, the deformation of space relative to homogenous space has an equivalent definition of the geometry of a mass; it is just defined in relation to how space is changing or non-homogenous. This is based on general relativity and its conception of space.
The Ferrari Effect deals with the visual appearance of Earth, and its main implications include the possibility of orbit (considering the non-Euclidean nature of space), the potential accuracy space travel as presented by space agencies/NASA today, and an explanation of apparent curvature at high altitudes. The Ferrari Effect allows for the consistency between flat earth and modern space travel, since the apparent spheroid shape of the Earth from space travel footage and photos. Typical Flat Earth models and/or representations include the assumption that space travel is faked as a conspiracy, this is largely because of the inconsistency of the claims and apparent documentation of space travel and flat earth models and theories. However, The Ferrari Effect predicts this phenomenon and so is consistent with the documentation of modern space travel.

The Ferrari Effect was verified by experimentation with general relativity and the observations of space travel.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2017, 11:20:53 PM »
Good work! I'll probably have to read through it a few times before I can comment further. It's pretty deep.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2017, 12:45:17 AM »
According to a study done with telescopes observing radio waves bear the sun, the deflection of radio waves by the sun precisely, and it confirmed the general relativity prediction of bent space time to a high degree (within 0.03 %), here it is as published in the Astrophysical journal: https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3992

The team of S. Kopeikin and E. Fomalont made a huge mistake on another study, which also used VLBA.

A scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) says the announcement by two scientists, widely reported this past January, about the speed of gravity was wrong.

Stuart Samuel, a participating scientist with the Theory Group of Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, in a paper published in Physical Review Letters, has demonstrated that an “ill-advised” assumption made in the earlier claim led to an unwarranted conclusion.

“In effect, the experiment was measuring effects associated with the propagation of light, not the speed of gravity.”

According to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, light and gravity travel at the same speed, about 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second. Most scientists believe this is true, but the assumption was that it could only be proven through the detection of gravity waves. Sergei Kopeikin, a University of Missouri physicist, and Edward Fomalont, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), believed there was an alternative.

On September 8, 2002, the planet Jupiter passed almost directly in front of the radio waves coming from a quasar, a star-like object in the center of a galaxy billions of light-years away. When this happened, Jupiter's gravity bent the quasar’s radio waves, causing a slight delay in their arrival on Earth. Kopeikin believed the length of time that the radio waves would be delayed would depend upon the speed at which gravity propagates from Jupiter.

To measure the delay, Fomalont set up an interferometry system using the NRAO’s Very Long Baseline Array, a group of ten 25-meter radio telescopes distributed across the continental United States, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands, plus the 100-meter Effelsberg radio telescope in Germany. Kopeikin then took the data and calculated velocity-dependent effects. His calculations appeared to show that the speed at which gravity was being propagated from Jupiter matched the speed of light to within 20 percent. The scientists announced their findings in January at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

Samuel argues that Kopeikin erred when he based his calculations on Jupiter’s position at the time the quasar’s radio waves reached Earth rather than the position of Jupiter when the radio waves passed by that planet.

“The original idea behind the experiment was to use the effects of Jupiter's motion on quasar-signal time-delays to measure the propagation of gravity,” he says. “If gravity acts instantly, then the gravitational force would be determined by the position of Jupiter at the time when the quasar's signal passed by the planet. If, on the other hand, the speed of gravity were finite, then the strength of gravity would be determined by the position of Jupiter at a slightly earlier time so as to allow for the propagation of gravitational effects.”

Samuel was able to simplify the calculations of the velocity-dependent effects by shifting from a reference frame in which Jupiter is moving, as was used by Kopeikin, to a reference frame in which Jupiter is stationary and Earth is moving. When he did this, Samuel found a formula that differed from the one used by Kopeikin to analyze the data. Under this new formula, the velocity-dependent effects were considerably smaller. Even though Fomalont was able to measure a time delay of about 5 trillionths of a second, this was not nearly sensitive enough to measure the actual gravitational influence of Jupiter.

“With the correct formula, the effects of the motion of Jupiter on the quasar-signal time-delay are at least 100 times and perhaps even a thousand times smaller than could have been measured by the array of radio telescopes that Fomalont used,” Samuel says. “There’s a reasonable chance that such measurements might one day be used to define the speed of gravity, but they just aren’t doable with our current technology.”


Moreover, there is no such thing as gravitational lensing.

The density of ether causes what is being described as "gravitational lensing".

What we see is the effect of the density of ether on the speed of light.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/


Also, time is affected too by this curvature, which makes it so atomic clocks on Earth run slightly slower than farther away from it, the Hafelle-Keating experiment confirmed this by  comparing clocks of planes flying east and west and a stationary clock on the Earth's surface and found an inconsistency.

There is no such thing as the Hafelle-Keating experiment.

They simply faked THE ENTIRE SET OF DATA.

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm



*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22984
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2017, 01:48:40 AM »
I agree with the sandokhan on this subject.  ::)


this workplace is on strike

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2017, 07:31:40 PM »
The team of S. Kopeikin and E. Fomalont made a huge mistake on another study, which also used VLBA.

A scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) says the announcement by two scientists, widely reported this past January, about the speed of gravity was wrong.

Stuart Samuel, a participating scientist with the Theory Group of Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, in a paper published in Physical Review Letters, has demonstrated that an “ill-advised” assumption made in the earlier claim led to an unwarranted conclusion.

“In effect, the experiment was measuring effects associated with the propagation of light, not the speed of gravity.”

According to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, light and gravity travel at the same speed, about 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second. Most scientists believe this is true, but the assumption was that it could only be proven through the detection of gravity waves. Sergei Kopeikin, a University of Missouri physicist, and Edward Fomalont, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), believed there was an alternative.

On September 8, 2002, the planet Jupiter passed almost directly in front of the radio waves coming from a quasar, a star-like object in the center of a galaxy billions of light-years away. When this happened, Jupiter's gravity bent the quasar’s radio waves, causing a slight delay in their arrival on Earth. Kopeikin believed the length of time that the radio waves would be delayed would depend upon the speed at which gravity propagates from Jupiter.

