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

  • 898 Replies
  • 89658 Views
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #660 on: June 25, 2020, 02:10:36 PM »


Universality of Gravity from Entanglement



Well dude you are so - confused everything, that it’s just horror!

How? ???

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #661 on: June 25, 2020, 03:11:18 PM »
I am not wasting anyone's time here in any way, shape or form.
Then what do you call repeatedly avoiding providing a mechanism and instead spamming loads of garbage?
Repeatedly claiming to have a perfect mechanism, yet not even having an explanation of how the aether causes a force on matter?
Repeatedly lying about what the references you link to show show?

Even now, rather than even try to provide a mechanism you appeal to your useless references and start wasting more time by asking what mass is.

This thread has been going on for how many posts now? And all throughout you are still yet to provide a mechanism like that you demand for gravity.


I am providing the required references.
Again, you don't need to be providing references.
What you need to provide is a mechanism.
That is what you are yet to do.

Again, how does aether interact with matter which results in a force being applied to matter to move it?
That is what you need to actually explain. Until you do, you have no mechanism.

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #662 on: June 25, 2020, 03:14:00 PM »
The Ellis ether wormhole is a fact of science
You say the Ellis ether wormhole is a fact of science.

You also said that wormholes depend on Aether and that Aether depends on the earth being flat.

Those statements taken together would imply that a flat earth is a fact of science.

It isn't. There is no scientific proof of a flat earth and there never will be.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #663 on: June 25, 2020, 03:21:32 PM »
Who proves that "Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes"? Nobody that I can find.

The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf
Universality of Gravity from Entanglement
Quote from: Brian Swinglea and Mark Van Raamsdonk
Universality of Gravity from Entanglement
Abstract
The entanglement “first law” in conformal field theories relates the entanglement entropy for a ball-shaped region to an integral over the same region involving the expectation value of the CFT stress-energy tensor, for infinitesimal perturbations to the CFT vacuum state. In recent work, this was exploited at leading order in N in the context of large N holographic CFTs to show that any geometry dual to a perturbed CFT state must satisfy Einstein’s equations linearized about pure AdS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In particular, the CFT first law leads to Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the fact that all sources of stress-energy source the gravitational field.
So you now accept Einstein’s equations and Newtonian Gravitation. That's a start at least.

Quote from: sandokhan
Entanglement requires traversable wormholes.
You must remember that it's still just "theoretical" and not yet supported by a great deal of evidence but I did find this.

But note that none of those serves to refute either Newtonian Gravitation or Einstein's gravitation and what this work does is to provided the mechanism for Einstein's curved spacetime.

Quote from: Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office
You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
Quantum entanglement is one of the more bizarre theories to come out of the study of quantum mechanics — so strange, in fact, that Albert Einstein famously referred to it as “spooky action at a distance.”

Essentially, entanglement involves two particles, each occupying multiple states at once — a condition referred to as superposition. For example, both particles may simultaneously spin clockwise and counterclockwise. But neither has a definite state until one is measured, causing the other particle to instantly assume a corresponding state. The resulting correlations between the particles are preserved, even if they reside on opposite ends of the universe.

But what enables particles to communicate instantaneously — and seemingly faster than the speed of light — over such vast distances? Earlier this year, physicists proposed an answer in the form of “wormholes,” or gravitational tunnels. The group showed that by creating two entangled black holes, then pulling them apart, they formed a wormhole — essentially a “shortcut” through the universe — connecting the distant black holes.

Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is where quantum entanglement could play a role. It might appear that the concept of entanglement — one of the most fundamental in quantum mechanics — is in direct conflict with general relativity: Two entangled particles, “communicating” across vast distances, would have to do so at speeds faster than that of light — a violation of the laws of physics, according to Einstein. It may therefore come as a surprise that using the concept of entanglement in order to build up space-time may be a major step toward reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time. In contrast, gravity is thought to exist in the next dimension as, according to Einstein’s laws, it acts to “bend” and shape space-time, thereby existing in the fifth dimension.
This seems very much along the lines of Erik Verlinde's entropic and both the MIT article and his work write of these ideas as "reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity".

