Terrestrial gravity is totally an electrical phenomenon.

You sure do love jumping topics; which just shows how little faith you have in any of them.

First it was your failure with curvature of space, then your failure with sound waves, now jumping to your failure with gravity.

Why don't you just stick to the first topic, and wait until that is done, with you either justifying your nonsense or admitting it is wrong before moving on?

Now why don't you admit that the parabola you provided has the MINIMUM radius of curvature as the same as the circle shown, rather than the MAXIMUM, and thus fails the basic requirement?

A total failure on your part.

You mean on your part, due to you complete failure to understand what the radius of curvature is, and how it gives bounds to simple objects.

Radius of curvature: from the center of the universe to its top and bottom, it cannot exceed 31 km. The shape can extend to the right and to the left, as long as it does not violate this basic requirement.

So you really do have no idea what the radius of curvature is do you?

As I pointed out repeatedly, either the radius of curvature is 31 km and the entire universe needs to fit inside a sphere of radius 31 km, or there is a loophole which allows you to exceed 31 km, and the universe can be as large as you want.

You don't get to just magically confine only 1 dimension.

If the universe being larger from top to bottom is a problem, then in being larger from left to right is a problem.

Can you show where in my diagram the radius of curvature is greater than 31 km?

Either you are not all there or you are trolling this thread.

You sure do love projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

Just how am I not all there? Simply because I have yet again shown your claims to be pure nonsense and demonstrated that your argument is not one of flat vs round earth but of tiny vs big Earth?

A sphere with a radius of 6378.164 km does not fulfill the requirement (radius of curvature is 31 km). However a flat earth with a radius of 6378.164 km, and with a radius of curvature of 31 km certainly does.

And as repeatedly pointed out, neither does.

If it is going to be a simple shape then neither fit the requirement as they don't fit inside a sphere with a radius of 31 km.

If it is going to be a complex shape where you can join multiple spheres together then both do, as that allows any size you want.

Like I said, if you think I am wrong, point out where in the diagram you think the radius of curvature is greater than 31 km, with a justification for why.

Or you can admit you have no idea what you are talking about, or that you do and are knowingly lying to us all.

The radius of curvature where the semicircles meet is undefined. It cannot be claimed to be any particular value.

You are invited to please take your bullshit elsewhere.

Imagine this: a simple capacitor, voltage is applied, and its weight can be either increased or decreased, pure electrogravity.

And yet more projection. We are not the ones spouting BS here.

And look at this wonderful example of your BS.

When discussing the radius of curvature, when a significant issue si pointed out with your fantastic claims, you immediately jump topic as you don't know how to respond and have no interest in admitting you could be wrong.