Magnetism exhibits a fundamental force, why not one where mass attracts mass?

This is a flat earth forum, not a physics forum

Flat earth theory is the highest form of physics.

Absolute, irrefutable mathematical proof of the existence of a stable gray wormhole model which absorbs aether:

Ether flow through a drainhole: A particle model in general relativity
Journal of Mathematical Physics. 14: 104–118

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

Direct proof that magnetic monopoles absorb (and emit) aether. Since all particles have a gray wormhole, gravitons/antigravitons also absorb/emit aether. There is no attractive mechanism.

Flat earth theory is the highest form of physics.

There is no flat Earth theory.
The idea of a flat Earth is an outdated concept which has been disproven beyond any sane doubt.

Absolute, irrefutable mathematical proof of the existence of a stable gray wormhole model which absorbs aether:

This is a mathematical model. This does NOT prove its existence.

So everything that follows can be dismissed as crap.

Again, the evidence demonstrates an attractive force.

It doesn't matter what BS you want to wrap that up in, it is still an attractive force.

The idea of a flat Earth is an outdated concept which has been disproven beyond any sane doubt.

Then surely you'd be able to inform your readers as to how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere. What? You have no mechanism? Then you got nothing at all.

This is a mathematical model. This does NOT prove its existence.

Please update your knowledge on quantum mechanics. It has been proven that all particles are quantum entangled. All such particles must have a wormhole in the center (gray wormhole, both absorbing and emitting). This has been proven without a doubt. Now, what is the only workable, stable wormhole model? Yes, the only stable model is the one where aether is being absorbed. I challenge anyone here to find a wormhole model which would work without aether being absorbed. Therefore, there is no attractive mechanism.

Then surely you'd be able to inform your readers as to how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Gravity.
Again, I don't need a mechanism to explain this fundamental force.
Gravity is observed experimentally.
And even if you want to try wrapping it up in loads of convoluted BS, it is still there.

And note, the exact same BS you are trying to play can be played against the FE.
Please inform your readers as to how four trillion billion litters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a disk.

How about trying to answers a simple question:
Do you accept that if you have 2 masses there will be a force (from whatever convoluted BS you want to pretend is doing it) which acts on each mass, which, if there were no other forces present, would result in the 2 masses moving towards each other? Yes or no?

If yes, is this force proportional to the mass of each object; and is it inversely proportional to the distance squared?

You have no mechanism? Then you got nothing at all.

Again, you are no better off.

Please update your knowledge on quantum mechanics. It has been proven that all particles are quantum entangled.

Stop just spouting delusional BS.
The paper you linked, is purely a model. It does not prove that model exists in reality.
There is NOTHING in quantum mechanics which indicates all particles are quantum entangled.

That sentence isn't even entirely coherent.
Are you claiming every particle has a pair that it is entangled with?
Or are you claiming every particle is entangled to every other particle?

This has been proven without a doubt.

No, it hasn't.
This is your pathetic baseless assertion.

Entangled particles do not need any link between them.
They do not need a wormhole.

Flat earth theory is the highest form of physics.

What world’s Navy has s tactical advantage, can get ships on station faster, have better targeting and radar systems, is more efficient in the use of fuel because they treat the world as flat? 

7 Ways Flat Earth Conspiracy Will Make You Look Silly

https://newcreeations.org/flat-earth-theory/amp/


Celestial Navigation

It’s because that is when mariners started figuring out how to make the first reasonably accurate calculations of their positions using celestial navigation. Latitude was much easier to calculate than Longitude because the lines of Latitude run roughly parallel to the rotation axis of the spherical earth. However, it took a few hundred more years before mariners were able to accurately calculate their Longitude.

Turns out they figured out the math involved to calculate Longitude fairly early on. However, they had a problem. Because the lines of Longitude run perpendicular to the spherical earth’s rotation, the Longitude calculation requires a way to keep very accurate time aboard ships. Pendulums don’t swing accurately when they are subject to the motion of the sea. It wasn’t until clock-making technology increased enough in roughly the 1700’s that celestial navigation fully matured.

The British were the first to master shipboard clock technology. It gave them a significant advantage in both war and trade, and therefore contributed to the rapid growth of their empire. I’ve been to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, and have seen some of these early shipboard clocks first hand.

The only way the math required for accurate celestial navigation positions works out the way we calculate it is because the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat like some believe, celestial navigation would be based on plane trigonometry instead of spherical trigonometry. And if that were the case, I would be explaining to you that the earth must be flat. But it’s not. It’s a sphere.