But where is the aether that you insist is essential?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2020, 01:09:58 AM by rabinoz »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #664 on: June 25, 2020, 10:11:46 PM »
Newton's law of universal pressure applies only here on the flat surface of the Earth. He never proved the attractive mechanism, and neither has anyone else.

As a matter of fact, Newton was pressed from all sides to provide an explanation for terrestrial gravity, that is why the second edition of the Principia, in the official chronology of history, includes the essay on the CAUSE of gravity.

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A


Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Right from the pages of the Principia.

ATTRACTION = PRESSURE EXERTED FROM OUTSIDE PUSHING TWO OBJECTS TOGETHER


Einstein's GR cannot handle quantum entanglement and wormholes, and cannot be applied to dynamical systems.


My perfect 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.




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #665 on: June 25, 2020, 11:04:04 PM »
But where is the aether that you insist is essential?

You are displaying, yet again, your level of ignorance.

Quantum entanglement requires wormholes.

The Einstein-Rosen bridge is not traversable.

What is required is a stable traversable wormhole.

Traversable wormholes require ether: the Ellis wormhole.

Only a rotating Ellis wormhole is stable.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #666 on: June 25, 2020, 11:19:36 PM »
But where is the aether that you insist is essential?

You are displaying, yet again, your level of ignorance.

Quantum entanglement requires wormholes.

The Einstein-Rosen bridge is not traversable.

What is required is a stable traversable wormhole.

Traversable wormholes require ether: the Ellis wormhole.

Only a rotating Ellis wormhole is stable.

This is the door to Narnia?????
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #667 on: June 25, 2020, 11:25:29 PM »


Universality of Gravity from Entanglement



Well dude you are so - confused everything, that it’s just horror!

How? ???


This is the same as Geordie Rose said. Standing near a quantum computer is similar to how you stand at the altar of the alien god. And you call from there the ancients.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #668 on: June 26, 2020, 12:47:07 AM »
Here is the true gray wormhole:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e1/e7/0e/e1e70e552bda4aafa6dadc10e208acd1.gif

This is the center of the wormhole providing the torque for the vortices of the wormhole itself. One tetrahedron is the shadow of the other.

Here is how subquarks can connect to each other:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2256867#msg2256867

I think sandokan - you will like it.

How to create a mole hole - physicists published detailed instructions

Everyone wants to have a personal wormhole. In the sense that who wants to travel the universe in the usual way, when a trivial flight from one star to another can take thousands and tens of thousands of years? It is much more interesting if you can drop into the nearest hole of a wormhole, take a short walk in it and find yourself in some exotic remote corner of the universe.

However, there is one small technical difficulty: wormholes, which are so strong bends of space-time that form a short tunnel between two points in the universe, are catastrophically unstable. For example, if you send a photon into a wormhole, then it will collapse faster than it flies through it, that is, faster than the speed of light.

But a recent article published in arXiv on July 29 showed a way to build an almost stable wormhole, which, of course, collapses, but is slow enough to send messages through it - and possibly even things - before it collapses. All you need is a pair of black holes and several infinitely long cosmic strings.

As easy as pie.

Problems of creating a wormhole

Basically, building a wormhole is pretty simple. According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, mass and energy deform the fabric of space-time. And a certain special configuration of matter and energy allows you to form a tunnel - the shortest path between two remote parts of the universe.

Unfortunately, even on paper, these wormholes are fantastically unstable. Just one photon passing through a wormhole triggers a catastrophic cascade that breaks it. However, a certain amount of negative-mass matter can counteract the destabilizing effects of ordinary matter trying to get through the wormhole, making it passable.

There is, however, one catch — a substance with a negative mass does not exist, so we need a backup plan.

