Debunking universal acceleration theory

A few years back I was in the hospital and had a not necessarily uncommon reaction to the anesthesia (It was a ketamine cocktail of some sort). In short, I was a hallucinating quite a bit. I could be having a normal conversation with you sitting beside me and also carry on a conversation with the person sitting next you who wasn't there. As well thinking we were all at a ski resort in Switzerland, could see the white tipped Alps outside the windows, etc. (I was in the States, palm trees out my window). Anyway, I was repeatedly given those tests. The effects of my temporary dementia lessened and lessened over the course of about 5 days - The tests on each of those days went from confusing to normal. Thankfully, not the other way around.

You need to take more medication, solve your problems first. Then, you might come back here to post something that makes sense.

Quote from: Stash on July 31, 2020, 12:15:25 AM

A few years back I was in the hospital and had a not necessarily uncommon reaction to the anesthesia (It was a ketamine cocktail of some sort). In short, I was a hallucinating quite a bit. I could be having a normal conversation with you sitting beside me and also carry on a conversation with the person sitting next you who wasn't there. As well thinking we were all at a ski resort in Switzerland, could see the white tipped Alps outside the windows, etc. (I was in the States, palm trees out my window). Anyway, I was repeatedly given those tests. The effects of my temporary dementia lessened and lessened over the course of about 5 days - The tests on each of those days went from confusing to normal. Thankfully, not the other way around.

You need to take more medication, solve your problems first. Then, you might come back here to post something that makes sense.

Problem solved.

So you can't answer the questions? How come? The questions are based on your wording and graphic. I'm trying to understand what the implications are if in fact the diameter of the earth has 400 bubble universes cutting across it. Seems like a fair set of questions.

How many little 31 Km Universe bubbles cover the Earth? How do I get from one Universe bubble to the next? Do planes fly through one universe bubble then into some sort of void gap to get to the next Universe bubble?

I don't think you solved your problems.

No bubbles at all.

A rectangle with the upper large side replaced by adjacent spherical caps. That's all.

I don't think you solved your problems.

No bubbles at all.

A rectangle with the upper large side replaced by adjacent spherical caps. That's all.

What are these then:



They look like bubbles. Or half bubbles. Or domes. What would 400 of these things look like over the flat earth? In other words, do you have a graphic that shows what these 31 km what-ever-they-are universe(s) looks like in relation to earth?

This: A rectangle with the upper large side replaced by adjacent spherical caps - Doesn't make any sense.

You still don't get it.

I am not describing the dome, just a counterexample to the RE claims.

The complaint about the rectangle was that its upper side has a radius of curvature of infinity. I then trapped jackblack, by inserting in the upper side a small spherical cap, which now does have the required radius of curvature.

Then, I replaced the entire upper side with adjacent spherical caps (h = 1km). At each point now we have a radius of curvature of 31km, as required. No bubbles.

This is one of the main reasons why cosmologists play it safe and use a radius of curvature to describe the universe (and not just the radius of a circle), since they do not know its exact shape.

Since the ether does exist, the radius of curvature of the universe is 31km.

You still don't get it.

I am not describing the dome, just a counterexample to the RE claims.

The complaint about the rectangle was that its upper side has a radius of curvature of infinity. I then trapped jackblack, by inserting in the upper side a small spherical cap, which now does have the required radius of curvature.

Then, I replaced the entire upper side with adjacent spherical caps (h = 1km). At each point now we have a radius of curvature of 31km, as required. No bubbles.

This is one of the main reasons why cosmologists play it safe and use a radius of curvature to describe the universe (and not just the radius of a circle), since they do not know its exact shape.

Since the ether does exist, the radius of curvature of the universe is 31km.

So you do disagree with Pauli. Because he said that ZPE does not exist and therefore the radius of curvature of the universe is not 31km. Got it. Thanks for finally answering that question. Weird that you cite as a reference a physicist that completely contradicts you. But hey, if that's your thing, go for it.

400 of these circles placed next to each other = the diameter of FE.
Then, we keep the adjacent spherical caps.
At each point, the radius of curvature is 31.81818km.