To measure the delay, Fomalont set up an interferometry system using the NRAO’s Very Long Baseline Array, a group of ten 25-meter radio telescopes distributed across the continental United States, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands, plus the 100-meter Effelsberg radio telescope in Germany. Kopeikin then took the data and calculated velocity-dependent effects. His calculations appeared to show that the speed at which gravity was being propagated from Jupiter matched the speed of light to within 20 percent. The scientists announced their findings in January at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

Samuel argues that Kopeikin erred when he based his calculations on Jupiter’s position at the time the quasar’s radio waves reached Earth rather than the position of Jupiter when the radio waves passed by that planet.

“The original idea behind the experiment was to use the effects of Jupiter's motion on quasar-signal time-delays to measure the propagation of gravity,” he says. “If gravity acts instantly, then the gravitational force would be determined by the position of Jupiter at the time when the quasar's signal passed by the planet. If, on the other hand, the speed of gravity were finite, then the strength of gravity would be determined by the position of Jupiter at a slightly earlier time so as to allow for the propagation of gravitational effects.”

Samuel was able to simplify the calculations of the velocity-dependent effects by shifting from a reference frame in which Jupiter is moving, as was used by Kopeikin, to a reference frame in which Jupiter is stationary and Earth is moving. When he did this, Samuel found a formula that differed from the one used by Kopeikin to analyze the data. Under this new formula, the velocity-dependent effects were considerably smaller. Even though Fomalont was able to measure a time delay of about 5 trillionths of a second, this was not nearly sensitive enough to measure the actual gravitational influence of Jupiter.

“With the correct formula, the effects of the motion of Jupiter on the quasar-signal time-delay are at least 100 times and perhaps even a thousand times smaller than could have been measured by the array of radio telescopes that Fomalont used,” Samuel says. “There’s a reasonable chance that such measurements might one day be used to define the speed of gravity, but they just aren’t doable with our current technology.”
I agree, the Jupiter/Quasar Measurement experiment was inaccurate, the velocity of jupiter and gravity corrections could not have been measured. However, this is not relevant to what I said here, I didn't even bring up the speed of gravity.
Quote
Moreover, there is no such thing as gravitational lensing.

The density of ether causes what is being described as "gravitational lensing".

What we see is the effect of the density of ether on the speed of light.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/
I won't address you alternative explanation as that isn't relevant here. However, that source you linked simply gets it wrong:
Quote
General Relativity theorists suggests the lack of diffraction in lensing is evidence their theory is correct. Yet “Einstein Rings” are blue.
The equations and predictions of Gravitational Lensing don't even take wavelength dependent effects into account, I have put the basic equation description in my post. Therefore, Blue Einstein rings and diffraction effects are irrelevant to a criticism of Gravitational lensing, they are independent.
Quote
There is no such thing as the Hafelle-Keating experiment.

They simply faked THE ENTIRE SET OF DATA.

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm

The experiment has been repeated with results matching relativity, along with multiple more accurate modern experiments confirming predictions, forming a coherent whole with general relativity. It is already known today that time runs faster at higher altitudes above Earth. I'm sure you probably don't accept the existence of the GPS satellite system, so the effects observed from that are not convincing.
Modern Atomic Clocks compared at height differences of less than a meter give discernible differences and also with low relative speeds. The subtraction of the curved space field effects gives an agreement with the theoretical prediction. It is safe to say that relativity has been confirmed in this particular area.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...329.1630C
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1537236/?reload=true
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2017, 10:00:44 PM »
If the theory of relativity is your game, then you are not a flat earth believer.

GTR/STR and FET are totally incompatible.

It is either/or.

If GTR is true, then the Earth cannot be flat.

If the surface of the Earth is flat, then "theories" put forward by Lorentz (the real author of the theory of relativity) are false.

You cannot have both at the same time.

If you are a defender of relativity, then you are posting in the wrong section.

To come here and actually defend relativity, means a total mockery of flat earth theory.

Wanna see how easy it is to debunk the general theory of relativity?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701

"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.

Consequently velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.

The common representation of Maxwell’s [modified] equations is valid only for static systems.

The physicists at the turn of the twentieth century were unaware of this limitation. They assumed that Maxwell’s [modified] equations were universally valid (i.e.: applicable to any inertial coordinate system) and tried to apply them to dynamic systems which led to inconsistencies. But instead of realizing and correcting the error (by modifying Maxwell’s equations; [i.e., using the original ether equations published by Maxwell in 1861) they introduced the Lorentz transformation which was the foundation of the flawed theory of relativity."

The original set of Maxwell equations is invariant under the Galilean transformation:





The common Maxwell’s equations are valid only for systems at rest (i.e.: static systems, V = 0 ). The application of these equations to dynamic systems, where V ≠ 0 , (often termed “the universal validity of Maxwell’s equations”) is the basis for the erroneous theory of relativity.


The experiment has been repeated with results matching relativity, along with multiple more accurate modern experiments confirming predictions, forming a coherent whole with general relativity. It is already known today that time runs faster at higher altitudes above Earth.

Not the Hafele-Keating experiment, which was totally faked.

Please update your knowledge on the theory of ether (telluric currents, subquark strings) which also can modify the reading of atomic clocks, based on latitude and altitude.

I'm sure you probably don't accept the existence of the GPS satellite system, so the effects observed from that are not convincing.

In fact I do.

And it is the orbital Sagnac effect which practically shatters heliocentricity and relativity altogether.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1911899#msg1911899

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978

Please update your knowledge of physics with the Ruderfer experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2017, 12:40:10 AM »
If the theory of relativity is your game, then you are not a flat earth believer.

GTR/STR and FET are totally incompatible.

It is either/or.

If GTR is true, then the Earth cannot be flat.

If the surface of the Earth is flat, then "theories" put forward by Lorentz (the real author of the theory of relativity) are false.

You cannot have both at the same time.

