Dome theory and infinite plane theory

Just to preface this:
In the "Dome theory and infinite plane theory" you are quite at liberty to hypothesise that expanding space might explain things but you simply cannot use Cosmology's expansion of the universe to justify it as you have attempted in the past.

There is absolutely no "REer's hypocrisy in accepting sufficiently large and accelerating expansion of space in their own model, and rejecting it in someone else's" for two extremely valid reasons:
There is no "sufficiently large and accelerating expansion of space in their own model" because even if local space were expanding (it isn't claimed to) the local expansion would be minute:

But according to modern cosmology there is absolutely no expansion within gravitationally bound objects such as our galaxy, the Milky Way, and Andromeda. In fact And Andromeda is approaching us, not receding.

• RE values do not matter because we are not talking about RET
• The expansion of space is perfectly capable of overwhelming gravitational force

Quote from: Spanky on January 22, 2019, 12:48:48 AM

If the Earth is enclosed by a dome then where do meteroites come from?

They fall from the dome, in those models.

Quote

If the Earth is infinite plane, then what is beyond the ice wall? The Earth would simply eliminate everything that comes into its path, and overtime, its mass increases. It would be very thick as it has travelled at almost the speed of light for billions of years. And air above Earth would be constantly compressed. Which means that the air pressure would slow down the acceleration of the Earth.

Infinite Earth models generally have no need to appeal to UA. Gravity functions as it does under RET.
There's also the fact UA models, for finite Earths, posit a 'shadow' in the accelerator caused by the Earth, beyond which the accelerator flows like normal so nothing would fall to us save for exceptional circumstances.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 25, 2019, 04:19:08 AM

Just to preface this:
In the "Dome theory and infinite plane theory" you are quite at liberty to hypothesise that expanding space might explain things but you simply cannot use Cosmology's expansion of the universe to justify it as you have attempted in the past.

Did you miss the part where I explicitly said that's not happpening?

Expansion of Space

This phenomenon is predominantly relied upon in the Infinite Earth model. It is used to explain how the stars, Sun and other such celestial objects remain over the Earth's surface despite the pull of gravity. The basic principle is simple: space itself is said to expand at a rate greater than the acceleration caused by gravity. Thus things over the Earth are falling, but the distance they have to fall is increasing so they never appear to get closer.
This would also result in redshift.

Don't you dare say you 'gave up on trying to explain.' You just ignored, once again, the entirety of my last post. You aren't the one trying to explain anything here. You are the one repeating the same old refuted irrelevancies continuously and never once trying to address a single one of the responses.

• RE values do not matter because we are not talking about RET
• The expansion of space is perfectly capable of overwhelming gravitational force

Both are facts. Neither can be refuted because one is objectively true, and one is backed up by your own source. Are we done?

• you realise that under "modern Cosmology" there is no expansion of space relevant to the earth and
• even if there were its magnitude under "modern Cosmology" would be infinitesmally small.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 30, 2018, 08:02:42 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 29, 2018, 02:01:46 PM

Quote from: rabinoz

So now please explain why the sun, moon, planets and stars haven't fallen down long ago.

Expanding space is the answer I've seen in old posts, just waiting on whether it's still the standard. Might write it up anyway, but right now don't know enough about it to say much beyond the basic idea.

This I've got to see. With nothing to hinder the sun 5000 km up would crash into the earth in about 5 min 20 secs.
And might be quite a sight, travelling at over 3000 m/s. (If, on the unlikely chance that, my calculations are correct! )

Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example. What's your problem?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quote from: Jane on January 25, 2019, 04:46:37 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 25, 2019, 04:19:08 AM

Just to preface this:
In the "Dome theory and infinite plane theory" you are quite at liberty to hypothesise that expanding space might explain things but you simply cannot use Cosmology's expansion of the universe to justify it as you have attempted in the past.

Did you miss the part where I explicitly said that's not happpening?

If that is the case what, may I ask, does this mean?

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2018, 09:27:39 AM

Expansion of Space

This phenomenon is predominantly relied upon in the Infinite Earth model. It is used to explain how the stars, Sun and other such celestial objects remain over the Earth's surface despite the pull of gravity. The basic principle is simple: space itself is said to expand at a rate greater than the acceleration caused by gravity. Thus things over the Earth are falling, but the distance they have to fall is increasing so they never appear to get closer.
This would also result in redshift.

All I am trying to get over is that, under "RE theory", there IS no expansion of space within millions of light years of here.

• you realise that under "modern Cosmology" there is no expansion of space relevant to the earth and
• even if there were its magnitude under "modern Cosmology" would be infinitesmally small.

You claim that "RE values do not matter because we are not talking about RET" but YOU were the one to use RE values to justify the expansion of space hypothesis with this statement:

Now let this be an end to it once and for all!

You accuse me of trying to use RE cosmology to justify this

Both are facts. Neither can be refuted because one is objectively true, and one is backed up by your own source. Are we done?