And what is the radius of curvature for the section of line connecting these caps?
You have drawn it as a straight line, again producing a shape with a radius of curvature of infinite.
Note that unlike with most systems, negative numbers are on the other side of infinity as you are dealing with the inverse of the curvature, and a curvature of 0 corresponds to a radius of curvature of infinite. So even that doesn't help.

But I do notice that you only even bothered to suggest such an idea AFTER I had already said it, and only after several repeated failures.

But if that is fine, we can make the universe as big as we want it.
Why stop at 400?
Why not thrown in a few more '0's and have 4000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 bubbles for lots more km?

Then we can do the same with the other sides as well.
Now we have a massive universe.
And there is no problem at all.

Except the comments against it by those who understand that that multiple spherical caps garbage wouldn't hold, is that such a small radius would be a problem as it would produce a universe smaller than the distance to the moon. They most likely understood the issue with how the spherical caps would be joined.

The complaint about the rectangle was that its upper side has a radius of curvature of infinity.

Which it does, unlike your blatant lie that it magically has a radius of curvature of 31 km.

You still don't get it.

I am not describing the dome, just a counterexample to the RE claims.

The complaint about the rectangle was that its upper side has a radius of curvature of infinity. I then trapped jackblack, by inserting in the upper side a small spherical cap, which now does have the required radius of curvature.

Then, I replaced the entire upper side with adjacent spherical caps (h = 1km). At each point now we have a radius of curvature of 31km, as required. No bubbles.

So.. each time your claims get demolished, you just make up new things.  Rectangles, space bubbles, half-caps... picking whatever measurements and placements you want.

Wow, that's a WAY easier method of debating than you know, sticking to the facts.

No wonder you just make stuff up constantly.

So you do disagree with Pauli. Because he said that ZPE does not exist

It's worth mentioned that he also disagrees with "the greatest physicist of the 20th century"  on the shape of the earth.

In fact every single scientists sando likes to quote is a round earther.  A somewhat inconvenient truth for him.


I will say this thread is comedy gold though, not enjoyed a flat earth thread this much for ages.

I will say this thread is comedy gold though, not enjoyed a flat earth thread this much for ages.

But you haven't read the thread.

It's worth mentioned that he also disagrees with "the greatest physicist of the 20th century"  on the shape of the earth.

The greatest physicist of the 20th century was Hermann Weyl, ranks higher than either Dirac or Pauli (or Einstein). H. Weyl was a strong proponent of ZPE (ether). So was M. Planck.

I will say this thread is comedy gold though, not enjoyed a flat earth thread this much for ages.

But you haven't read the thread.

It's worth mentioned that he also disagrees with "the greatest physicist of the 20th century"  on the shape of the earth.

The greatest physicist of the 20th century was Hermann Weyl, ranks higher than either Dirac or Pauli (or Einstein). H. Weyl was a strong proponent of ZPE (ether). So was M. Planck.

Lets look at what the greatest physicist actually says.

Hermann Weyl was a proponent of Einstein and gravity and a round Earth that is moving through spacetime, not ether.

Look at one of his most famous books.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Space_Time_Matter.html?id=ztI6ezRvPXYC

Here are some direct quotes from Weyl 's book.

"The fact that the earth is not a plane can be ascertained by measuring a sufficiently large portion of the earth's surface."

"The centrifugal force imparted to a body at the earth's surface by the earth's rotation is proportional to its inertial mass but its weight is proportional to its gravitational mass."

"To show this a little more clearly let us draw a circle C on a sphere of radius unity (the earth) having its centre P on the surface of the sphere."

"Every one knows how brilliantly the mechanics of Newton has been confirmed both for celestial as well as for earthly phenomena."

"The aberration of the stars shows that, relatively to this reference space, the earth moves in agreement with Newton's theory"

"But, whereas in Einstein's Theory there must be a pre-established harmony between the universal physical constant X that occurs in it, and the total mass of the earth (because each of these quantities in themselves already determine the curvature of the world)"

And as far as ether goes?  He said this...

"In fact, not only the Michelson-Morley experiment but a whole series of further experiments designed to demonstrate that the earth's motion has an influence on combined mechanical and electromagnetic phenomena, have led to a null result. .Ether mechanics has thus to account not only for Maxwell's laws but also for this remarkable interaction between matter and aether. It seems that the aether has betaken itself to the land of the shades in a final effort to elude the inquisitive search of the physicist!"