Let's start with the wormhole itself. We need entry and exit. Theoretically, it is possible to connect together a black hole (a region of space from which nothing can escape) with a white hole (a theoretical region of space where nothing can enter). When these two unusual space objects combine, they form a completely new structure: a wormhole. Thus, you can jump to any end of this tunnel, and instead of scaring people by dropping books from endless shelves in a black hole, you will fly out from the other side without any harm to yourself.

True, white holes also do not exist. It's getting harder, isn't it?

Charge the black holes!

Since there are no white holes, we need a backup plan for the backup plan. Fortunately, smart mathematicians tell us a possible solution: a charged black hole. Black holes can carry an electric charge - yes, they don’t acquire during the natural formation of a charge, but we use what we can get. There is a strange place inside any black hole with the so-called gravitational singularity: this is perhaps the most unusual area in the universe in which most basic physical theories do not work, and the quantities describing the gravitational field become either infinitely large or indefinite. And if for an ordinary black hole this region is generally a point in its center, then for a charged one it can be distorted, and for two oppositely charged black holes they can even be connected by a bridge.

Voila: we got a wormhole using only what really can exist.

But this wormhole, created using charged black holes, has two problems. Firstly, it is still unstable, and if something or someone actually tries to use it, it will fall apart. The second problem is that two oppositely charged black holes will be attracted to each other by both gravitational and electric forces, and if they merge, then you just get one big neutrally charged and completely useless black hole.

Cosmic String Game

Thus, for all this to work, we need to make sure that the two charged black holes are safe, far enough apart, while the wormhole tunnel can remain open. A potential solution to this new challenge is cosmic strings.

Cosmic strings are theoretical defects in the fabric of space-time, similar to cracks that form when ice freezes. These cosmic remnants formed in the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang. These are truly exotic objects, no wider than the proton, but only an inch of their length outweighs Mount Everest. You will never want to meet them, because they will cut you in half, like a cosmic lightsaber, but you do not need to worry very much, because we are not even sure that they exist and have never seen them in the universe.

However, there is no reason why they cannot exist, so we don’t cunningly use them to create stable wormholes.

When it comes to wormholes, cosmic strings have one very useful property: great inertness. In other words, they really don't like being pushed. If you pierce a wormhole with a cosmic string and allow it to pass along the outer edges of the black holes, then the string tension prevents them from attracting each other. In simple terms, cosmic strings here act like steel cables that attach to the shores and keep the bridge from falling.

Build stability
One cosmic string solves one of the problems - it holds black holes in certain places, which allows entry and exit from the wormhole to be open. But it does not prevent the destruction of the wormhole itself, if you really decide to use it. So, let's add another cosmic string, also penetrating the wormhole, but at the same time passing through the normal space between these two black holes, forming a kind of loop.

When cosmic strings close in a loop, they theoretically begin to vibrate violently. These vibrations mix the very fabric of the space-time around them, and with the right settings, the vibrations can lead to the fact that the energy of the space in their vicinity becomes negative, effectively acting as a negative mass inside the wormhole, potentially stabilizing it.

This is not an ideal solution: after all, the internal vibrations of cosmic strings - the very ones that can keep the wormhole open - draw energy and, therefore, mass from the string, making it thinner and thinner. In fact, over time, the cosmic string used in this way will disappear, which will lead to the complete destruction of the wormhole. But still, a wormhole stabilized in this way can exist long enough to transmit messages or even objects through it.

But first, we need to find some cosmic strings and charge a couple of black holes.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #669 on: June 26, 2020, 01:26:01 AM »
Newton's law of universal pressure applies only here on the flat surface of the Earth. He never proved the attractive mechanism, and neither has anyone else.
There is no "Newton's law of universal pressure" but there is "Newton's law of universal gravitation" - get used to it.

Quote from: sandokhan
As a matter of fact, Newton was pressed from all sides to provide an explanation for terrestrial gravity, that is why the second edition of the Principia, in the official chronology of history, includes the essay on the CAUSE of gravity.
No need for all that!
We all know that Newton could not explain a mechanism but his "Law" very successfully covers not just "terrestrial gravity" but the gravitation of the Sun, planets etc.
This was shown by Newton, himself, and all the astronomers.