Math does not lie.

Therefore, the fact that the spherical trigonometry based math required for celestial navigation produces accurate determinations of one’s position on the earth is definitive proof that the earth is spherical.

Celestial navigation truly makes proponents of the flat earth model look silly.

Flat earth is the highest form of trolling to get people to believe the useless flat earth lie. 

Gravity.
Again, I don't need a mechanism to explain this fundamental force.

You absolutely need a mechanism, because otherwise your claim that it is "attractive" ain't worth nothing at all. Your dodging the issue means very clearly that you do not have a mechanism at all.

Please inform your readers as to how four trillion billion litters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a disk.

This request has been in place for many years now. You are totally unable to offer an explanation as to how an atom of iron will attract an atom of H2O at the surface of the sphere. You got nothing other than wild fantasies.

There is NOTHING in quantum mechanics which indicates all particles are quantum entangled.

I told you need to update your knowledge of quantum physics.

QUARKS LINKED BY WORMHOLES: QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT GRAVITY

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850v2.pdf

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

The tangled web that is gravity

He found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two entangled quarks, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole. More fundamentally, he says, gravity itself may be a result of entanglement. What’s more, the universe’s geometry as described by classical gravity may be a consequence of entanglement—pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/02/18/174139/quarks-linked-by-wormholes/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/12/link-between-wormholes-and-quantum-entanglement

https://www.universetoday.com/106968/could-particle-spooky-action-define-the-nature-of-gravity/


https://phys.org/news/2009-05-mini-black-holes.html

Is everything made of black holes?


http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.1667.pdf

A Scenario for Strong Gravity in Particle Physics

At the Planck scale it may well be impossible to disentangle black holes from elementary particles.

G. ‘t Hooft, On the quantum structure of a black hole, Nucl. Phys. B256 , 727 (1985)

We suggest that the behavior of these extreme dilaton black holes….can reasonably be interpreted as the holes doing their best to behave like normal elementary particles.

All particles may be varying forms of stabilized black holes.


Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205


GR cannot explain quantum entanglement/wormholes:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1330/1/012001/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1330/1/012001/pdf


A traversable wormhole requires scalar fields/ether in order to function.


Photons (bosons in ether quantum mechanics) are linked by wormholes.


BOSONS LINKED BY WORMHOLES: QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT GRAVITY

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf

Since the particles so produced are formed from a singlet state (the vacuum) they
are necessarily entangled with one another, no matter what the actual nature of the particles, may they be electrons and positrons as in the original case, or quarks and
anti-quarks and even charged W bosons, as we shall consider in this Letter.

Alternatively we could stick with the original interpretation of pair-produced W bosons, and phrase the argument of [1] in terms of such entangled states of W± bosons.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.2920.pdf

Holographic Schwinger Effect

We study tunneling pair creation of W-Bosons by an external electric field.


"Classically, there are no traversable wormholes. This is a consequence of topological censorship, which says that if the null energy condition is satisfied, any causal curve that starts and ends at infinity can be continuously deformed to a causal curve that stays in the asymptotic region. However, it has recently been shown that quantum matter fields can provide enough negative energy to allow some wormholes to become traversable."


https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Action-at-a-Distance-p45-56(1999).pdf


https://newatlas.com/physics/15-trillion-atoms-quantum-entanglement/

The team mixed rubidium metal with nitrogen gas, and heated it up to 176.9 °C (350.3 °F). At that temperature, the metal vaporizes, causing free rubidium atoms to float around the chamber. There they become entangled with each other, and the team can measure that entanglement by shining a laser through the gas.

The researchers observed as many as 15 trillion entangled atoms in the gas, which they say is about 100 times more than any other experiment.

“If we stop the measurement, the entanglement remains for about one millisecond, which means that 1,000 times per second a new batch of 15 trillion atoms is being entangled,” says Jia Kong, first author of the study. “And you must think that 1 ms is a very long time for the atoms, long enough for about 50 random collisions to occur. This clearly shows that the entanglement is not destroyed by these random events. This is maybe the most surprising result of the work.”


Absolutely all particles are linked by quantum entanglement. As such, these particles have a gray wormhole in the center permitting absorption/emission. The only stable, workable model of a wormhole is the aether absorbing version.

I have just proven that you live in a world of fantasy where you have no real knowledge of the latest discoveries which have been made in quantum physics.

What world’s Navy has s tactical advantage, can get ships on station faster, have better targeting and radar systems, is more efficient in the use of fuel because they treat the world as flat?