Quote from: Spanky on January 22, 2019, 12:48:48 AM

If the Earth is enclosed by a dome then where do meteroites come from?

They fall from the dome, in those models.

Quote

If the Earth is infinite plane, then what is beyond the ice wall? The Earth would simply eliminate everything that comes into its path, and overtime, its mass increases. It would be very thick as it has travelled at almost the speed of light for billions of years. And air above Earth would be constantly compressed. Which means that the air pressure would slow down the acceleration of the Earth.

Infinite Earth models generally have no need to appeal to UA. Gravity functions as it does under RET.
There's also the fact UA models, for finite Earths, posit a 'shadow' in the accelerator caused by the Earth, beyond which the accelerator flows like normal so nothing would fall to us save for exceptional circumstances.

Quote from: Googleotomy on January 23, 2019, 08:52:05 PM

If the earth is flat and if the dome is ''hemiplanic'' (meaning like a round bowl turned upside down over the flat earth).
Is there some point where the dome meets, or rests, on the flat earth ?
Does the dome meet , or rest , on the top of the ice wall ?
Is this ''dome'' something solid ?

(My apologies for the use of the word ''hemiplanic''.....I couldn't think of a flat earth word for ''' hemispheric'' if you get what I mean. LOL)

In models with a physical dome, generally it and the ice wall are connected. There may be regular ice leading up to the wall proper, maybe some kind of gradient, but generally that's how it works.
Also the word is hemispherical. They use hemiplane to refer to half a plane. A dome is not half a plane.

Quote from: Spanky on January 23, 2019, 09:08:38 PM

You mean that the expansion only acts on the up down direction. Makes sense. But this case a person on a plane would weight less that on Earth.

1. They do. 2. Why? The expansion could happen at a specific height.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 23, 2019, 09:35:09 PM

But those that promote this Expansion of Space commonly uses Cosmology's expansion of epace as a justification of their hypothesis.

No, they don't, you were just physically incapable of letting that straw man go despite being corrected way, way, way too many times. The only time that ever gets brought up is to point out an REer's hypocrisy in accepting sufficiently large and accelerating expansion of space in their own model, and rejecting it in someone else's. Something you are a spectacular example of, so no wonder you hear it so much.

Quote

This is also completely incorrect because the expansion of space does not cause gravitationally bound objects even up to Galactic Groups to move apart.

This expansion of space does not "drag" objects with it in such a way that could overcome the gravitational forces between the earth and the sun, moon, planets and stars.

And we went over this before too, and you also evaded it. Once again: that's not how gravity works. Gravity does not have a finite limit, the force has denominator r². That never becomes zero. You are exerting a gravitational pull on stars we can't even see, it's just tiny. If gravity magically equalled no effect from expansion, then expansion as a concept would never be noticeable.
What you in fact mean to say is that the expansion of space can overwhelm the force of gravity if it is sufficiently big. Nothing is getting dragged, falling objects just have further to fall. Gravity does not stop basic physics from working. Under RET the expansion of space is small enough in those locations for gravity to be greater than it; that is not a property of being 'gravitationally bound,' it is a property of those specific cases.
It isn't that it 'can't' it's that you 'don't want it to despite it being perfectly possible.'

Quote from: Spanky on January 23, 2019, 10:38:04 PM

If the Earth is infinitively wide, it will still expand. Mathematically concept of infinity can be applied. See the hotel paradox? Multiply every number smaller than infinity by 2 is possible.

That's finite numbers that get multiplied. You don't expand infinity, by definition.

Photo-electric suspension theory is another attempt to explain why the heavens would not fall into us. I haven't looked into it specifically with IET, but I imagine it would work well enough - though not as well as expansion.

The dome theory is not mutually exclusive to IET. This allows for another explanation for why the heavens do not collapse into the earth.

That may have worked 3000 years ago when people were pretty ignorant about not only the solar system but about the planet they lived on, in fact they were pretty ignorant about most things not connected with their immediate daily needs.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 25, 2019, 11:04:58 AM

Now let this be an end to it once and for all!

Yes. Please. Stop throwing a bloody temper tantrum over an ancient turn of phrase with precisely zero significance to anything.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 30, 2018, 08:02:42 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 29, 2018, 02:01:46 PM

Quote from: rabinoz

So now please explain why the sun, moon, planets and stars haven't fallen down long ago.

Expanding space is the answer I've seen in old posts, just waiting on whether it's still the standard. Might write it up anyway, but right now don't know enough about it to say much beyond the basic idea.

This I've got to see. With nothing to hinder the sun 5000 km up would crash into the earth in about 5 min 20 secs.
And might be quite a sight, travelling at over 3000 m/s. (If, on the unlikely chance that, my calculations are correct! )

Not really a huge figure when compared to the rate of the universe's expansion under RET, for example. What's your problem?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REer's hypocrisy in accepting sufficiently large and accelerating expansion of space in their own model, and rejecting it in someone else's.