Quote from: sandokhan
Einstein's GR cannot handle quantum entanglement and wormholes, and cannot be applied to dynamical systems.
That "Einstein's GR cannot handle quantum mechanics" is well accepted but his General Relativity predicted wormholes.

Quote from: sandokhan
My perfect mechanism:
It's not "your mechanism"!

Quote from: sandokhan
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 wormholes must rotate and must be traversable.

I thought I agreed with that but none of it refutes either Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
On the contrary these papers show that this may provide the mechanism for both Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
Note: "CFT first law leads to Newton’s Law of Gravitation" and "CFT state must satisfy Einstein’s equations"

Quote from: Brian Swinglea and Mark Van Raamsdonk
Universality of Gravity from Entanglement
Abstract
The entanglement “first law” in conformal field theories relates the entanglement entropy for a ball-shaped region to an integral over the same region involving the expectation value of the CFT stress-energy tensor, for infinitesimal perturbations to the CFT vacuum state. In recent work, this was exploited at leading order in N in the context of large N holographic CFTs to show that any geometry dual to a perturbed CFT state must satisfy Einstein’s equations linearized about pure AdS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In particular, the CFT first law leads to Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the fact that all sources of stress-energy source the gravitational field.
So you now accept Einstein’s equations and Newtonian Gravitation. That's a start at least.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But note that none of those serves to refute either Newtonian Gravitation or Einstein's gravitation and what this work does is to provided the mechanism for Einstein's curved spacetime.


Quote from: Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office
You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
Quantum entanglement is one of the more bizarre theories to come out of the study of quantum mechanics — so strange, in fact, that Albert Einstein famously referred to it as “spooky action at a distance.”

Essentially, entanglement involves two particles, each occupying multiple states at once — a condition referred to as superposition. For example, both particles may simultaneously spin clockwise and counterclockwise. But neither has a definite state until one is measured, causing the other particle to instantly assume a corresponding state. The resulting correlations between the particles are preserved, even if they reside on opposite ends of the universe.

But what enables particles to communicate instantaneously — and seemingly faster than the speed of light — over such vast distances? Earlier this year, physicists proposed an answer in the form of “wormholes,” or gravitational tunnels. The group showed that by creating two entangled black holes, then pulling them apart, they formed a wormhole — essentially a “shortcut” through the universe — connecting the distant black holes.

Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is where quantum entanglement could play a role. It might appear that the concept of entanglement — one of the most fundamental in quantum mechanics — is in direct conflict with general relativity: Two entangled particles, “communicating” across vast distances, would have to do so at speeds faster than that of light — a violation of the laws of physics, according to Einstein. It may therefore come as a surprise that using the concept of entanglement in order to build up space-time may be a major step toward reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time. In contrast, gravity is thought to exist in the next dimension as, according to Einstein’s laws, it acts to “bend” and shape space-time, thereby existing in the fifth dimension.
This seems very much along the lines of Erik Verlinde's entropic and both the MIT article and his work writes of these ideas as "reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity".

Quote from: sandokhan
This is how an object attains weight.
Where do you drag that from? Just curious.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #670 on: June 26, 2020, 02:18:37 AM »
there is "Newton's law of universal gravitation" - get used to it.

Then, provide the attractive mechanism.

You have none, is that right?

You must be out of your mind to claim universality for a "law" that has no possible explanation.

Newton described gravity as a pressurizing force.

I thought I agreed with that but none of it refutes either Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Quantum entanglement= superluminal speeds = wormholes = aether mechanism

The presence of aether destroys in no time at all any attractive law of gravitation (unexplained/unproven) and any theory of relativity.

Quantum entanglement exposes GR for what it is: an incomplete hypothesis.

Spacetime is created at the quantum level by the aether wormholes.

