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.