The dome consists of ether and aether, that is why the usual strength of materials science course is not useful at all in analyzing this problem.

The most fervent proponent of the existence of the dome is I. Newton: he proposed two kinds of forces of gravitation. One is a force of pressure (terrestrial gravity), the other one is a rotational type of force (planetary/stellar gravity), being separated by a barrier.

I am not throwing a tantrum but simply showing that YOU were wrong with your:

I don't know if you ever studied strength of materials when doing your mathematics. The problem with building big is the weight of the material you are building with quickly becomes a factor the bigger you go.  A dome the size the flatinos advocate is just not possible, you know that I know that and material science knows that.
The whole idea is just too preposterous for words.

In flat earth thinking they may fall from a dome, but in reality they are mostly made of a combination of rock, metal, organics, ice and other such stuff swirling around up there.

If the fact earth thought dome were composed of such materials, it would hardly be transparent now, would it?

How do you know?

It is very easy to prove that terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure. As Newton noted, planetary/stellar gravity is due to a rotational/circulating type of ether. Between them you need a barrier, otherwise there would be no atmosphere at all.

All I have to do is prove the existence of ether.

And this has already been done: the Ruderfer experiment.

You certainly haven't done your homework on the subject: the Ruderfer experiment is the main reason physicists are giving up on Einstein's relativity and are embracing MLET (modified Lorentz ether theory).

Quote from: rabinoz on January 25, 2019, 03:23:11 PM

I am not throwing a tantrum but simply showing that YOU were wrong with your:

You're not throwing a tantrum, you're just dedicating whole posts to one sentence I uttered in a completely different thread, which you're still misrepresenting by the way, rather than actually talk about the subject of this one? Yeah, right.

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 25, 2019, 03:08:47 PM

I don't know if you ever studied strength of materials when doing your mathematics. The problem with building big is the weight of the material you are building with quickly becomes a factor the bigger you go.  A dome the size the flatinos advocate is just not possible, you know that I know that and material science knows that.
The whole idea is just too preposterous for words.

Assuming the forces observed on Earth are the same up there, then you might have some difficulty. But given that gravity is observed to decrease with altitude, any model accounting for that isn't really going to find much of a problem. 'Building big' isn't a problem in of itself, finding something that can support its own weight is; if that's not a factor...

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 25, 2019, 03:01:51 PM

In flat earth thinking they may fall from a dome, but in reality they are mostly made of a combination of rock, metal, organics, ice and other such stuff swirling around up there.

If the fact earth thought dome were composed of such materials, it would hardly be transparent now, would it?

Most dome models I've seen seem to contain the entire observable universe inside it. Who gives a fig if it's transparent or not?

The dome consists of ether and aether, that is why the usual strength of materials science course is not useful at all in analyzing this problem.

The most fervent proponent of the existence of the dome is I. Newton: he proposed two kinds of forces of gravitation. One is a force of pressure (terrestrial gravity), the other one is a rotational type of force (planetary/stellar gravity), being separated by a barrier.

What "problem" was the dome supposed to solve?

Quote

Assuming the forces observed on Earth are the same up there, then you might have some difficulty. But given that gravity is observed to decrease with altitude, any model accounting for that isn't really going to find much of a problem. 'Building big' isn't a problem in of itself, finding something that can support its own weight is; if that's not a factor...

Building big is not a problem!  You think? You clearly didn’t study strength of materials. It’s a basic principle that limits just how big you can build.
What material is your thought dome constructed from?

You haven't got a clue as to the Ruderfer experiment which shatters your erroneous beliefs in attractive gravity.

Martin Ruderfer published one of the most sensational experiments of the 20th century and beyond.

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

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361

in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

This is the reason why Einstein's relativity is being thrown aside, and mainstream physicists are embracing MLET (a local aether model).

What "problem" was the dome supposed to solve?

The dome consists of ether and aether, that is why the usual strength of materials science course is not useful at all in analyzing this problem.

The most fervent proponent of the existence of the dome is I. Newton

It is very easy to prove that terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure.

All I have to do is prove the existence of ether.

Building big is not a problem!  You think? You clearly didn’t study strength of materials.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 25, 2019, 03:03:07 PM

What "problem" was the dome supposed to solve?

The air would leak out.

Aah...
Serious?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 25, 2019, 07:42:52 PM

Aah...
Serious?

You have a giant vacuum of space. You have to have something there to step the air leaving.
With the UA model it is even worse with the air falling over the edge. The ice wall might have stopped the water, but we need something higher to stop the air.

You haven't got a clue as to the Ruderfer experiment which shatters your erroneous beliefs in attractive gravity.

Martin Ruderfer published one of the most sensational experiments of the 20th century and beyond.

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

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361

in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

This is the reason why Einstein's relativity is being thrown aside, and mainstream physicists are embracing MLET (a local aether model).