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #671 on: June 26, 2020, 05:34:00 AM »
there is "Newton's law of universal gravitation" - get used to it.
Spacetime is created at the quantum level by the aether wormholes.
You forgot to add "on a flat earth"

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #672 on: June 26, 2020, 06:19:31 AM »
there is "Newton's law of universal gravitation" - get used to it.

Then, provide the attractive mechanism.

You have none, is that right?

You must be out of your mind to claim universality for a "law" that has no possible explanation.
Not in the slightest!
Your own references show that Quantum entanglement provides a mechanism for Newtonian Gravitation and  "may be a major step toward reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity."

Quote from: sandokhan
Quantum entanglement exposes GR for what it is: an incomplete hypothesis.

Spacetime is created at the quantum level by the aether wormholes.

Read the parts that I quoted!
Didn't you notice this:
Quote
In particular, the CFT first law leads to Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the fact that all sources of stress-energy source the gravitational field.

And this:
Quote
Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time. In contrast, gravity is thought to exist in the next dimension as, according to Einstein’s laws, it acts to “bend” and shape space-time, thereby existing in the fifth dimension.

Your own references claim that "Quantum entanglement" provides a mechanism for Newton’s Law of Gravitation and
Quote
It may therefore come as a surprise that using the concept of entanglement in order to build up space-time may be a major step toward reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Your own references seem to have answered your objections to Newtonian Gravitation and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #673 on: June 26, 2020, 06:34:28 AM »
You need urgent psychiatric help.

You have just been caught lying to your readers on a massive scale in order to hide the truth!

You just shrug your shoulders and post again as if nothing happened?

Let's see how this creep tried to knowingly lie to his audience.

Do you mean this equation? t = t', r = r', φ = φ' + ωEt', z = z'.              (3)
Stop joking, that's not transforming any time!
It quite clearly reads: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ωE".

In the "transformation" you referred to Ashby was not transforming any time at all.
Read what Ashby wrote: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ωE" - in that there is no time transformation at all.

Ashby is not transforming time at all so he didn't use any time transformation!

Can't you understand the meaning of simple words like these: "the transformation to a coordinate system {t', r', φ', z'} rotating at the uniform angular rate ωE"
There is NO transformation of time involved at all!

Ashby is not transforming any time so he simply equates the times!

Of course I can recognise the Galilean transformations? Why are they relevant?

Now, the full extent of rabinoz' treachery will be exposed in plain sight.

Here is how he lies to his readers:


Quote from: sandokhan
It turned out that Ashby was NOT USING RELATIVISTIC TRANSFORMATIONS from one frame of reference to another, but GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

So, who knows GR better? Hatch or Ashby?
When can you face this simple point?
Ashby was not doing any transformation involving time, just changing the rotation so, of course, he didn't "USE RELATIVISTIC TRANSFORMATIONS".

Here is the source copied by Ashby, the paper published in 1937 by Langevin:



In spite of its claimed ‘relativistic’ nature the 1937 calculation was in fact based on a purely Galilean transformation of the invariant interval relation, in cylindical coordinates with z constant, in an inertial frame:

into a uniformly rotating one via the Galilean transformation equations:
r′ = r, t′ = t, θ′ = θ + ωt


This is exactly what Ashby did!

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #674 on: June 26, 2020, 07:00:52 AM »
Sandolhan uses quote function!

Inpossible...

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #675 on: June 26, 2020, 07:59:32 AM »
Quantum entanglement requires wormholes.

The Einstein-Rosen bridge is not traversable.

What is required is a stable traversable wormhole.

Traversable wormholes require ether: the Ellis wormhole.

Only a rotating Ellis wormhole is stable.

Gravity can function only using rotating Ellis ether stable wormholes.


*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #676 on: June 26, 2020, 08:00:05 AM »
You need urgent psychiatric help.

You have just been caught lying to your readers on a massive scale in order to hide the truth!

You just shrug your shoulders and post again as if nothing happened?