If you are a defender of relativity, then you are posting in the wrong section.

To come here and actually defend relativity, means a total mockery of flat earth theory.
I have shown otherwise in my posts here, it is a relativity flat earth model.

Quote
Wanna see how easy it is to debunk the general theory of relativity?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701
If you would care to explain an 'easy' debunking to me yourself, the first one (the one I found relevant as opposed to the other) is basically just extra links and claims of conspiracy and lots of preferred assumptions. So, I don't consider worthy going through, or going through copy and paste that fails to provide the proper context I am looking for.

Quote
"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.

Consequently velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.

The common representation of Maxwell’s [modified] equations is valid only for static systems.

The physicists at the turn of the twentieth century were unaware of this limitation. They assumed that Maxwell’s [modified] equations were universally valid (i.e.: applicable to any inertial coordinate system) and tried to apply them to dynamic systems which led to inconsistencies. But instead of realizing and correcting the error (by modifying Maxwell’s equations; [i.e., using the original ether equations published by Maxwell in 1861) they introduced the Lorentz transformation which was the foundation of the flawed theory of relativity."

The original set of Maxwell equations is invariant under the Galilean transformation:





The common Maxwell’s equations are valid only for systems at rest (i.e.: static systems, V = 0 ). The application of these equations to dynamic systems, where V ≠ 0 , (often termed “the universal validity of Maxwell’s equations”) is the basis for the erroneous theory of relativity.
You mean with the FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis? Where Hendrik Lorentz and others desperately try to save the luminiferous ether hypothesis and it dies by not being needed anymore to explain light? Yes.


Quote
Not the Hafele-Keating experiment, which was totally faked.
Nope, the numerous time dilation experiments say otherwise, meeting the predictions of relativity to a favorable degree.

Quote
Please update your knowledge on the theory of ether (telluric currents, subquark strings) which also can modify the reading of atomic clocks, based on latitude and altitude.
To the predictive success of relativity? I don't think so. 

Quote
In fact I do.

And it is the orbital Sagnac effect which practically shatters heliocentricity and relativity altogether.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1911899#msg1911899

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978

Please update your knowledge of physics with the Ruderfer experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721
Lets see what your quote has to say and how it relates to the model:
Quote
The transit time between the satellite and ground-based receivers is routinely measured.
In addition, the atomic clocks on the satellite are carefully monitored; and high precision
corrections are provided as part of the information transmitted from the satellites.
Because the satellites and the receivers rotate at different rates (unlike the Mossbauer
experiments), a correction for the motion of the receiver during the transit time is
required. This correction is generally referred to as a Sagnac correction, since it adjusts
for anisotropy of the speed of light as far as the receiver is concerned. Why is there no
requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion?
I used a geocentric frame here, of course, geodesic deviation may change that a bit, but I have considered Earth as my stationary frame of reference relative to the celestial bodies. It doesn't violate relativity at all to do that, in fact, it contradicts absolute heliocentrism but is still used for simplicity's sake.
Though, orbital would be so much less than rotational anyways that it would be not even a nanosecond, much less potential error than others. For each purpose, it's as if the Earth was travelling in a straight line, which isn't 'sagnac'.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2017, 12:56:05 AM »
Aether is a term that represents the fabric of the 4-dimensional space-time continuum, in which times and distances between event pairs vary by the inertial frame of reference in which they are determined, while any event pair remains independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Aether can bend due to energy/mass, which is basically described in Einstein’s field equations, basically put out as:
Gμν=8πTμν
Where Gμν is the Einstein Tensor (with the geometry of space-time), and Tμν is the stress-energy tensor, which describes the movement of matter and energy through aether.
Please note that this is how aether is defined into this specific flat earth model, and is not to be taken into the context of other models.


Aether is not the space time continuum.

If you want to create a flat earth theory using aether, then you cannot bring in the theory of relativity, they are mutually exclusive.


"There is a very interesting article on this question published in the August 1982 issue of Physics Today by Prof. Yoshimasa A. Ono. The article begins:

It is known that when Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1922, he was unable to attend the ceremonies in Stockholm in December of that year because of an earlier commitment to visit Japan at the same time. In Japan, Einstein gave a speech entitled "How I Created the Theory of Relativity" at Kyoto University on 14 December 1922. This was an impromptu speech to students and faculty members, made in response to a request by K. Nishida, professor of philosophy at Kyoto University. Einstein himself made no written notes. The talk was delivered in German and a running translation was given to the audience on the spot by J. Isiwara, who had studied under Arnold Sommerfeld and Einstein from 1912 to 1914 and was a professor of physics at Tohoku University. Isiwara kept careful notes of the lecture, and published his detailed notes (in Japanese) in the monthly Japanese periodical Kaizo in 1923; Ishiwara's notes are the only existing notes of Einstein's talk...
Ono ends his introduction to his translation with the statement:


It is clear that this account of Einstein's throws some light on the current controversy as to whether or not he was aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment when he proposed the special theory of relativity in 1905; the account also offers insight into many other aspects of Einstein's work on relativity.
With regard to the ether, Einstein states:

Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth is moving. In other words, the ether is moving with respect to the Earth...
With regard to the experiment he argues:

Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun. [48]
The above information gives us insight into the nature of Einstein's relativity theory. He believes that the sea of ether exists, but he also believes that it cannot be detected by experiments, in other words, he believes it is invisible. The situation in modern physics is very much like the Hans Christian Andersen tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes", with Einstein playing the part of the Emperor. The tale goes that the Emperor, who was obsessed with fine clothing to the point that he cared about nothing else, let two swindlers sell him a suit of cloth that would be invisible to anyone who was "unfit for his office or unforgivably stupid." It turned out that no one could see the suit not the emperor, not his courtiers, not the citizens of the town who lined the street to see him show off his new finery. Yet no one dared admit it until a little child cried out, "But he doesn't have anything on!"