So much for ether.

It seems like the greatest physicist  of the 20th century thinks the earth is round, orbits the sun, gravity is real, Einstein and Newton are correct, and ether isn't real.

The greatest physicist of the 20th century was Hermann Weyl, ranks higher than either Dirac or Pauli (or Einstein). H. Weyl was a strong proponent of ZPE (ether). So was M. Planck.

Not according to this list https://www.quora.com/Who-were-the-greatest-physicists-of-the-20th-century

Nor several of the other lists of 'great 20th century physicists I have checked.

He's not even mentioned on this list which lists all the recognised 20th century physicists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:20th-century_physicists

So where do you get your claim from that Hermann Weyl was the greatest 20th century physicist?  If he was so great you would think there would be a mention of him somewhere!  Looking up Weyl specifically it seems he was more regarded for being a mathematician than a physicist which is not exactly what you have said.  I don't doubt that he made contributions to physics (he was a theoretical physicist) but he was not among the 'greats'.  I am sure though that in your mind he was the greatest 20th century physicist.

So was M. Planck.

Really...  I have just looked up information on Max Planck on mainstream Wiki (most famous as being one of the founders of quantum theory) and typed in 'ether'.  I got seven matches but none of them were related to the 'ether' but rather the word 'together' or 'netherlands'.

Yes, but then Weyl derived the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect.

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

How did Weyl derive one of the greatest formulas of all time?

Exactly, using aether theory.

"In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for
the electromagnetic field in the æther..."


For those who want to find out why Weyl was the greatest mathematical physicist in the world (1918-1955):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962

We have to go back to Planck's third quantum theory to infer the existence of the ether lattice (zero point energy).

In a letter of 1915 to Heike Kamerlingh Onnes in Leiden Planck wrote: “I have almost completed an improved formulation of the quantum hypothesis applied to thermal radiation. I am more convinced than ever that zero-point energy is an indispensable element. Indeed, I believe I have the strongest evidence for it."

The formidable Biefeld-Brown effect exact formula (Weyl-Ivanov):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2207577#msg2207577

Yes, but then Weyl derived the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect.

It is known that the metric component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   .    .   .       .          .                     .

"The fact that the earth is not a plane can be ascertained by measuring a sufficiently large portion of the earth's surface." - Hermann Weyl

He believed in a globe earth.  Was the greatest physicist of the 20th century wrong?  How could that be?

The Biefeld-Brown effect puts an end to heliocentrism and confirms that the radius of curvature of the universe is 31km.

The private opinions of scientists are just that, opinions.

Only scientific proofs/formulas count, and Weyl derived the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Dr. Paul Biefeld used to do Einstein's homework at the Polytechnic University in Zurich.

http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/12_biefeld-brown.html

“Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed."

The private opinions of scientists are just that, opinions.

I'm saving this quote for later. I'm sure it's going to come in VERY handy.

The Biefeld-Brown effect puts an end to heliocentrism and confirms that the radius of curvature of the universe is 31km.

Why don't you present those two claims in front of mainstream physics.  Make sure you have your seatbelt fastened as I think you'd be in for a bumpy ride.   So you reckon that the radius of curvature of the Universe is less than 1/10,000th of the distance to the Moon do you.  OK.  Whatever you say buddy.  In your mind I'm sure you are right.

By the way can you just point me to a website about the Biefield-Brown effect which even makes a mention about heliocentricism? How are the two related?  Show me some evidence for how this BB effect disproves heliocentricism or is it just your opinion that it does?  I have looked up several published papers about the BB effect and the word heliocentricism hasn't been mentioned once in any of them.  So evidence please.

The greatest physicist of the 20th century was Hermann Weyl, ranks higher than either Dirac or Pauli (or Einstein). H. Weyl was a strong proponent of ZPE (ether). So was M. Planck.

Every single one of them believed the earth was round.

How come we should consider these people geniuses if they can't even work out the shape of the planet they stand on?