You really don't want to get into that one with me, because then you'd have to explain this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069

What world’s Navy has s tactical advantage, can get ships on station faster, have better targeting and radar systems, is more efficient in the use of fuel because they treat the world as flat?

You really don't want to get into that one with me, because then you'd have to explain this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069

Sorry, but what is a torsion field? That term isn't something I can find on the internet, so I want to hear your definition. (OK, I could find it, but only derogatorily. What's the point of only reading the opposition's sources?) Given it's the foundation of your issue with the equations and theories you present, I don't want to rebut without being fully informed.

Telluric currents (ether, gravitational/electromagnetic waves) propagate like this, in double helix/torsion fashion:



Blue wave - gravitational wave (gravitons or dextrorotatory subquarks or electrons)

Red wave - electromagnetic wave (positrons, antigravitons, laevorotatory subquarks)

Here is the incorrect diagram:



http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/09-4/1em-radiation.png

One of the rather "bad examples" of ubiquitous errors in electrodynamics is the conventional illustration of a so-called planar EM wavefront moving through space."

Dr. Robert H. Romer, former Editor of the American Journal of Physics, also chastised the diagram shown above, purporting to illustrate the transverse plane wave traveling through 3-space. In endnote 24 of his noteworthy editorial, Dr. Romer takes that diagram to task as follows:

"…that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. …it is a horrible diagram. 'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate." "…perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first place."

In order to harness the energy of these double helix waves, one has to interrupt the normal linear flow and cause them to form a torus/spherical field (torsion field) where these waves will attain a ball lightning shape:



This can be achieved using several methods: acoustic levitation, high electrical tension (Biefeld-Brown effect), very high speed rotation (DePalma-Schauberger effect), implosion of the atom (from the normal state of matter to the baryon quantum state).

Here is the research and results done by Dr. Salvatore Cesar Pais in the field of double torsion physics:

The Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich effect can be used to create electron-positron pairs torsion fields (dextrorotatory subquarks-laevorotatory subquarks) out of the ether wave lattice. This torsion field will then act as a shield against the normal flow/propagation of ether waves (gravitational and electromagnetic), forming an invisible ball lightning sphere around the spacecraft.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en

Craft using an inertial mass reduction device

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180229864A1/en

High Frequency Gravitational Wave Generator

Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais
Naval Air War Center Aircraft Division

Both patents are very well written and documented (rivalising with the best patents published by N. Tesla or by T. Townsend Brown).

https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJSPACESE.2015.075910

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2017-01-2040/


http://www.drrobertbaker.com/docs/Aerospace%20HFGW%20Applications.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0132v3.pdf (Gravitational Wave Generator via Tokamak Physics)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/86df/b1dcfc60351afdc698cf18c5bd0cc0a622fb.pdf?_ga=2.83449744.769033772.1565527538-1873684905.1565527538 (Gravitational Wave (GW) Radiation Pattern at the Focus of a High-Frequency GW (HFGW) Generator and Aerospace Applications)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02443.pdf (HFGW/laser plasma interaction)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6148.pdf (Electromagnetic and gravitational radiation from the coherent oscillation of electron-positron pairs and fields)

"The patent application for a “Plasma Compression Fusion Device” was just published on September 26 after being lodged on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy back on March 22, 2019. The inventor is Dr. Salvator Pais, who works at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division and has previously lodged other patents on behalf of the Navy:"

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194598#msg2194598

(Craft using an inertial mass reduction device)
(High Frequency Gravitational Wave Generator)

At present there are few envisioned fusion reactors/devices that come in a small, compact package (ranging from 0.3 to 2 meters in diameter) and typically they use different versions of plasma magnetic confinement. Three such devices are the Lockheed Martin (LM) Skunk Works Compact Fusion Reactor (LM-CFR), the EMC2 Polywell fusion concept, and the Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC) machine. These devices feature short plasma confinement times, possible plasma instabilities with the scaling of size, and it is questionable whether they have the ability of achieving the break-even fusion condition, let alone a self-sustained plasma burn leading to ignition.

The plasma compression fusion device utilizes controlled motion of electrically charged matter via accelerated vibration and/or accelerated spin subjected to smooth yet rapid acceleration-deceleration-acceleration transients, in order to generate extremely high energy/high intensity electromagnetic fields. These fields not only confine the plasma core but also greatly compress it (by inducing a high energy negative potential well) so as to produce a high power density plasma burn, leading to ignition."

Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais
Naval Air War Center Aircraft Division

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190295733A1/en?inventor=Salvatore+Pais&oq=inventor:(Salvatore+Pais)

"It is claimed in the patent application that this plasma compression fusion device is capable of producing power in the gigawatt (1 billion watts) to terawatt (1 trillion watts) range and above with input power only in the kilowatt (1,000 watts) to megawatt (1,000,000 watts) range."

In a significant breakthrough, Dr. Salvatore Pais' paper on double torsion technology applied to portable fusion devices has been published by a major and prestigious mainstream scientific journal.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8871349

The Plasma Compression Fusion Device—Enabling Nuclear Fusion Ignition
Publisher: IEEE

November 2019 (Vol 47, Issue 11), IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

The plasma compression fusion device (PCFD) generates the energy gain by plasma compression-induced nuclear fusion. This concept has the capability of maximizing the product of plasma pressure and energy confinement time to maximize the energy gain, and thus give rise to fusion ignition conditions. The preferred embodiment of this original concept uses a hollow cross-duct configuration of circular cross section in which the concentrated magnetic energy flux from two pairs of opposing curved-headed counter-spinning conical structures (possibly made from an alloy of tungsten with high capacitance) whose outer surfaces are electrically charged compresses a gaseous mixture of fusion fuel into a plasma, heated to extreme temperatures and pressures.

The PCFD concept can produce power in the gigawatt to terawatt range (and higher) with input power in the kilowatt to megawatt range.

Dr. Pais' other major paper was also published in a mainstream scientific journal:

https://www.scribd.com/document/408469834/High-Frequency-Gravitational-Waves-Induced-Propulsion2017

https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/2017-01-2040


Let us remember that the tokamak plasma device will release 1014 positrons (laevorotatory subquarks) from the ether lattice:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808100451/http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/assets/Documents/PRLVOL90p135004.pdf

Dr. Menahem Simhony has researched the existence of the electron-positron lattice:

http://www.epola.co.uk/epola_org/

http://web.archive.org/web/20040606235138/www.word1.co.il/physics/mass.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20040616160252/http://word1.co.il/physics/article.html


Further research, the existence of the electron-positron double torsion wave structure, has been conducted by Dr. F. Tombe:

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/electron_positron_sea.pdf


Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194420#msg2194420

Li effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194548#msg2194548

High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Induced Nuclear Fusion

http://www.gravwave.com/docs/AIP;%20HFGW%20Nuclear%20Fusion.pdf

The electrodynamic Hamiltonian of a particle in ZPF (zero point energy field/ether) was obtained for the first time in 1994, and was published in the Physical Review A:

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

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf

Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force
Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff
Phys. Rev. A 49, 678

Under the hypothesis that ordinary matter is ultimately made of subelementary constitutive primary charged entities or "partons" bound in the manner of traditional elementary Planck oscillators (a timehonored classical technique), it is shown that a heretofore uninvestigated Lorentz force (specifically, the magnetic component of the Lorentz force) arises in any accelerated reference frame from the interaction of the partons with the vacuum electromagnetic zero-point field (ZPF).

Partons are Feynman's particles which make up protons and neutrons ahd have fractional charges.

Partons are positrons:

https://vixra.org/pdf/1910.0161v1.pdf

Telluric currents (ether, gravitational/electromagnetic waves) propagate like this, in double helix/torsion fashion:

Ok?

You made this claim?

Not my theory, check out Weyl's electrogravitational formula. You seem to be confused: electromagnetism flows through positrons, gravity flows through electrons (gravitons).

Again.  Beta radiation is actual electrons being emitted. Let’s take it to something real. An example is the radioactive decay of Strontium-90 which is a beta (electron) emitter. 

If Strontium 90 creates a field of electrons why isn’t it a gravitons/gravity generator?
 

You absolutely need a mechanism

Not when there are already experimental observations of this attractive force.

Your dodging the issue

That would be you entirely.
Instead of focusing on a force which attracts mass, regardless of whatever BS you want to hide it behind, you try to cling to this BS to obfuscate.

This request has been in place for many years now.

No, it hasn't. You tried, and failed miserably.
And notice how you are doing the very thing you accuse me of, dodging.
Is it because you remember last time you failed?

I told you need to update your knowledge of quantum physics.

You are confusing your delusional BS with knowledge.

Now stop spamming the same pathetic BS and deal with the issue.

Again, care to answer the simple question:
Do you accept that if you have 2 masses there will be a force (from whatever convoluted BS you want to pretend is doing it) which acts on each mass, which, if there were no other forces present, would result in the 2 masses moving towards each other? Yes or no?