The translation of Einstein's 1905 special relativity paper presented the argument that one could explain many electromagnetic actions by fundamental assumptions based on two postulates and that the "introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous", and his paper made no direct reference to the Michelson-Morley experiment or the work of Poincaré and Lorentz. On page 313 of Pais' book we learn that in 1920, after Einstein had become famous, he made an inaugural address on aether and relativity theory for his special chair in Leiden. In the address he states:

The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.
So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics! This illustrates the arbitrary nature of relativity, most physicists, and for that matter, most physics text books, present the argument that relativity is not an ether theory."


So, I don't consider worthy going through, or going through copy and paste that fails to provide the proper context I am looking for.

But you should.

The original set of Maxwell's equations are invariant under Galilean transformations, a fact which renders the theory of relativity useless.


Though, orbital would be so much less than rotational anyways that it would be not even a nanosecond, much less potential error than others.

But it is not.

It is MUCH LARGER than the rotational Sagnac.


To the predictive success of relativity?

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.


"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.

If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."


Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erronous claim regarding the speed of light:



HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SET OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS: THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER, AETHER AND THE VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT:




http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1608815#msg1608815 (more information on the set of original Maxwell equations)


http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf
(also includes the appendix called Maxwell's Minor Errors discussing the wrong minus sign in equation D)

E = vXB − ∂Α/dt +gradψ

The most important scientific paper ever published: ON PHYSICAL LINES OF FORCE, by JAMES CLERK MAXWELL - the original set of ether equations, which are almost unknown to modern physics.

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf


"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation. Velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1848776#msg1848776


Go ahead and construct an infinite flat earth model using ONLY ether.


*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2017, 01:58:10 AM »
Aether is not the space time continuum.

If you want to create a flat earth theory using aether, then you cannot bring in the theory of relativity, they are mutually exclusive.
Which is why I added: Please note that this is how aether is defined into this specific flat earth model, and is not to be taken into the context of other models.
Quote
"There is a very interesting article on this question published in the August 1982 issue of Physics Today by Prof. Yoshimasa A. Ono. The article begins:

It is known that when Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1922, he was unable to attend the ceremonies in Stockholm in December of that year because of an earlier commitment to visit Japan at the same time. In Japan, Einstein gave a speech entitled "How I Created the Theory of Relativity" at Kyoto University on 14 December 1922. This was an impromptu speech to students and faculty members, made in response to a request by K. Nishida, professor of philosophy at Kyoto University. Einstein himself made no written notes. The talk was delivered in German and a running translation was given to the audience on the spot by J. Isiwara, who had studied under Arnold Sommerfeld and Einstein from 1912 to 1914 and was a professor of physics at Tohoku University. Isiwara kept careful notes of the lecture, and published his detailed notes (in Japanese) in the monthly Japanese periodical Kaizo in 1923; Ishiwara's notes are the only existing notes of Einstein's talk...
Ono ends his introduction to his translation with the statement:


It is clear that this account of Einstein's throws some light on the current controversy as to whether or not he was aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment when he proposed the special theory of relativity in 1905; the account also offers insight into many other aspects of Einstein's work on relativity.
With regard to the ether, Einstein states:

Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth is moving. In other words, the ether is moving with respect to the Earth...
With regard to the experiment he argues:

Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun. [48]
The above information gives us insight into the nature of Einstein's relativity theory. He believes that the sea of ether exists, but he also believes that it cannot be detected by experiments, in other words, he believes it is invisible. The situation in modern physics is very much like the Hans Christian Andersen tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes", with Einstein playing the part of the Emperor. The tale goes that the Emperor, who was obsessed with fine clothing to the point that he cared about nothing else, let two swindlers sell him a suit of cloth that would be invisible to anyone who was "unfit for his office or unforgivably stupid." It turned out that no one could see the suit not the emperor, not his courtiers, not the citizens of the town who lined the street to see him show off his new finery. Yet no one dared admit it until a little child cried out, "But he doesn't have anything on!"

The translation of Einstein's 1905 special relativity paper presented the argument that one could explain many electromagnetic actions by fundamental assumptions based on two postulates and that the "introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous", and his paper made no direct reference to the Michelson-Morley experiment or the work of Poincaré and Lorentz. On page 313 of Pais' book we learn that in 1920, after Einstein had become famous, he made an inaugural address on aether and relativity theory for his special chair in Leiden. In the address he states:
Skipping over more irrelevant quote bombing.

Quote
The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.
So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics! This illustrates the arbitrary nature of relativity, most physicists, and for that matter, most physics text books, present the argument that relativity is not an ether theory."
Nope, the space-time interval is independent of the inertial frame of reference. Varying frames are not contradictory.

Quote
But you should.
No, it is useless if you don't care to engage without quote bombing.

Quote
The original set of Maxwell's equations are invariant under Galilean transformations, a fact which renders the theory of relativity useless.
Galilean Transformations don't have the invariance of light's speed like Lorentz transformations do. It doesn't render it useless at all, only in your built up imagination.

Quote
But it is not.

It is MUCH LARGER than the rotational Sagnac.
The orbital sagnac is 1/365th as large as rotational. From this, we conclude orbital would be less than a nanosecond anyways.

Quote
The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.


"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.

If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."


Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erronous claim regarding the speed of light:



HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SET OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS: THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER, AETHER AND THE VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT:




http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1608815#msg1608815 (more information on the set of original Maxwell equations)


http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf
(also includes the appendix called Maxwell's Minor Errors discussing the wrong minus sign in equation D)

E = vXB − ∂Α/dt +gradψ

The most important scientific paper ever published: ON PHYSICAL LINES OF FORCE, by JAMES CLERK MAXWELL - the original set of ether equations, which are almost unknown to modern physics.

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf


"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation. Velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1848776#msg1848776


Go ahead and construct an infinite flat earth model using ONLY ether.
All verified predictions are built on fakes? All biased conspiracy speculation, can't take any of it seriously, especially since all you care is to copy-paste.
It all just blows over everything in science. I guess if you don't care to continue in reasonable discussion on it without quote and link dropping, won't get anywhere.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2017, 02:02:19 AM »
The orbital sagnac is 1/365th as large as rotational. From this, we conclude orbital would be less than a nanosecond anyways.