If you want us to take Hermann Weyl, the "greatest physicist of the 20th century" (according to you), as an authority then I will take him as an authority of the shape of the earth.

Why don't you present those two claims in front of mainstream physics.

So you know nothing of the vacuum catastrophe subject.

The second claim belongs to W. Pauli.

By the way can you just point me to a website about the Biefield-Brown effect which even makes a mention about heliocentricism?

Sure, my AFET.

I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.

I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentioned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?" Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explanation of the experiments of Faraday."

"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger. In growing embarrassment 1 said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism." "And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

(from Earth in Upheaval)

Sure, my AFET.

Your AFET?  When I ask for links providing evidence of a link between BB effect and heliocentricism do you really think I mean a link to your own claims under AFET?  No I mean a website reference which has nothing to do with your own propaganda. I prefer independent confirmation that what you say is true.

Preferably an up to date website reference which doesn't include transcripts of conversations someone has had with Sir Isaac Newton.

Why don't you present those two claims in front of mainstream physics.

So you know nothing of the vacuum catastrophe subject.

The second claim belongs to W. Pauli.

By the way can you just point me to a website about the Biefield-Brown effect which even makes a mention about heliocentricism?

Sure, my AFET.

I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.

I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentioned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?" Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explanation of the experiments of Faraday."

"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger. In growing embarrassment 1 said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism." "And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

(from Earth in Upheaval)

This is even more rambling and off topic than your usual incoherent posts.  Impressive.

At least you sort of almost properly attributed a quote this time. Progress?

"The fact that the earth is not a plane can be ascertained by measuring a sufficiently large portion of the earth's surface." - Hermann Weyl, Round Earth Believer, publisher of many peer reviewed papers referencing a round and moving Earth.

Simple question.  How does the BB effect disprove the current mainstream astronomy view that the Sun is the central body in the solar system?   

I can write the question in one sentence so a similar one sentence answer from you should be possible if you are that certain you are right. A plain and simple, to the point explanation.  No quotes, no fancy words and certainly no links to your AFET required.

So you know nothing of the vacuum catastrophe subject.

That is very true, I don't. I have even done university modules on cosmology recently and that is not something that I recall from them.

The Biefeld-Brown effect puts an end to heliocentrism and confirms that the radius of curvature of the universe is 31km.

No it doesn't. The Biefeld-Brown effect has nothing to do with any radius of curvature of the universe is 31km. You just completely fabricated that correlation out of the ether.

The private opinions of scientists are just that, opinions.

You called Weyl, who was a globe earth heliocentrist:

"The greatest physicist of the 20th century was Hermann Weyl, ranks higher than either Dirac or Pauli (or Einstein)"

You think the greatest physicist of the 20th century merely had an "opinion" the earth is a globe? That is rich and wrong.

H. Weyl was a strong proponent of ZPE (ether). So was M. Planck.

As always, you have completely misinterpreted the writings of one of the greatest physicists. From Hermann Weyl's papers collected here:

Mind and Nature - Selected Writings on Philosophy, Mathematics, and Physics
Chapter 4: The Open World: Three Lectures on the Metaphysical Implications of Science 1932

"In the third stage of the development (of Ether Theory) it becomes manifest that the spacetime structure is described incorrectly by the notion of absolute space; that not the state of rest but of uniform translation is an intrinsically distinguished class of motion. This recognition at the same time completely puts an end to the substantial ether."

Notes to Chapter 4

6 [By “ether” throughout this section Weyl does not mean a space-filling substance (such as had been thought by Maxwell necessary as a medium through which light waves would propagate, for instance) but rather Weyl uses “ether” here to speak about empty space itself in the sense of its inertial properties. In fact, sometimes Weyl uses “ether” as a synonym for “field,” presumably thinking of Einstein’s gravitational field essentially as the description of space itself, considered now to have a certain physical reality and hence describable as “ether” in this new sense (see, for instance, Weyl 1952a, 311). Weyl, like Einstein, was inclined to think that local inertial properties of matter (and hence the space they moved in) were due to the influence of very distant matter, a view known as Mach’s Principle (see Sciama 1969).

I'm going to let you guys fight this one out with Sandy from here on in.  I value my sanity too much.