If yes, is this force proportional to the mass of each object; and is it inversely proportional to the distance squared?

What world’s Navy has s tactical advantage, can get ships on station faster, have better targeting and radar systems, is more efficient in the use of fuel because they treat the world as flat?

You really don't want to get into that one with me, because then you'd have to explain this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069

Ok?  A random link?

And you offer no answer where it should be a simple county “x” has these tactical advantages (where you list actual advantages) because they treat the world as flat.

While you cannot cite or quote from my quoted reference article is wrong in anyway.

You’re pitiful, and a known liar.

Not when there are already experimental observations of this attractive force.

There ain't any. The Cavendish experiment has been performed in vacuum by Dr. Steve Lamoreaux: the movement is totally due to the pressure applied to the plates by the ether.

You were asked to explain how trillions of billions of liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere. Your answer:

No, it hasn't. You tried, and failed miserably.
And notice how you are doing the very thing you accuse me of, dodging.
Is it because you remember last time you failed?

You are not only dodging the issue, but making a fool of yourself: you are unable to explain how a single atom of iron (or nickel) can attract an atom of water on the surface. Pitiful and dreadful. You are unable to offer any kind of meaningful explanation.

Now stop spamming the same pathetic BS and deal with the issue.

I have proven to you that all particles must have a wormhole in the center. All such particles are quantum entangled. The only model which is stable is the aether absorbing version. Since you cannot explain how two objects attract each other, much less to offer a wormhole model, you are out of options and choices. Until and unless you are able to explain how two gravitons attract each other, the earth is flat.

There ain't any.

Then why can’t a beta emitter like Strontium-90 be used as a gravity generator?

The Cavendish experiment has been performed in vacuum by Dr. Steve Lamoreaux: the movement is totally due to the pressure applied to the plates by the ether.

What plates?  How do they create ether?  Can you replicate or reproduce the mechanism that creates either?  Why would they always attract to each other.  Why wouldn’t say worn holes pull them apart? 

You were asked to explain how trillions of billions of liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere. Your answer:

The answer was gravity.

You can create a field or “pool” of electrons.  Why doesn’t that increase “gravity”?


 

the earth is flat.

You have explained things that could exist if the earth is flat or spherical.

Simple navigation proves the earth is spherical.


Now.  Gravity and spherical earth explains why gravity pulls to the earth’s center of mass.

Why would gravity be constant on the surface of a flat earth despite the various components of earth that can create electron fields known as beta radiation in various degrees.  And various compositions of earth effect how a electron field can propagate.

He found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two entangled quarks, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole.

Wormholes?  So how would wormholes know to push and pull electrons at 60 hertz in a USA electric generator for AC current.  Or is it simply a spinning magnet with opposite poles of attraction attracting and repelling negatively charge electrons?  Where does the energy come from to create and destroy wormholes so rapidly as required in an electrical generator? 

There ain't any. The Cavendish experiment has been performed in vacuum by Dr. Steve Lamoreaux: the movement is totally due to the pressure applied to the plates by the ether.

You mean a fundamentally different effect, causing a fundamentally different force, with nothing at all to do with ether.

Conversely, plenty of experiments have been done in a vacuum to confirm gravity.

And again, it doesn't matter what delusional BS you want to wrap it up in, it is still an attractive force.

You were asked to explain how trillions of billions of liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

And you were asked to explain how it stays in place next to a flat surface.
To demonstrate that you are no better off.
And what was your response? Just lying to everyone.

I have proven to you that all particles must have a wormhole in the center.

No you haven't, and that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Until and unless you are able to explain how two gravitons attract each other, the earth is flat.

You sure do love spouting completely delusional, dishonest BS don't you?

Someone's ability or lack thereof to explain gravity (which is NOT 2 gravitons attracting each other) has no bearing on the shape of Earth.
We have plenty of observations that Earth is round.
Your little temper tantrum wont change that.

Again, care to answer the question:
Do you accept that if you have 2 masses there will be a force (from whatever convoluted BS you want to pretend is doing it) which acts on each mass, which, if there were no other forces present, would result in the 2 masses moving towards each other? Yes or no?

If yes, is this force proportional to the mass of each object; and is it inversely proportional to the distance squared?

Conversely, plenty of experiments have been done in a vacuum to confirm gravity.

Sure, as a force of pressure at the macro level: the plates are pushed toward one another.

And you were asked to explain how it stays in place next to a flat surface.

