I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

You cannot explain how matter affects spacetime.

You cannot explain the attractive mechanism.

You got nothing at all.

ONLY FET can explain WEIGHT at the quantum level: the papers were written by the best quantum physicsts in the world.

Without zero point energy (ether) you have NOTHING.

You cannot explain how matter affects spacetime.

You cannot explain the attractive mechanism.

You got nothing at all.

ONLY FET can explain WEIGHT at the quantum level: the papers were written by the best quantum physicsts in the world.

Without zero point energy (ether) you have NOTHING.

"ONLY FET can explain WEIGHT at the quantum level: the papers were written by the best quantum physicsts in the world."?

That's hilarious because none of your best quantum physicsts in the world are flat earthers. Go figure. I guess globe wins afterall.

I see FET, I think Field Effect Transistor.

Do not kid yourself.

Most physicists who receive grants from the USDOD know very well that the true shape of the Earth cannot be spherical.

These papers are a direct way of informing the public that quantum physics can only be explained in terms of ether theory, and indirectly telling them that the shape of the Earth must be different from what they have been taught in the public school system.

Do not kid yourself.

Most physicists who receive grants from the USDOD know very well that the true shape of the Earth cannot be spherical.

You have no evidence of this whatsoever. You just made it up.

These papers are a direct way of informing the public that quantum physics can only be explained in terms of ether theory, and indirectly telling them that the shape of the Earth must be different from what they have been taught in the public school system.

You have no evidence of this whatsoever. You just made it up.

Name one of these physicists who is explicitly a flat earth believer. None. Nice try, but unfortunately you made this up too. Logic would dictate that the far more jarring and noticeable feature of an ether theorist would be that the earth is not a globe. Yet none even remotely mention that. Not to mention, all of your sources reference satellites as orbiting the globe earth. None state they are hovering over a flat earth.

If anything, you are a globe geocentrist, not a flat earth believer.

Don't make things up.

But I do have evidence.

This is the kind of formulas that the USDOD has had at its disposal for decades:




The unification of electrostatic forces and terrestrial gravity.

The existence of a repulsive, antigravitational force.

None of which are possible on a spherical Earth.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov


http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19920309



"A scientist said other, more dramatic classified technologies are applicable to lasers, aircraft control and propulsion. However, the scientists and engineers were especially hesitant to discuss these projects."

"Besides it would take about 20 hr. to explain the principles, and very few people would understand them anyway."

What he meant is that this aircraft control and propulsion technology is based on physics principles that go beyond what is currently known and understood by the general public as well as most academic physicists.

But I do have evidence.

Mind if I destroy your evidence?

This is the kind of formulas that the USDOD has had at its disposal for decades:

If they did is was without any foundation.

The unification of electrostatic forces and terrestrial gravity.

So sorry but I'm afraid that you cannot use any hypotheses from Hermann Weyl's attempt to unify electromagnetism with gravitation because in 1929 "Weyl explicitly abandons his earlier attempt to unify electromagnetism with the theory of general relativity.".

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you carefully read this you might note that Hermann Weyl explicitly gave up attempts to unify electromagnetic theory and General Relativity but fully supported General Relativity:

Quote

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Hermann Weyl
Impressed by the initial success of Dirac’s equation of the spinning electron within the special relativistic context, Weyl adapted Dirac’s special relativistic theory of the electron to the general theory of relativity in three groundbreaking papers (Weyl (1929b,c,d)). A complete exposition of this formalism is presented in (Weyl (1929b)). O’Raifeartaigh (1997) says of this paper:

          Although not fully appreciated at the time, Weyl’s 1929 paper has turned out to be one of the
          seminal papers of the century, both from the philosophical and from the technical point of view.

In this ground breaking paper, as well as in (Weyl (1929c,d)), Weyl explicitly abandons his earlier attempt to unify electromagnetism with the theory of general relativity.

I'll let you think that great loss over.

Cut the crap you paid shill.

It is known that the metric component g₄₄ acts like a gravitational potential used in Newtonian mechanics. For a static system (where gravity and electromagnetism balance each other out), it is almost expected that there should be a functional relationship between the gravitational potential and the electric potential φ. Weyl’s classical paper in 1917 examined a static electric field in curved spacetime with axial symmetry. He found that, if there exists a functional relationship between g₄₄ and, φ it must be in the form of:

g₄₄ (φ)= φ² + C₁φ + C₀

Any field with this relation is known as a Weyl-type field.