By “ether” throughout this section Weyl does not mean a space-filling substance (such as had been thought by Maxwell necessary as a medium through which light waves would propagate, for instance) but rather Weyl uses “ether” here to speak about empty space itself in the sense of its inertial properties. In fact, sometimes Weyl uses “ether” as a synonym for “field,” presumably thinking of Einstein’s gravitational field essentially as the description of space itself, considered now to have a certain physical reality and hence describable as “ether” in this new sense (see, for instance, Weyl 1952a, 311). Weyl, like Einstein, was inclined to think that local inertial properties of matter (and hence the space they moved in) were due to the influence of very distant matter, a view known as Mach’s Principle (see Sciama 1969).

So is this answer to sandokhan's message about Weyl using ether to make BB formula?

Quote

By “ether” throughout this section Weyl does not mean a space-filling substance (such as had been thought by Maxwell necessary as a medium through which light waves would propagate, for instance) but rather Weyl uses “ether” here to speak about empty space itself in the sense of its inertial properties. In fact, sometimes Weyl uses “ether” as a synonym for “field,” presumably thinking of Einstein’s gravitational field essentially as the description of space itself, considered now to have a certain physical reality and hence describable as “ether” in this new sense (see, for instance, Weyl 1952a, 311). Weyl, like Einstein, was inclined to think that local inertial properties of matter (and hence the space they moved in) were due to the influence of very distant matter, a view known as Mach’s Principle (see Sciama 1969).

So is this answer to sandokhan's message about Weyl using ether to make BB formula?

No. It's simply pointing out Weyl's real thoughts on the ether which contradict Sandy's thoughts on the ether. And the BB effect doesn't have anything do with any of this - It's just a red herring distraction/deflection - In other words, entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

But you haven't read the thread.

I have.
The current part came down with your insane claim of the SIZE of the universe being 31 km.
You likely presented this to pretend there is a problem with the RE.
But like many things you didn't think through, it is a massive problem regardless of if Earth is round or flat.
And that being a problem was related to your baseless claims of linking ZPE to ether, and your baseless claim that ether actually exists.

You then tried multiple dishonest tactics to try to defend your insane nonsense to pretend it isn't a problem.
First just simply appealing to the radius of curvature, as if that magically is completely different to the radius, ignoring the fact that objects which are bound by a maximum radius of curvature/minimum curvature will fit inside a circle of that curvature/radius.
Then when it was made clear you were the only one who either didn't understand or was being extremely dishonest, you tried and failed to provide several examples.
First you provide an ellipse, where instead of the MAXIMUM radius of curvature being 31 km, the MINIMUM radius of curvature is 31 km.
But you didn't care, you still claimed it was a counter example, and claimed that magically it works.
Then you outright lied about what the maximum radius of curvature of an ellipse is to pretend that an ellipse doesn't fit inside a circle with a maximum radius of curvature, even though you appealed to a evolute of the ellipse to show that the maximum radius of curvature is not the length of the semi-major axis, which also clearly demonstrated that the maximum radius of curvature is much larger than the ellipse.
You then appealed to a rectangle as an alleged counterexample, just because you drew a circle inside the rectangle, you pretend that that is the radius of curvature of the rectangle, ignoring the fact that the maximum radius of curvature is infintie.

Then you appealed to a bunch of spherical caps all stuck together, ignoring how they are stuck together, and ignoring the fact that that means there would be no problem with the size of the universe as a collection of spherical caps could make a universe whatever size you wanted.

Is that a good enough summary?
If you want a simpler one:
You made a bunch of false claims and outright lies, repeatedly ignoring their refutations and just trying to use more lies to justify them, never once admitting you were wrong.

And now that you have been completely destroyed on that topic you do whatever you can to try to change topic.

Once more, if the radius of curvature is limited to 31 km, due to the curvature being a maximum of 0.32 km^-1, then the entire universe would fit inside a sphere of radius 31 km.

Yes, but then Weyl derived the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect.
Weyl's derivation of the electrogravitational equations for static systems (Biefeld-Brown effect):
http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

Yet amazing, with this allegedly being one of the greatest formulae of all time, no where in the paper are the words Biefeld or Brown mentioned.
And for something you claim is so dependent upon your magical ether, the word aether only appears once, and in a way which is not supportive of aether being real.