Where have I heard this before?

Right.


John, can you explain how altspace was given the privilege to post in the FEB section praising the theory of relativity, while at the same time using the same type of arguments I encountered in the debate section, where the RE claimed that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac?

You might as well let everyone in here to post whatever they want.


Furthermore, your status as a Believer is contingent on your continuous and consistent advocacy of (and belief in) a flat Earth, and statements to the contrary may result in the revocation of that status.

To praise the theory of relativity and to deny the orbital Sagnac ARE statements to the contrary.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2017, 02:06:07 AM by sandokhan »

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2017, 02:10:06 AM »
Where have I heard this before?

Right.


John, can you explain how altspace was given the privilege to post in the FEB section praising the theory of relativity, while at the same time using the same type of arguments I encountered in the debate section, where the RE claimed that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac?

You might as well let everyone in here to post whatever they want.
Because I'm a FE believer that got the permission and I accept relativity, even the wiki accepts it for their UA theory.
That was your choice to criticize, if you don't like it, you can ignore this thread.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22984
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2017, 02:43:39 AM »
As far as I can tell, john has found a believer who thinks like himself.

I thought we solved this problem.

It is now clear the reason for his denying our proposals to change wiki is now better understood. because he still continues to advocate the ideas of debunked numerous times.

we can only attribute this title as "provocation" or "sabotage": "If you do not like it go get out" seems like John is talking in the name of somebody.



this workplace is on strike

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2017, 05:56:28 PM »
Good work! I'll probably have to read through it a few times before I can comment further. It's pretty deep.
So, what do you think of it? Any comments or questions?
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2017, 11:29:13 PM »
Good work! I'll probably have to read through it a few times before I can comment further. It's pretty deep.
So, what do you think of it? Any comments or questions?

I think it coherently accounts for a lot more issues than any other model I've seen. I'm gonna spend a little time on the week-end and see if I can wrap my head around it a little better.

Sandokhan, go find some angry globularist to pick on. JD's not gonna revoke Altspace's access, it's his own model. lol
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16669
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2017, 12:48:18 PM »
The orbital sagnac is 1/365th as large as rotational. From this, we conclude orbital would be less than a nanosecond anyways.

Where have I heard this before?

Right.


John, can you explain how altspace was given the privilege to post in the FEB section praising the theory of relativity, while at the same time using the same type of arguments I encountered in the debate section, where the RE claimed that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac?

You might as well let everyone in here to post whatever they want.


Furthermore, your status as a Believer is contingent on your continuous and consistent advocacy of (and belief in) a flat Earth, and statements to the contrary may result in the revocation of that status.

To praise the theory of relativity and to deny the orbital Sagnac ARE statements to the contrary.


This was likely a mistake; I'm going to look over his posts this weekend and judge whether he should be there.

I agree, he likely shouldn't be.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2017, 06:25:08 PM »
The orbital sagnac is 1/365th as large as rotational. From this, we conclude orbital would be less than a nanosecond anyways.

Where have I heard this before?

Right.


John, can you explain how altspace was given the privilege to post in the FEB section praising the theory of relativity, while at the same time using the same type of arguments I encountered in the debate section, where the RE claimed that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac?

You might as well let everyone in here to post whatever they want.


Furthermore, your status as a Believer is contingent on your continuous and consistent advocacy of (and belief in) a flat Earth, and statements to the contrary may result in the revocation of that status.

To praise the theory of relativity and to deny the orbital Sagnac ARE statements to the contrary.


This was likely a mistake; I'm going to look over his posts this weekend and judge whether he should be there.

I agree, he likely shouldn't be.

JD as far as I know AltSpace is advocating your model. If we must conform to Sandokhan's FE beliefs in order to post in here none of us should be here except him. Including you.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2017, 11:10:02 PM »
The orbital sagnac is 1/365th as large as rotational. From this, we conclude orbital would be less than a nanosecond anyways.

Only a RE would make such a claim.

If the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational, then there is no need for further debate.

Furthermore, your status as a Believer is contingent on your continuous and consistent advocacy of (and belief in) a flat Earth, and statements to the contrary may result in the revocation of that status.


As far as FE models go, each true FE believer is entitled to present his/her own FE theoretical model right here in this section: it is the Flat Earth Debate section which separates the wheat from the chaff. One may claim his/her own FE model is correct, only to find out in less than five minutes in a direct debate that the opposite is true. A correct FE model will withstand the test of debates again and again.

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2017, 10:19:17 PM »
Well, if Davis is second guessing me, then Sandokhan is right, I shouldn't be here.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22984
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2017, 02:48:09 AM »
we may believe in different sub-theories. these differences should not divide us. they are not division, in fact, they are wealth.


this workplace is on strike

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2017, 06:48:05 AM »
Furthermore, to refer to Einstein again, if his theory of the curvature of space is correct, a square object photographed from space would appear to be circular.

L. Ferrari

It is very easy to disprove GTR.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995 (Dark Flow)

Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.

"According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old; yet the gravitational attractor, tugging only on galaxy clusters, is some 32-34 billion light years away. Additionally, this gravitational force is unique and selective in its action; only affecting galaxy clusters, but not everything else. Gravity undoubtedly must affect the motion of all massive bodies and, therefore, since it is pulling the galaxy clusters, it should be pulling everything else to it, not just galaxy clusters, based on Newtonian Law.

In terms of Einstein, the identical problem exists. A massive object outside the Universe has warped space to cause galaxy clusters to move toward or away from it; that warping of space should do the same for all matter in the Universe."

"The 8π component in Einstein’s field equation, G = 8πT (in which G is the Einstein
tensor and T is the stress or energy-momentum tensor), was added by determining what
factor was necessary in order to make Einstein’s equation equal to Newton’s equation."

Dark Flow disproves both GTR and Newtonian gravitation.

It renders both useless and worthless.