Weyl's derivation of the electrogravitational equations for static systems (Biefeld-Brown effect):

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

Only by using aether theory can this formidable formula be derived:

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the æther and of the “kinetic” energy-momentum tensor of the matter in the more restricted sense.

Using Hermann Weyl's electrovacuum solutions, Professor S.D. Majumdar found the relationship between gravitational and electrostatic forces (Biefeld-Brown effect).

https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.72.390



This formula alone proves my mechanism to be correct.

Cut the crap you paid shill.

I refuse to waste my time on anyone that dares reply like that.

I'm not "debating how water sticks to a globe again", thank you. That's been answered long ago.

You are the one who needs to repeatedly assert that it will magically for a FE, but can't possibly work for a RE, with no justification at all.
What a miserable hypocrite jackblack is.

Projecting your own inadequacies onto me wont magically change the facts.

Again, nothing you have said comes anywhere near refuting a RE.

You can't even explain how a single ton of water adheres to the outer surface of a sphere.

Likewise, you can't even explain how a single drop of water adheres to your plane.
You cannot explain any mechanism for it to work.
You cannot explain why this magic of yours should only work for a FE, but not a RE.

Again, until you can provide a mechanism, RE not providing one to meet your demands doesn't refute the RE.

The pressurizing force on a flat Earth would crush to the ground each and every lifeform, clouds, trees, plants, since you have no attractive mechanism.
On RE, the mechanism for providing weight has already been proven to exist with the help of zero point energy (ether), we have the stable rotating Ellis wormholes: the intensity of the pressurizing force is much smaller than for the FE scenario.

Again, see how I have just changed FE to RE?
You have no basis for why it should be your way, rather than mine.

Downward motion provided by the shower of cosmic subquarks:

You mean like for a RE, where the cosmic rays rain down from above?

Come back here with an attractive mechanism

Again, if you want to appeal to a lack of mechanism as proof of anything, you need to provide a mechanism yourself.

Not a repeated claim of having a mechanism, an actual mechanism.

Now again, can you actually provide a mechanism?
A mechanism that clearly explains the interaction between aether (or whatever other nonsense you wish to assert) interacts with matter to cause a downwards force, clearly explaining how this interaction produces the downwards force?

Until you do, you will continue to have less than nothing.

Cut the crap, you miserable liar.

Give up your empty words preaching.

Likewise, you can't even explain how a single drop of water adheres to your plane.

I can very easily.

The stable rotating Ellis wormholes which comprise the gravitons of the drop of water absorb aether, thus the drop of water attains weight.

As proven by Newton, the downward shower of subquarks strikes the drop of water and carries it down to the ground.

Perfect mechanism.


You cannot explain how a single ton of water adheres to the outer surface of the Earth.

You cannot explain the attractive mechanism.

You cannot explain how matter affects spacetime.


You are an ignorant buffoon.


Explain how weight is attained at the quantum level.

You got nothing.


Put on your glasses, grab a piece of paper and write down what follows, you are here to learn.


Here is the W = -mg formula at the SUBQUARK/GRAVITON level:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13386630_Gravity_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation_force [equation (62)]



(where, of course, g = Gm/r2)

Thus, WEIGHT is the fundamental force which manifests itself at the quantum level.

Then, we have the weight of a subquark/parton/graviton formula derived by three of the top physicists in the world:



(m = W/g)

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

It was published in the Physical Review A:

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.678


You are dismissed.

Cut the crap, you miserable liar.
Give up your empty words preaching.

Good advice for you to follow.

Again, you have failed to provide any mechanism explaining the interaction between aether and matter which creates a downwards force.
You have failed to provide any actual justification for why it should work for a FE but not a RE.

Again, saying it has absorbed aether and thus obtained weight is not providing a mechanism.
You need to explain the actual interaction between matter and aether which results in a force, explaining how that force arises.

So you still have less than nothing.

Again, saying it has absorbed aether and thus obtained weight is not providing a mechanism.

That is the STABLE ROTATING ELLIS WORMHOLE mechanism.

The one you are avoiding to acknowledge.

Published by best physicists in the world in the best journals.

The ones you never read.


The stable rotating Ellis wormholes which comprise the gravitons of the drop of water absorb aether, thus the drop of water attains weight.

As proven by Newton, the downward shower of subquarks strikes the drop of water and carries it down to the ground.

Perfect mechanism.


You cannot explain how a single ton of water adheres to the outer surface of the Earth.

You cannot explain the attractive mechanism.

You cannot explain how matter affects spacetime.


Explain how weight is attained at the quantum level.

You got nothing.