FET does not have to deal with the impossibility of having to explain the presence of trillions of tons of water on the outer surface of a sphere.

Gravity on a flat surface works as follows: the gravitons absorb aether through wormholes, the rate of absorption gives the weight of an object. Very simple. That is why it is very important to understand that the only stable, workable model for a wormhole is the aether absorbing wormhole version.

Someone's ability or lack thereof to explain gravity (which is NOT 2 gravitons attracting each other) has no bearing on the shape of Earth.

But it has everything to do with the shape of the Earth. Since you cannot explain how two gravitons attract each other, you are believing in a worthless hypothesis. Without the attractive mechanism, you got nothing.

Are you really lacking the imagination to understand the difficulties of your model? Do I have to explain them to you like I would to a simpleton?

Here are the issues you must face.

How do the atoms of iron and nickel (core) emit gravitons? Was it a one time deal, five billion years ago? If so, how do these gravitons maintain their stability in time, not to mention the ability to function, for such a long time? Conversely, if the Fe and Ni atoms emit gravitons continuously, their mass would decrease over time since those gravitons have mass and your model lacks the wormhole features.

How does a graviton emitted by the Fe core connect to a graviton emitted by an atom of H2O (let's say that of a lake)? How do these gravitons know if a person is standing on a tank or on a mountain, since Newton's law says nothing about density?

In fact, experiments were carried out with a plumb line on the top of the Himalaya range:

"Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance. “The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much.” (G. B. Airy)

"Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”
As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation."

It is assumed that the gravitational field is stationary (as opposed to the e/m field which rotates with the Earth): this is one of the main tenets of heliocentrism. How then do the gravitons from the core connect to the gravitons of the ocean waves, or objects moving on the surface? And still there is no attractive mechanism: how would two gravitons attract each other?

So you have nothing at all, your delusions are not even a joke.

We have plenty of observations that Earth is round.

It might surprise you to find out that there is no curvature across the English Channel, lake Ontario, lake Michigan. Still you have to explain the attractive mechanism, how do those bodies of water stay curved on the outer surface of a sphere?

Sure, as a force of pressure at the macro level: the plates are pushed toward one another.

Good. Lets stick to that.
Forget all the rest of your BS.

This relates directly to the question you are avoiding:
Do you accept that if you have 2 masses there will be a force (from whatever convoluted BS you want to pretend is doing it) which acts on each mass, which, if there were no other forces present, would result in the 2 masses moving towards each other? Yes or no?

If yes, is this force proportional to the mass of each object; and is it inversely proportional to the distance squared?

Can you answer that?

FET does not have to deal with the impossibility of having to explain the presence of trillions of tons of water on the outer surface of a sphere.

There is nothing impossible about it.
Gravity holds it in place.
Even without gravity, without some other force trying to rip it off, why would it try moving off?

Gravity on a flat surface works as follows: the gravitons absorb aether through wormholes

Why? What is the mechanism?
You have nothing.

But it has everything to do with the shape of the Earth.

No, it doesn't.
The inability to explain a mechanism does not mean Earth can't be round.
That kind of stupidity is like saying if someone can't explain exactly how computers work, down to the sub-atomic particles, then computers can't exist.

It is pure stupidity.

In fact, experiments were carried out with a plumb line on the top of the Himalaya range:

Yet instead of even attempting to link to a study, you just spam a bunch of useless quotes, with no indication of any experimental methedology.

It might surprise you to find out that there is no curvature across the English Channel, lake Ontario, lake Michigan.

Your wilful rejection of reality does not change it.
There are plenty of observations, including those you even attempted to use when you trying to lie by claiming there is none.
Remember the photos you provided looking across Lake Ontario, from a significant elevation, showing just what you would expect for a RE, including the bottom of the buildings being missing?

Your blatant dishonesty has no impact on reality.

Now again lets stick to the macroscopic:
Do you accept that if you have 2 masses there will be a force (from whatever convoluted BS you want to pretend is doing it) which acts on each mass, which, if there were no other forces present, would result in the 2 masses moving towards each other? Yes or no?

If yes, is this force proportional to the mass of each object; and is it inversely proportional to the distance squared?

Gravity on a flat surface works as follows: the gravitons absorb aether through wormholes, the rate of absorption gives the weight of an object.

Ok?  And again..

Wormholes?  So how would wormholes know to push and pull electrons at 60 hertz in a USA electric generator for AC current.  Or is it simply a spinning magnet with opposite poles of attraction attracting and repelling negatively charge electrons?  Where does the energy come from to create and destroy wormholes so rapidly as required in an electrical generator?