You are going to have to come up with a workable flat earth theory which does not include relativity.



« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 07:31:30 AM by sandokhan »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16669
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2017, 12:22:25 AM »
You are certainly welcome to talk about your new view here.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2017, 09:07:59 PM »
You are certainly welcome to talk about your new view here.
Then was it wrong of me to put your name on it?
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2017, 12:05:48 AM »
You are doing very well in the flat earth debate section.

If only GTR was true... but it is not.

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2017, 08:41:08 PM »
You are doing very well in the flat earth debate section.

If only GTR was true... but it is not.
Maybe I should start doing it your way. Copy-paste sources and quotes and scripts from texts. Sounds like a great method in some ways.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2017, 09:04:12 PM »
Update for explanation:

The Relativity Model

The Relativity model is a flat earth model that states the Earth is a flat plane in non-euclidean aether (space-time continuum) in relative motion with other celestial bodies, including the sun, moon, planets, and stars. This is a combination of Einstein’s General Relativity and The Ferrari Effect. This is one of the only flat earth models that don’t rely on the conspiracy (weak or strong) and is unique in that it is based on Relativity (unlike many other typical flat earth models).

Link I recommend for some other explanation of it:  https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

The Earth is a flat plane including the sun, moon, planets, and stars. The Earth is no more unique in terms of its physical geometry than the other celestial bodies. The universe consists of aether (basically space-time), which is bent around any large mass. Think of any mass as ‘displacing’ the aether, a large mass will bend aether around it. All large masses will bend aether around them in a similar way, following that distortion of otherwise “flat” space. This means that the Earth bends aether around it, including the moon, sun, planets, and distant stars.
Aether is a term that represents the fabric of the 4-dimensional space-time continuum, in which times and distances between event pairs vary by the inertial frame of reference in which they are determined, while any event pair remains independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Aether can bend due to energy/mass, which is basically described in Einstein’s field equations, basically put out as:
Gμν=8πTμν
Where Gμν is the Einstein Tensor (with the geometry of space-time), and Tμν is the stress-energy tensor, which describes the movement of matter and energy through aether.
Please note that this is how aether is defined into this specific flat earth model, and is not to be taken into the context of other models.
Now, it is important to define “flat plane” in this model because this model does fall under the category of being a flat earth model. Flat in this case, does not mean two-dimensional, anyone could agree that the existence of mountains is not something that defines the geometry of the Earth when we are talking “flat” or “round” Earth. Rather, it is something based on space and how it relates to the Earth. A flat plane would be defined by the ability to traverse it in a straight line between two spatial coordinates. A “straight line” would be a line in a constant direction in three dimensional space, or any tangent vector on the surface always touching across it would be a flat surface and therefore a flat earth. So, if the Earth is able to be traversed in a straight line parallel to the surface (constant distance from it in traversal), it follows under the definition of a flat plane. Due to the fact that space is bent around the Earth, a straight line traversing the Earth in bent space will appear to curve relative to an observer in flat space around it, while maintaining a straight line since space curves independent of this line. This means that it maintains itself as straight but in simplistic terms, ‘space curves instead of the line’. With this, we start jumping into Frames of reference, which is an important concept in relativity. A great analogy is an elevator in space accelerating in a direction at 9.81 m/s/s (accelerating by going 9.8 meters per second faster for every second that goes by), which is indistinguishable from standing on Earth.
We can deduce that in the Earth’s non-inertial reference frame, the bending of space makes travelling through it as if in a straight line through flat space, but the space distortion around it changes its direction from a frame of reference independent of this bent space, so, we can define the path of an object through this linear direction as straight, and therefore flat. Flat can also and accurately be defined as the straight path of an object according to Newton's first law, which would be considered a satellite. Such a path defined as parallel to a straight path through space defines the path as flat, and therefore the Earth as flat. If we were to leave the Earth and look back at it, it would indeed appear as a curved spheroid, this is because the aether bends around it and therefore it becomes apparent when you can see across it, but from this appearance, we certainly can’t distinguish whether it is flat or literally round as we cannot perceive how space is being affected from your standpoint away from Earth (The Ferrari Effect). The same applies to the sun, moon, and planets, they are perceived as spheroids from our standpoint on Earth, but you couldn’t leap to the conclusion that it is surrounded by flat space from visual appearance. Due to the fact that aether bends due to mass like objects displace mediums, the Earth is flat and so are other masses throughout the universe.

What about the movement of the celestial bodies like the sun, moon, and stars? Is it geocentric or heliocentric? Such a concept of ‘Heliocentrism’ or ‘Geocentrism’ is non-existent in our universe since all motion is relative to other frames, so rather than saying “the Earth rotates around the sun” or “the sun rotates around the stationary earth”, it is most accurate to describe it as “the Earth and sun are in motion relative to the other”. This is most accurately described as a relative acentric description; I will call it ‘relacentric’. Relacentric as a new term, must be defined, so I define it as follows:
The barycenter rotation point between two objects is relative to each objects frame of reference, having each of the frames of reference as valid centers.
This challenges the common assumption of absolute motion; people tend to speak of the solar system and moving objects in terms of objective motion and objectively stationary objects. With this, they may confine all motion in terms of the solar system since other motion is irrelevant and proclaim we live in a heliocentric system, however, in absolute terms, this is incorrect, and it is simply used as a model of our solar system to explain movements for simplification and explanation in terms of basic laws and theories.  A “Frame of reference” is an abstract coordinate system that has fixed physical reference points that locate and orient the coordinate system and measurements. We can use numerous reference frames for distinctive purposes, but there is no ‘correct’ one, to say so is nonsense, since motion is not absolute. If you were to be in a universe with only you as the frame of reference and no other, then you wouldn’t be able to derive your state of motion. From this, we conclude that the Earth is in motion relative to other distinct reference frames following geodesics in curved aether. There is no center of rotation in any solar system or absolute orbit motion but rather the reference frame we define that is in the frames in relative movements serves as its own distinct center in which to observe and measure.