Again, saying it has absorbed aether and thus obtained weight is not providing a mechanism.
<< I'm not JackBlack but "how water sticks to a globe" has been answered numerous time. >>

Why do you ignore these quotes from your own references? I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again « on: Today at 09:27:10 AM ».
Note that those papers fully support both Newtonian gravitation and Einstein's General Relativity and they supply the mechanism you have been demanding.

What more can you ask after that? It seems that you have nothing left.

What more can you ask after that?

The paid shill and liar from Australia now has a few more hours left of daytime.

Why not post another useless message to earn an additional buck?

He gets a buck for every message he posts.

That is why he is posting a message every 18 minutes, he needs the cash.


Explain the attractive mechanism.

You cannot.

Explain how matter affects spacetime.

You cannot.

You are dismissed.

What more can you ask after that?
The paid shill and liar from Australia now has a few more hours left of daytime.

Is that your best argument ?

Explain the attractive mechanism.

I don't have to! Read the reference that you ignored!

Explain how matter affects spacetime.

I don't have to! Read the reference that you ignored!

You are dismissed .

What a joke! You don't have the authority nor right to dismiss anybody!
Stop thinking than you are so smart and know everything - you don't!

This is the kind of formulas that the USDOD has had at its disposal for decades:




The unification of electrostatic forces and terrestrial gravity.

The existence of a repulsive, antigravitational force.

None of which are possible on a spherical Earth.

Hahahahahaha.  Like you said: not possible on a spherical earth.

I think you meant the USDOD has disposed of.

Your references amount to nothing: they explain nothing.

That is why you are a liar.

Explain the attractive mechanism.

You cannot.

Explain how matter affects spacetime.

You cannot.

You are dismissed.

Gravitational fields consist of gravitons.

No

Gravitons are quantum knots/loops.

No.

You cannot explain how matter affects spacetime.

stress-energy tensor

You cannot explain the attractive mechanism.

Geodesic

You got nothing at all.

GR is taught all over the world. You have nothing.

All of your questions were duly answered.

ONLY FET can explain WEIGHT at the quantum level: the papers were written by the best quantum physicsts in the world.

You are an expert at misrepresenting them.

Without zero point energy (ether) you have NOTHING.

No

Only a stable rotating Ellis wormhole can produce weight.

Nothing else.

No. You can't even calculate acceleration of an object. You can't explain weaker gravitation fields wither. A 10 kg metal sphere on the moon would have to know to absorb less ether. according to your theory. But then again the moon has to be face for your theory to work, as does the rest of space.

Einstein cross. Can't be explained by you. You can have more than one downward direction in your "theory".

Quote from: sandokhan on June 28, 2020, 03:27:50 AM

Cut the crap you paid shill.

I refuse to waste my time on anyone that dares reply like that.

I'm not "debating how water sticks to a globe again", thank you. That's been answered long ago.

That sounds like distraction. Exsacly I whoud say when I can't explain something

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85986.msg2264609#msg2264609

Again, saying it has absorbed aether and thus obtained weight is not providing a mechanism.
That is the STABLE ROTATING ELLIS WORMHOLE mechanism.

No, it isn't a mechanism at all.
It does not tell us how absorbing aether creates a downwards force.
Just like you object to matter bending spacetime and matter following the curvature of bent space time being a mechanism, because it doesn't tell you have matter is moved by spacetime.

And again, you are blatantly lying about the paper.
It says the rotating wormhole has mass, not weight.

Your references amount to nothing: they explain nothing.
That is why you are a liar.
Explain the attractive mechanism.
You cannot.
Explain how matter affects spacetime.
You cannot.
You are dismissed.

And there you go projecting your own inadequacies yet again.
The sole distinction is that you claim the mechanism isn't attractive, and you have aether moving matter.

Again, until you present your mechansim, which actually explains how aether provides a downwards force to matter, you have less than nothing.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 28, 2020, 03:45:15 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on June 28, 2020, 03:27:50 AM

Cut the crap you paid shill.

I refuse to waste my time on anyone that dares reply like that.

I'm not "debating how water sticks to a globe again", thank you. That's been answered long ago.

That sounds like distraction.

How would you respond to someone who starts his post with, "Cut the crap you paid shill"? Or this to JackBlack

Cut the crap, you miserable liar.

Sandokhan has no respect for anyone and ignores all answers given to him - he's just a great know-it-all with the reasoning power is a child.

Read this:

Quote from: sandokhan on June 17, 2020, 07:11:27 AM

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2252015#msg2252015

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818

Are you joking with this?