It might surprise you to find out that there is no curvature across the English Channel, lake Ontario, lake Michigan.

Hmmm..

Lake Michigan you post?

Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91626.0

Part one. First refraction. 

Refraction over simplified leads to how much of a distance target can be seen through mirage.  The new well known example is Chicago.

Quote

Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

Flat earther’s ignore certain factors when using the Chicago skyline.  Such as, the pictures used are often from Tower Hill.

Quote

The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

And atmospheric conditions that change the amount of atmospheric refraction will change how much of the Chicago’s skyline that can be seen.  Seen as in the visible length of buildings. 

Quote

On a normal sunny day, say in summer you can only see a dozen or so of Chicago’s tallest buildings from southwest Michigan. Yes, you can see Chicago, just not all of it.
“Anything more than that, especially when you get above 10 or 12, something's happening, because that's not usually there," Nowicki said.
That something is a strong temperature inversion, warmer air above colder air, that causes light to bend.
“A mirage is just a case of atmospheric refraction, it’s caused by the fact you have temperature variations in the atmosphere and these cause density variations.”  says Doctor Mark Rennie, an associate professor in areo-optics at the University of Notre Dame. “So literally the speed of light varies within the air. And this variation of the speed of light has the effect of bending light rays."

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

The fact you need to stand on a 250 foot hill, and the changing visibility of building lengths is strong evidence the earth is curved.    And refraction is a factor that can’t be ignored, and most be factored for. 

If you doubt refraction, do you believe this is a real double decker ship?

Let’s get to the point..

It might surprise you to find out that there is no curvature across the English Channel, lake Ontario, lake Michigan.

See post above for the details. Or below..

But why would you have to stand on a 250 foot hill to even see the Chicago Skyline across Lake Michigan if the earth was flat?

The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

sandokhan Playing the old FE lies. 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Quote from: JackBlack on June 24, 2023, 02:37:39 AM

Just like with gravity, where you feel its resistance to an opposing force, when you pull away a heavy object attracted to Earth.

No, we feel absolutely NO resistance from any sort of external force, when we lift objects from the ground.

We NEVER feel a 'pull' from any 'force' below the object. But, of course, we DO feel resistance when we pull away metal objects off of a magnet, because magnetic force DOES exist, and IS felt, and IS proven, and measurable, and has a source, and is weaker with more distance FROM it's source, which is ALSO felt by us, too.

When we pull away a metal object off of a magnet, we feel the magnet's resistance against us, the opposing force. If we let the metal object go, the magnet immediately pulls it back in.

The more we move the metal object away from the magnet, the less pull we feel, until no pull is felt. Same as when we move the metal object closer to the magnet, the more we feel it pull on the object.

That's the whole problem with your made up non-existent 'force'....it is NEVER felt by us.

As I've told you before, we FEEL it, when an external force acts, and pulls on us, pushes against us, etc.

When we walk outside, strong winds will hit us from any direction, and it is FELT by us, from that direction. Winds push us in every direction THEY are in, and we FEEL it pushing us in those directions. If we move away from the wind, say 5 miles away, we feel LESS of it's force, and moving further away, there is NO force felt of it. Because winds have sources, like all actual sources, and are weaker with more distance. Same as a magnet is, same as all actual forces are.

Every single REAL force, such as winds or magnetism, IS felt when it acts on us, and IS weaker with more distance from it's source, which is ALSO felt as weaker by us. So much so, there is no NEED to measure for it, even though we HAVE measured it, of course, because that IS how TRUE science works, not fake science, which is made up, and sold as if it WERE real science.


Again, this is VERY easy to prove, with a simple example.

If you dangle your leg off a ledge, do you feel a 'force' from below you, 'pulling down' on your leg? Of course not. But if someone attaches a rope to your foot, from your dangling leg, and PULLS DOWN on it from below, even SLIGHTLY, you WILL feel a pull from below, right?

Winds are felt as a PUSH on us, magnets are felt as a PULLING IN of metal objects we hold near them, we feel magnets RESIST our pull of the metal object from it, a rope attached to our foot from below, which is PULLED DOWNWARD by someone, is felt by us as a PULLING DOWN FROM BELOW.

The currents of a river are felt by us, as a pull in it's direction.

EVERY actual force which acts on us, is always FELT by us, as a pull, or push, in the direction of these forces. When we go against their directions, we feel it RESIST us.