The Pillars of this Model

This model has a few main supports that keep it standing; crippling any of the supports will damage it.
The Pillars:
1.   Theory of General Relativity
2.   Aether- 4D space-time continuum (not the luminiferous aether medium of the late 19th century, but rather a term for space-time, which is influenced by mass)
3.   The Ferrari Effect

The Ferrari Effect is something not so well known outside of the Flat Earth Society. The Ferrari Effect is basically the effect of viewing the Earth and it appearing round (spherical) due to curved space. The appearance is actually an illusion due to how we interpret space in our minds, when viewing space as curved, we can’t distinguish it from a round Earth at a glance, just like the accelerating elevator and standing on Earth with the gravity to give it that acceleration. The Earth’s geometry following the curved space is what makes it flat, so we can essentially say that areas of high density in molecular clouds collapsing into stars is them “flattening out”.

I defined flat Earth as the Earth being able to traverse it in a three dimensional straight line. Just like the path of an object in accordance with Newton's first law at a specific velocity.
This, on earth, would be defined as drawing a straight line from the apex of a parabolic path of a ball, forming a tangent. If it could be demonstrated that Earth can be traversed between two spatial coordinates in a straight path across, it satisfies a flat Earth.
Now, how would we demonstrate this? We can determine the nature of space's relation to Earth.
In the early 20th century, Albert Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity where space is non Euclidean and is the equivalent of acceleration, which can be standing on Earth or an elevator accelerating at 9.81 m/s/s. This means acceleration would be indistinguishable from a gravitational field. Space curves and therefore affects the straight path of any object. If this is the case, and space bends around any object, as long as the acceleration across it is relatively constant like is the case on Earth. This is because the change in bend of space gives the acceleration and keeps things on Earth. So, from this, we can deduce that a straight line follows the bend if space, giving a flat Earth.

Now, from an outer observer, it appears as if a straight line is curved since it follows the bend in space, but the observer following the bend is following a straight line while space is bending their path relative to outer flat space.
This is the Ferrari Effect, brought up by philosopher and free thinker Leo Ferrari.

Has it been verified as an accurate model?
Yes, it has. By observing distant objects in the universe, the path of light, and the deflection of radio waves near large masses.
It has been experimentally verified and observed that the path of light through space deflects relative to us as predicted by the curvature of space-time.
Here's a link with basic description and sources: http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html
As you can see in the diagram presented, the straight path of light follows the curvature of space, space defines the path of an object and so a straight line in curved space implies flatness.
Now what is the angle of deflection as described mathematically with this phenomena and light?
The angle of deflection = 4GM/rc^2
Where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass, r is the distance from the mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
According to a study done with telescopes observing radio waves bear the sun, the deflection of radio waves by the sun precisely, and it confirmed the general relativity prediction of bent space time to a high degree (within 0.03 %), here it is as published in the Astrophysical journal:https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3992
This lensing effect has been observed with distant galaxies with long red shifts and the sun. Another identification published:https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3661
This effect has been observed with solar eclipses and visible stars bear the sun, verifying the predictions of general relativity.www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/amp/
Also, time is affected too by this curvature, which makes it so atomic clocks on Earth run slightly slower than farther away from it, the Hafelle-Keating experiment confirmed this by  comparing clocks of planes flying east and west and a stationary clock on the Earth's surface and found an inconsistency. These clocks were cesium beam atomic clocks. Here's where you can obtain the published paper on it:http://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4044/166
This is a confirmation of general relativity and lacks an explanation by Newtonian gravitation (Basic Round Earth explanation with Minkowski space to explain the Earth's geometry).

If as general relativity claims, acceleration on Earth (accelerating free fall) is the result of the bending of space-time, then the curve in time and space accelerates any object to it. Think of a stationary object moving through time even though it is stationary in three dimensional space. Time is curved and so its path is curved. This curve is like a parabola on a graph. So, this object accelerates towards the Earth. It does this across Earth almost consistently, this consistent curve in space-time has a straight line between spatial coordinates travel a straight path through space while appearing to travel a non-Euclidean path from an independent frame of reference.

The Ferrari Effect

The Ferrari Effect is the effect of visualizing a flat plane as being a spheroid due to the curvature of aether (space-time dimensions). This was a prediction made by the philosopher Leo Ferrari that is currently a major concept in the Davis Relativity Model. Despite common conceptions, the appearance of a spherical Earth is not what defined a flat vs round surface geometry. A “flat earth” is defined by its surface geometry being so that it is traversable in a straight line as defined by the direction of linear motion according to Newton’s first law. With non-Euclidean space, a flat earth appears indistinguishable from a spheroid earth from an external point of view (just like acceleration and gravitation), what separates them is the geometry of space and its relation to Earth’s surface. Since space defines direction and geometry, the deformation of space relative to homogenous space has an equivalent definition of the geometry of a mass; it is just defined in relation to how space is changing or non-homogenous. This is based on general relativity and its conception of space.
The Ferrari Effect deals with the visual appearance of Earth, and its main implications include the possibility of orbit (considering the non-Euclidean nature of space), the potential accuracy space travel as presented by space agencies/NASA today, and an explanation of apparent curvature at high altitudes. The Ferrari Effect allows for the consistency between flat earth and modern space travel, since the apparent spheroid shape of the Earth from space travel footage and photos. Typical Flat Earth models and/or representations include the assumption that space travel is faked as a conspiracy, this is largely because of the inconsistency of the claims and apparent documentation of space travel and flat earth models and theories.

The Ferrari Effect was verified by observations and experimentation of space travel and curved aether.