Quote from: sandokhan

Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Reply #410 on: August 09, 2017, 06:07:14 AM »
EARTH - SUN DISTANCE: 15-20 KILOMETERS

The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025

The Sun, Moon, Black Sun, Shadow Moon and Jupiter have the same diameter.

All planets/stars have the shape of a disk.

Venus and Typhon-Nibiru (Mercury) orbit the Sun: together they orbit above the flat surface of the Earth.


The distance from Earth to the Sun is some 15-20 km (this figure might be even lower).

Do you honestly anyone to take what you write seriously after claiming that sort of thing?

The stable rotating Ellis wormholes which comprise the gravitons of the drop of water absorb aether, thus the drop of water attains weight.

As proven by Newton, the downward shower of subquarks strikes the drop of water and carries it down to the ground.

Perfect mechanism.


You cannot explain how a single ton of water adheres to the outer surface of the Earth.

You cannot explain the attractive mechanism.

You cannot explain how matter affects spacetime.


You are an ignorant buffoon.


Explain how weight is attained at the quantum level.

You got nothing.


At the quantum level what matters is WEIGHT and not "mass".

Here is the absolute proof:

Here is the W = -mg formula at the SUBQUARK/GRAVITON level:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13386630_Gravity_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation_force [equation (62)]



(where, of course, g = Gm/r2)

Thus, WEIGHT is the fundamental force which manifests itself at the quantum level.

Then, we have the weight of a subquark/parton/graviton formula derived by three of the top physicists in the world:



(m = W/g)

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

It was published in the Physical Review A:

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.678


Stable rotating Ellis wormholes mechanism



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1503.pdf

Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions

The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment.

Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes.

These wormhole must rotate and must be traversable.

This is how an object attains weight.


Dr. Ellis' groundbreaking paper takes GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model, the paper was published in the JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.

Now, the mathematical theory for the absorption/emission of aether through a Planck length level particle.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

Ether flow through a drainhole: a particle model in general relativity

Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1973



Dr. Ellis:

This ether is in general "more than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves; it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sources or sinks of this flowing ether."


Gravitons which already have absorbed the aether now align with the downward cosmic shower of subquarks, as described by Newton.

Now, there will be nowhere to hide for you: the aether model proven to exist, yet again, for the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2264696#msg2264696

From (1), we find that the velocity of light around its orbit is not c, but in first approximation c ∓ vE, when measured on earth.

So TCG has highly undesiderable properties and it is better to consider, on the moving earth, that the simultaneity is given by the coordinate synchronisation of TCB.

If R0 is parallel to vE it amounts 333 ns for a link of 1000 km.

The stable rotating Ellis wormholes which comprise the gravitons of the drop of water absorb aether, thus the drop of water attains weight.

They are your words so where is your justification for that? I believe that you referred to this paper.  Read it's Abstract:

Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions by Burkhard Kleihaus and Jutta Kunz
Abstract
We present rotating wormhole solutions in General Relativity, which are supported by a phantom scalar field. These solutions evolve from the static Ellis wormhole, when the throat is set into rotation. As the rotational velocity increases, the throat deforms until at a maximal value of the rotational velocity, an extremal Kerr solution is encountered. The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment. They exhibit ergospheres and possess bound orbits.

Did you even read the title of Ellis's original paper?
"Ether flow through a drainhole: A particle model in General Relativity" by Homer G. Ellis Department of Mathematics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302.

None of Kleihaus, Kunz nor even Ellis seem to have any doubts about General Relativity.
So I see no problem accepting General Relativity where necessary but in any situation that most people have to deal with as Einstein himself said that Newtonian Laws are amazingly accurate in low-velocity low-gravitation situations, as on Earth.

So I'll quite confidently calculate using as most others do.

Would you care to give an equation relating the downward force to mass using your "theory "?

As proven by Newton, the downward shower of subquarks strikes the drop of water and carries it down to the ground.

Newton did not even write "the downward shower of subquarks strikes the drop of water and carries it down to the ground" let alone prove any such thing.

You have a strange idea of what constitutes a proof.

Perfect mechanism.

You cannot explain how a single ton of water adheres to the outer surface of the Earth.

Already done numerous times. I see no need to repeat myself!
By the way water does not "adhere" to the outer surface of the Earth! It is held there by a downward force of g x mass.

You cannot explain the attractive mechanism.

Who said that there was any attractive mechanism?

You cannot explain how matter affects spacetime.

Take your pick between Erik Verlinde's entropic gravity or Quantum entanglement - I suspect that in the end they'll turn out similar mechanisms.
But, it's not my problem! I'll leave that to the physicists and cosmologists who know far more on this than you or I.