The Biefeld-Brown effect puts an end to heliocentrism and confirms that the radius of curvature of the universe is 31km.

Not in the slightest.
Even if the Biefeld-Brown effect was what is repeatedly claimed by you, rather than simple effects of the motion of ions, it would have absolutely no bearing on HC vs GC nor FE vs RE, nor would it confirm the radius of curvature of the universe.

They are completely unrelated.

But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

And there you go with another lie.
The only who claims to be infallible are the likes of you, which are typically the most fallible.
If people really thought the laws of Newton were infallible, then Einstein wouldn't have made special and general relativity.
You are literally just appealing to someone in the past before electricity and magnetism were understood.
But who cares?
Over such large distances as those involved in celestial mechanism, and with such large masses, electricity and magnetism are typically insignificant contributors.
You may as well appeal to Newton not knowing the internal structure of the atom, or who the current president of the US is. They are all equally irrelevant.

I'm going to let you guys fight this one out with Sandy from here on in.  I value my sanity too much.

You are not alone. I have had the same experience.

Yet amazing, with this allegedly being one of the greatest formulae of all time, no where in the paper are the words Biefeld or Brown mentioned.

You dolt, the Biefeld-Brown effect was discovered, experimentally, in 1919.

The Weyl paper was published in 1917.

This is how stupid you are.

What Weyl did is to derive a functional relationship between the gravitational potential and the electric potential φ.


And for something you claim is so dependent upon your magical ether, the word aether only appears once, and in a way which is not supportive of aether being real.


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

How did Weyl derive one of the greatest formulas of all time?

Exactly, using aether theory.

"In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the æther..."

You dolt.

Simple question.  How does the BB effect disprove the current mainstream astronomy view that the Sun is the central body in the solar system?   

Biefeld-Brown effect: a sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibits unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

This is the gravitational law attributed to Newton: F = GMm/r².

The Biefeld-Brown effect nullifies Newtonian mechanics at once: for the same mass of the Earth, for the same mass of the capacitor, for the same distance involved, the capacitor will lose weight (it will weigh less).

It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a formula (or a theory).

No ions involved:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463 (Biefeld-Brown effect in mineral oil)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065 (Biefeld-Brown experiments in vacuum)


ZPE proven to exist using the Biefeld-Brown effect:








Dr. Takaaki Musha, Honda R&D Institute

Presentation made at the International Academy of Astronautics on the Biefeld-Brown effect, by Dr. Takaaki Musha (Honda R&D Institute):

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha-Presen.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20130531153911/http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/Einsteins_Unified_Field_theory_%26_Biefeld-Brown_Effect.pdf


From the 1st of February until the 1st of March in 1996, the research group of the HONDA R&D Institute conducted experiments to verify the B-B effect with an improved experimental device which rejected the influence of corona discharges and electric wind around the capacitor by setting the capacitor in the insulator oil contained within a metallic vessel . . . The experimental results measured by the Honda research group are shown . . .


"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."


Since ZPE is real, the radius of curvature of the universe is indeed 31km: this solves at once the vacuum catastrophe problem.

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, 'the universe would not even reach to the moon'".

The width of the geometrical figure featuring a 31km radius of curvature cannot exceed the diameter of the FE earth (FET) or the distance to the moon (RET).

Electromagnetism plays a huge role in cosmology: BIRKELAND CURRENTS.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995773#msg1995773

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2002552#msg2002552

Plasma Flux Transfer Events between Saturn and the Sun

A twisted magnetic field structure, previously never seen before at Saturn, has now been detected for the first time ... When the Sun’s magnetic field interacts with the Earth’s magnetic field (the magnetosphere), a complex process occurs called magnetic reconnection which can twist the field into a helical shape. These twisted helically structured magnetic fields are called flux ropes or “flux transfer events” (FTEs) and are observed at Earth and even more commonly at Mercury ...

https://web.archive.org/web/20180512121552/https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mathematical-physical-sciences/images/news/Saturn_3D_final6.jpg