Let's see how this creep tried to knowingly lie to his audience.



Stop making bullshit. If I brought all the places in which you Sandokhan refer to supposedly scientific papers explaining your stupid ideas, this would take up a lot of space. Moreover, even I who do not speak English - I understand perfectly well that you come up with your theory from scratch! Trying to invoke the authority of others. This is foul.
When I developed one of the variants of the mathematical model of flat earth, I did not refer to false information like you. Even the real one - a slight deviation of the orientation of the satellite antennas from the calculated ones, is completely settled both in flat ground and spherical. Since I now understand why this is happening.

I will return to the very beginning, the Earth is a ball, but some effects are not always explainable from the position of official science, but this does not mean at all that the earth is really flat!
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #677 on: June 26, 2020, 08:03:21 AM »
Stop making bullshit.

STFU.

You have been trolling this forum for way too long.

No one knows WTF you are talking about.

My ideas are backed by the best references in the world.

So STFU.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #678 on: June 26, 2020, 08:05:32 AM »
Quantum entanglement requires wormholes.

The Einstein-Rosen bridge is not traversable.

What is required is a stable traversable wormhole.

Traversable wormholes require ether: the Ellis wormhole.

Only a rotating Ellis wormhole is stable.

Gravity can function only using rotating Ellis ether stable wormholes.

You better say sandokhan - how can lunar eclipses occur over flat stationary earth? And why does gravity change in those places that are obscured by shadows? I think that none of your theories about omnipotent ether will help you.
You do not have a mechanism for this case, or am I wrong?
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #679 on: June 26, 2020, 08:13:04 AM »
You do not have a mechanism for this case, or am I wrong?

You are wrong.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208296#msg2208296

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2209362#msg2209362

Instead of wasting everyone's time here, you could have looked that up: this means you are either too lazy to perform such a simple task, or that you shouldn't post in the upper forums.

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #680 on: June 26, 2020, 08:18:02 AM »
Quantum entanglement requires wormholes.

The Einstein-Rosen bridge is not traversable.

What is required is a stable traversable wormhole.

Traversable wormholes require ether: the Ellis wormhole.

Only a rotating Ellis wormhole is stable.

Gravity can function only using rotating Ellis ether stable wormholes.

You better say sandokhan - how can lunar eclipses occur over flat stationary earth? And why does gravity change in those places that are obscured by shadows? I think that none of your theories about omnipotent ether will help you.
You do not have a mechanism for this case, or am I wrong?

You shoud make new thread talking about sandokhan model, since his model is fundimentaly diffirent form other Models of Flat Earth

Like: Diffirent map, more like Mercator projection but in srcle, and antartica bieng "real", 15 km sun height and Sun literaly setting, no perspective or something other



*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #681 on: June 26, 2020, 08:28:09 AM »
Stop making bullshit.

STFU.

You have been trolling this forum for way too long.

No one knows WTF you are talking about.

My ideas are backed by the best references in the world.

So STFU.

No, I have already described my mathematical model of flat earth (only calculated). If you have not read - well this is your minus. Nobody provides me with a resource on this site - like you here. I don’t need to troll you, because, really reading your links, I don’t understand anything, because it says something completely different (since I have to carefully translate each paragraph).

Once you ask, I will dedicate you a sandokhan. The only version of a flat earth from the standpoint of physics, which explains both solar and lunar eclipses, as well as all the effects that we observe, and this is the triangulation of the sun at an altitude of 6000 kilometers above us, and the radar of the moon and other objects of our solar system , radio communications through the moon, and when TV shows are watched where it is impossible to watch, because of the bend of the earth’s crust ...


The meaning of the theory is that a vortex in the form of a Merkaba figure emerges from the center of flat earth. In which both the sun and the moon with stars are located - in general, our cosmos. Time flows there with a slowdown with a rise up. This is a mathematical calculated model meaning that such a field can really exist. The satellites height and other effects are settled on this field intensity field. But that's just it all works as long as you are on Earth. Having ascended into space, the theory does not work, therefore it is necessary to prohibit flights into space and say that they are fiction.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #682 on: June 26, 2020, 08:59:49 AM »
You do not have a mechanism for this case, or am I wrong?