You are an ignorant buffoon.

I refuse to bother with people that address others in that way, bye! Learn some manners.

None of Kleihaus, Kunz nor even Ellis seem to have any doubts about General Relativity.

This country bumpkin from Australia gets to play scientist for yet another day on this forum. Of course, he also gets paid as a shill, to lie, to cheat, to subvert.

General relativity is helpless when it comes to removing singularities and quantum entanglement.

THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE A SINGULARITY FROM GR IS THROUGH AN ETHER GRAY WORMHOLE (DRAINHOLE).

Ether theory comes to the rescue for GR.

Quantum entaglement requires wormholes, a superluminal speed, GR offers subluminal speeds.

Already done numerous times. I see no need to repeat myself!

But you haven't explained it even once, which means you need an urgent medical checkup.

You cannot explain how a single ton of water adheres to the outer surface of an orbiting, spherical Earth.

You got nothing, and you know it.


Now, there will be nowhere to hide for you: the aether model proven to exist, yet again, for the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2264696#msg2264696

From (1), we find that the velocity of light around its orbit is not c, but in first approximation c ∓ vE, when measured on earth.

So TCG has highly undesiderable properties and it is better to consider, on the moving earth, that the simultaneity is given by the coordinate synchronisation of TCB.

If R0 is parallel to vE it amounts 333 ns for a link of 1000 km.


So I'll quite confidently calculate using  F = Gmm/r2 as most others do.

You don't get to play with anything until you have provided an attractive mechanism.

You don't have any.

You lose.

None of Kleihaus, Kunz nor even Ellis seem to have any doubts about General Relativity.

What about replying to the posts instead of your usual insults.

If that's all you can do it proves that you know that you cannot answer it.

The stable rotating Ellis wormholes which comprise the gravitons of the drop of water absorb aether, thus the drop of water attains weight.
As proven by Newton, the downward shower of subquarks strikes the drop of water and carries it down to the ground.
Perfect mechanism.

No, still no better at all than "matter curves space time and matter follows the curvature of space time to accelerate towards massive objects".
You have not explained how the absorption of aether gives it weight, nor how your cosmic rays move it.

So still no actual mechanism.

You cannot explain how a single ton of water adheres to the outer surface of the Earth.

Again, you can't either, and so far other than your assertion that it can't work for a RE, nothing you have said depends on the shape of Earth.

No, still no better at all than "matter curves space time and matter follows the curvature of space time to accelerate towards massive objects".

Infinitely better than this.

Again, you can't either

I definitely can.

The stable rotating Ellis wormholes which comprise the gravitons of the drop of water absorb aether, thus the drop of water attains weight.

As proven by Newton, the downward shower of subquarks strikes the drop of water and carries it down to the ground.

Perfect mechanism.


At the quantum level what matters is WEIGHT and not "mass".

Here is the absolute proof:

Here is the W = -mg formula at the SUBQUARK/GRAVITON level:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13386630_Gravity_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation_force [equation (62)]



(where, of course, g = Gm/r2)

Thus, WEIGHT is the fundamental force which manifests itself at the quantum level.

Then, we have the weight of a subquark/parton/graviton formula derived by three of the top physicists in the world:



(m = W/g)

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

It was published in the Physical Review A:

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.678


Stable rotating Ellis wormholes mechanism



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1503.pdf

Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions

The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment.

Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes.

These wormhole must rotate and must be traversable.

This is how an object attains weight.


Dr. Ellis' groundbreaking paper takes GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model, the paper was published in the JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.

Now, the mathematical theory for the absorption/emission of aether through a Planck length level particle.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

Ether flow through a drainhole: a particle model in general relativity

Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1973



Dr. Ellis:

This ether is in general "more than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves; it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sources or sinks of this flowing ether."


A precise, mathematically proven, physical mechanism.

Only ether theory can explain WEIGHT at a quantum level.

No, still no better at all than "matter curves space time and matter follows the curvature of space time to accelerate towards massive objects".
Infinitely better than this.

No, not in the slightest.
Just like how claim there is no reason for matter to curve spacetime or to follow curved spacetime, you present no reason for matter to be moved by cosmic rays or for it to absorb aether or how that absorption of aether gives it weight.

So no, your nonsense is no better at all.

Again, in order to actually provide the kind of mechanism you demand and make it better than gravity, you need to explain and justify the fundamental interaction between matter and aether and cosmic rays and whatever other nonsense you appeal to, clearly explaining what this interaction is and exactly how it results in a force being applied to matter.

Without that, you will continue to have less than nothing.