What you don't understand, when we lift up objects from the ground, is that we do NOT feel ANY 'pulling down' from below. Nor do we feel any RESISTANCE from a force that you believe is 'holding them down to the surface', either.

What we DO feel, when lifting objects upward, into the air, is their mass, which makes them hard to lift upward, and to hold in air, and why we cannot lift up objects of greater mass, for the same reason.

Why would we feel magnetic force resist us, when we use an opposing force against it, while we never feel a 'pulling down' from air, by your made up force, is because there IS no such force to begin with.

When we fall from air, from 3000 feet or so, we just feel the force of the air, which resists our fall though it, while it will always vary in strength, etc. This is how ACTUAL forces act.

They are felt, they vary in size, and strength, and are weaker with more distance from their sources.

You will keep on claiming that your made up force, DOES vary in strength, and DOES weaken with more distance from it's source, which is complete nonsense.

What actual force is not ever felt, acting on objects, or acting on US, or acting on things we have measured in some way?

We certainly do NOT feel ourselves being 'pulled down' by a force from below us, they made up, and called 'gravity'. If there really IS a force that is pulling us downward, from air, it WILL be felt by us as a force pulling us downward, like a rope pulling on us from below would be felt, since it IS an actual force acting on us.

You're confused. Almost as soon as you pull strongly enough to detach a piece of metal from a magnet, that piece of metal finds itself far enough from the magnet that it can't be attracted back. That sudden change of resistance to the magnetic pull gives you the feeling you've overcome a force. With gravity it doesn't happen because the strenghth of its field doesn't significantly decrease no matter how high you lift a weight so you never feel you've overcome a force but that's just because you haven't overcome it and it keeps on pulling.

No, we will feel how the magnet has LESS strength, and MORE strength, pulling in a nail towards it, and it finally stops pulling completely, at some distance further out.

There's no resistance from a made up force, 'pulling all things down to the surface', and it would also vary in strength, based on more distance from the source, or the closest point we are TO the source, on the surface of Earth.

Every object, heavy or light, fall through air at the same rate, taking out the air resistance, as a factor, etc.

Based on all of our actual forces, which weaken with more distance from their sources, are MEASURED as weaker with more distance, and are FELT to be weaker by us, often, with more distance from their sources of origin.

Which cannot be resolved with their made up force, it doesn't even EXIST, how could it possibly resemble an actual FORCE, is hopeless and will always fail.

Every flaw of their made up force, which proves it doesn't exist, has an excuse, or two, or three, depending on how much BS is needed for it.

 

No, we will feel how the magnet has LESS strength, and MORE strength, pulling in a nail towards it, and it finally stops pulling completely, at some distance further out.

No, it doesn't.
It is always pulling, it just eventually gets too insignificant for us to fell.

There's no resistance from a made up force, 'pulling all things down to the surface'

Because it is a real force, not a made up force.
And we can easily feel that resistance when we try to lift heavy things.

it would also vary in strength, based on more distance from the source, or the closest point we are TO the source, on the surface of Earth.

Why should it be the closest point?
You KNOW that is dishonest BS intended to misrepresent gravity, yet here you are, repeating the same dishonest BS.

The force of gravity does vary in strength. It is greater at the poles than at the equator.
This is measurable.
You can even measure variations over a small area with sensitive enough devices.
But the important distance if you want to see a significant change is the distance to the centre.

Every object, heavy or light, fall through air at the same rate, taking out the air resistance, as a factor, etc.

As if there is a force proportional to mass acting on them.

Which cannot be resolved with their made up force, it doesn't even EXIST, how could it possibly resemble an actual FORCE, is hopeless and will always fail.

Your made up force doesn't exist, but gravity does, and it does resemble an actual force, and you are yet to show how it doesn't.

Every flaw of their made up force, which proves it doesn't exist, has an excuse, or two, or three, depending on how much BS is needed for it.

You mean every blatant lie of yours has an answer, which you know, but choose to ignore to continuing lying about it.

Which cannot be resolved with their made up force,

What does it take to make an object accelerate?  What does it take to make an object change direction of travel.

What causes a ball thrown straight up to slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, change direction of travel 180 degrees, and accelerate back to earth. Not drift down, accelerate down.


Why can I push a car around a garage.  But not uphill.  What is this resistance I feel when I go to push a car uphill. Small enough hill/slope I can push the car uphill but feel more resistance than pushing the car around in a garage.  Just change the slope upward slightly and the resistance increases very quickly to the point I can’t push the car up the increased slope.  And it doesn’t take much of an increase.