I decided to write up an explanation for the model I accept, in regards to the nature of the Earth. I have seen it done before and I figured that since the Flat Earth model I accept is unique among the others and not commonly held by other planarists. I will outline it here, and take criticisms, edits, and corrections from any feedback.

If I am to put a name on this model, it would be most accurate to deem it the “Davis Relativity Model”, named after John Davis, the American Flat Earth Society Secretary (shout-out to Davis, you are awesome) for putting this idea out, and it heavily relies on relativity. Links I recommend for some explanation of it:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Modelhttps://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat 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.

This post will be written in the following order:

1. Basic Explanation

2. The pillars of this model

3. Why it should be more considered in mainstream FE

4. FAQ

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.

Links I recommend for some further explanation of it:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Modelhttps://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 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 century, 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.htmlAs 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.