You are wrong.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208296#msg2208296

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2209362#msg2209362

Instead of wasting everyone's time here, you could have looked that up: this means you are either too lazy to perform such a simple task, or that you shouldn't post in the upper forums.

The videos do not prove anything, or rather just prove that lunar eclipses occur over the ball. But this does not apply to this thread.
And in general, I asked about the mechanism of change in gravity in the areas covered by the shadow or opposition of the moon during these eclipses, both solar and lunar - you do not have an explanation of the mechanism of change of gravity even with your ether. And this is a fact that makes you angry, you need to come up with a new theory. Although the explanation is so simple, if you understand what gravity actually is.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #683 on: June 26, 2020, 09:44:09 AM »
Quantum entanglement requires wormholes.

The Einstein-Rosen bridge is not traversable.

What is required is a stable traversable wormhole.

Traversable wormholes require ether: the Ellis wormhole.

Only a rotating Ellis wormhole is stable.

Gravity can function only using rotating Ellis ether stable wormholes.

You better say sandokhan - how can lunar eclipses occur over flat stationary earth? And why does gravity change in those places that are obscured by shadows? I think that none of your theories about omnipotent ether will help you.
You do not have a mechanism for this case, or am I wrong?

You shoud make new thread talking about sandokhan model, since his model is fundimentaly diffirent form other Models of Flat Earth

Like: Diffirent map, more like Mercator projection but in srcle, and antartica bieng "real", 15 km sun height and Sun literaly setting, no perspective or something other

Yes, I argued with him about the gyrocompass and his advanced theories. Alas, he could not explain to me how the gyrocompass works in his advanced theory. Indeed, the gyrocompass is affected by the hemisphere in which it is located.


Alas, it’s not interesting for me to create more topics and organize large-scale debates. And only this topic suits me, because from it I take entertaining information from sandokhan. I have never seen such nonsense anywhere. But here I am very concerned about the persistence with which sandokhan does not want to admit that he is not able to cope with gravity. And he writes complete nonsense. I had to spend a lot of time translating to understand that it refers to empty places. Why make a fool of people?
The earth believes, because magic exists!


*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #686 on: June 26, 2020, 10:18:41 AM »
It's your pals who are trolling this forum, not me. They use it to deny, using reductio ad absurdum, anything put forth by the FE. That is why I have to repeat, sometimes, the message that was posted initially. The RE's subconscious mind has a very hard time accepting reality, that is where the struggle occurs.

Do you understand that gravity is caused by rotating stable Ellis wormholes?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #687 on: June 26, 2020, 11:31:52 AM »
Do you understand that one paper is not end all?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #688 on: June 26, 2020, 12:21:26 PM »
It's your pals who are trolling this forum, not me. They use it to deny, using reductio ad absurdum, anything put forth by the FE. That is why I have to repeat, sometimes, the message that was posted initially. The RE's subconscious mind has a very hard time accepting reality, that is where the struggle occurs.

Do you understand that gravity is caused by rotating stable Ellis wormholes?

Do you understand that Ellis wormholes are one potential solution to wormholes which are currently theoretical at best?  The very existence of wormholes is still highly controversial.  They may not exist at all.  The math indicates they could, possibly, if we had negative energy or exotic matter.

They are far from anything real.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #689 on: June 26, 2020, 12:30:05 PM »
Cut the crap.

Quantum entanglement is real.

Quantum entanglement can only take place at superluminal speeds through wormholes.

If you want a traversable wormhole, you need a stable rotating Ellis wormhole.

They absolutely exist.

You are getting smarter now, you are using words like "exotic matter" and "negative energy".

Not nearly enough to even dream to debate with me on this subject.