Why it should be more considered in mainstream FE

As anyone with a fair understanding in “Flat Earth 101” (the basics of flat earth views and models) knows, this specific model is very unique and significantly off of the mainstream. This model differs in numerous ways to the classical mainstream ones:
1.   There is no accurate map projection that conveys the surface, since space is non-Euclidean in this model and therefore can’t be mapped on 2D to complete scale.
2.   There is no surrounding ice wall; this model is bi-polar (two poles, north and south), allowing north-south circumnavigation.
3.   There is no ‘edge’ or surrounding worlds beyond; this model has the Earth contained in non-Euclidean space, so the curved space meets around it.
4.   The celestial bodies are not and need not be close to Earth, space curves away relative to the outer bodies surrounding straight across flat space.
5.   Outer space as conceived by modern society does exist, in contrast to the mainstream FE view that the celestial bodies are in a near, small, and confined space above us.
6.   Satellites, space travel, Apollo moon landings, astronauts, and modern space exploration are all consistent with this model, as opposed to the mainstream FE concept of “The Conspiracy” with the faking of space travel.
7.   This FE model is most consistent with modern mainstream science and with general relativity.
Why should planarists consider this? It appeals to skeptical globe earth advocates since it describes and works in terms of relativity. Any skeptic approaching flat earth will have many objections, questions, and potential ridiculing to go through. This will give the skeptic a reason to rethink how they originally thought this debate really means. Not only that, it is a model that can be held up to scrutiny, any flat earth model with that characteristic deserves to be considered. It also gets us to ask how we should draw the line between flat vs round earth. I consider this to be among the most advanced FE models today.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 07:51:19 PM by AltSpace »
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2017, 09:08:11 PM »
FAQ

How do basic phenomena like day-night and seasons work in this model?

Day-night occurs by the sun moving relative to the Earth in a circle around it, and the curved aether gives it its apparent position and the sun sets to night when the sun is facing away from your position relative to the aether bend you are in. Seasons are the varying position of the sun relative to the Earth in a annual cycle, with its position directly perpendicular to the tropic of cancer in the June solstice, the equator at the equinox, and the tropic of Capricorn in the December solstice.

How does Gravity work?

Masses will follow the aether bend around and towards the Earth’s large mass; this gives acceleration and therefore makes an observer standing on Earth in a non-inertial reference frame. The warping of time and space gives all objects acceleration on earth; they simply follow a straight geodesic through this warped space-time. The bend in space and time will accelerate the path of any object to Earth. Think of this as the change in aether accelerating object paths through time and space into earth, giving the illusion of gravitation.

But isn’t it true that the acceleration across Earth is not completely uniform and so it’s invalid to compare it to a uniformly accelerating elevator?

For the purposes in mind here with that scenario, this is not important and an irrelevant consideration, since the acceleration experienced by a single observer standing somewhere on Earth compared to an accelerating elevator is what we are imagining.

This model seems very similar to the round earth; why not just consider this as the round earth?

The definition of a ‘flat’ earth fits what’s described in this model; therefore it is a flat earth model, not round earth, so whatever striking similarities may exist in your conception of a spheroid earth to this are therefore irrelevant.

How far and large are the sun, moon, and stars in this model?

Same distances as the modern mainstream heliocentric model, approximately 93 million miles for the sun, 239,000 miles on average for the moon, and numerous light years for the stars. The sun would then be about 2,713,406 miles in diameter, the moon approximately 6,790 miles in diameter, and the stars will vary with many larger than the sun.

Wait, it seems you got the diameter and circumference mixed up, is that a mistake?

I’m glad you noticed, I used the circumference as the diameter because I’m thinking of them as flat bodies, by traversing them in a straight line, the diameter would be the same as we determine the circumference of them since we treat them as spheres as that’s how they appear from our point of view. However, remember the Ferrari principle, it applies to the celestial bodies as well, they appear as if they are spheres but we are observing a bend in the aether, curved space.

So, the sun, moon, planets, and stars are flat too?

Yes, they all bend aether around them due to their mass, making them flat just like the earth.

How does the conspiracy fit here?

As far as I know, this is the only flat earth model that does not have the conspiracy as a necessary consequence. Satellites travel in a straight line according to Newton’s first law while the curved space gives it the orbital path (it’s actually travelling a flat/straight line in curved space) and the supposed pictures of Earth from space and Apollo missions would fall under the Ferrari Effect, the curved space giving the appearance of a round earth. The Apollo Astronauts landed on a flat moon, since if they tried to cross it in a straight/flat line, they would traverse it entirely. However, since the moon has lower mass, the aether bend has a lower magnitude, and therefore lower acceleration on the moon.
Since all paths of objects on Earth follow straight geodesic paths through the aether, wouldn’t that imply that Earth curves up, down, or give an undulating pattern in the case of elliptical orbits and therefore not be flat relative to numerous observers?
The definition of a flat earth provided here implies that the straight line geodesic be a parallel traversal to directly define the Earth’s surface itself. Such geodesic paths exist in curved space-time, and define a flat earth. Examples of other geodesics don’t define Earth since they aren’t parallel (or basically equidistant across the traversal) or traverse earth at all. We can define it as flat since its surface is derived as a flat one from such a parallel geodesic.

In non-euclidean geometry, can’t parallel lines be curved and flat and other odd things that may defeat this definition of ‘flat’?

In this case, we derive the Earth is flat because a line traversing the surface is in fact straight. The Earth’s surface itself is straight along with this parallel geodesic. This can be represented in a 2D plane and shown to be parallel and therefore the same, giving our flat surface.

Isn’t the Relacentrism mentioned here without explanatory power since it doesn’t include inertial forces and other defining factors for motion?

Explanatory power is simply what this can explain, and it explains all motion. All motion is relative between abstract frame coordinates and no inertial forces are required to explain this as such. Relacentrism is an explanation of motion mechanics in our universe according to the relativity model.

What are some other flat earth models that don’t rely on the conspiracy?

There is also the 4D Kleinbottle model, which doesn’t rely on a conspiracy since Earth is perceived as a sphere only because we can only perceive three spatial dimensions ourselves. Otherwise, there isn’t very many, it is most typical that flat earth depends on the conspiracy under general circumstances.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 09:11:07 PM by AltSpace »
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16669
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2017, 12:04:53 AM »
I have additional faq items in a binder I can provide shortly.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: The Davis Relativity Model
« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2017, 06:05:46 AM »
Great FAQ.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise