[sandokhan]

"Another pair of antitheses, not considered by science, are Gravitation and Levitation.
Levitation is not taken into account at all, consideration being given only to gravitation,
although a levitational force is basic to Nature. Viktor Schauberger once commented wryly that instead of asking himself what caused the apple to fall to the ground, Sir Isaac Newton should have asked how it got up there in the first place! What else if not levitation enables a tree to grow upwards against the action of gravity? Were there no levity, the tree would just spread out horizontally over the ground in a green amorphous mass. It does thrust skywards, however, and does so in response to another force operating in the opposite direction."

[sandokhan]

The zero point field is a quantum foam of virtual particles and photons.

That night, back at my hotel, I applied myself to a study of the
Schauberger effect that had been written up by a researcher named
Callum Coats. I had picked up a copy of one of his books at the
Schauberger institute. In it, there was a description of what happened
when a Repulsine was rotated at 20,000 rpm. The high rotation speeds
appeared to cause the air molecules passing through the turbine to pack
so tightly together that their molecular and nuclear binding energies were
affected in a way that triggered the antigravity effect. "A point is reached
where a large number of electrons and protons with opposite charges and
directions of spin are forced into collision and annihilate with one
another," Coats wrote. "As lower rather than higher orders of energy and
the basic building blocks of atoms, they are upwardly extruded as it were
out of the physical and into virtual states."
Virtual states? What the hell did that mean?
A few paragraphs on, Coats elaborated on this theme: "Through the
interaction between centrifugal and centripetal forces functioning on a
common axis, he was able implosively to return or re-transmute the
physical form (water or air) into its primary energetic matrix—a nonspatial,
4th, or 5th dimensional state, which has nothing to do with the
three dimensions of physical existence."
"I stand face-to-face with the apparent 'void,' the compression of
dematerialization that we are wont to call a 'vacuum,' " Schauberger had
written in his diary on August 14, 1936. "I can now see that we are able
to create anything we wish for ourselves out of this 'nothing.' '
More than 60 years after Schauberger had consigned these thoughts to
paper, I had stood in the Austin, Texas, offices of Dr. Hal Puthoff and
listened to the American's descriptions of a near-identical scientific
process. All you had to do—somehow—was perturb the zero-point energy
field around an object and, hey presto, it would take off.
Long before the term had ever been coined, Schauberger had been
describing the interaction of his machines with vacuum energy—the
zero-point energy field.


"Since the zero-point energy field is composed of billions of tiny
fluctuations of energy that pop in and out of existence every split second,
relentlessly and infinitely," he'd explained, "anything that can mesh with
those fluctuations, so the theory goes, can tap into them and extract
energy from the field. That's what some people, myself included, believe
that a torsion field does."
A torsion field, he'd continued, was best imagined as a rotating
whirlpool. If you created one of these whirlpools, dipped it into the zeropoint
energy field, the seething mass of latent energy that existed on an
almost undetectable level all around us, there was evidence to show that
it reacted in an almost magical way by directing the flow of energy.
Anything that rotated, even a child's spinning top, Marckus said, was
capable of generating a torsion field, albeit a very small one.
"There's evidence of this?" I'd interjected.
Marckus had looked at me and nodded. "If you imagine the zero-point
field as a giant vat of treacle and man-made torsion field generators like
the Bell and Schauberger's Repulsine as mix-masters—food-blenders—
then you can begin to visualize their effect."
Some things were better at stirring the zero-point field than others,
Marckus had said. Anything that generated an electromagnetic field was
a case in point.


It had been the same with Schauberger's machine. The air molecules
whirling around within it had been spun into such a state of superexcitement
that something very strange seems to have happened.
Compounded by collisions of electrons and protons—"the building
blocks of atoms," as Callum Coats had called them—the result had been
the creation of a vortex—a torsion field—similar to the Bell's, only
without the electromagnetic component.
This was no ordinary "twister" in a three-dimensional sense, but a
coupling device to the zero-point field—a pump, if you will—that not
only acted as a conduit for its infinite source of energy, the seething mass
of fluctuations, but had combined with an aerodynamic lift component
and the Coanda Effect to produce lévitation.


But here was the truly wild part. The vortex, Marckus said, wasn't
a three-dimensional phenomenon or even a four-dimensional one. It
couldn't be. For a torsion field to be able to interact with gravity
and electromagnetism it had to be endowed with attributes that went
beyond the three dimensions of left, right, up and down and the fourthdimensional
time field they inhabited; something that the theorists for
convenience sake labeled a fifth dimension—hyperspace.


There are no other dimensions, just different levels of quantum vibrations.

Zero point energy = strings of subquarks = "virtual" particles

Implosion = transforming ordinary matter (proton level) into baryons (by torsion, sound, very high electrical fields)

Of course, the implosion principle can go much further, all the way to the subquark state of quantum ether mechanics, but even the Vril society could not achieve more than the baryon state of matter (not the meson, quark, subquark levels http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101 ).

[ISeeColours]

What a load of morons in here, everyone knows the curvature of spacetime makes objects fall towards each other, the moon is falling to earth, but the speed is too great so it never hits. Newton thaught us this, Einstein explained it.

[sandokhan]

Did anybody mention "spacetime curvature"?

There is no such thing as the theory of relativity.

There is no such thing as space-time geometry. Here is the step by step demonstration.

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'


G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.




http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html

the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (one of the best works on the variability of light)


EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html


“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”



ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)


Einstein’s relativity theory is a central plank of 20th-century science and is commonly said to have passed every experimental test with flying colours. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists.

Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:

First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.


G. de Purucker took a more critical stance: ‘The theory of Relativity is founded on unquestionable essentials or points of truth, but the deductions drawn in many cases by many Relativist speculators appear to be mere “brain-mind” constructions or phantasies.


In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: ‘There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.

This statement applies especially to the baseless assumption that the speed of light is a constant.


In addition to Lorentz, other Nobel Prize winners who opposed Einstein included Planck, Michelson, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy. Louis Essen wrote:

Insofar as [Einstein’s] theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.

There is no real evidence for the curvature of space. We can speak of curved lines, paths, and surfaces in space, but the idea that space itself can be curved is meaningless unless we conjure up a fourth dimension of space for it to be curved in. G. de Purucker called the concept of curved space a ‘mathematical pipe-dream’.


Pari Spolter characterizes relativity theory as ‘science fiction or pseudoscience’. She writes: ‘Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science based on hypothetical equations.’ Al Kelly comments: ‘Relativity theory has assumed the status of a religion whose mysteries are to be believed without question. For how long can nonsense stave off common sense?’


Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

Sections:

The Wrong Turn #1: FitzGerald Length Contraction
Wrong Turn #2: Relativistic Time Dilation
Non-Evidence A: Flights of Fantasy
Non-Evidence B: GPS Satellites
Non-Evidence C: Muon Decay

The Wrong Turn #3: Mass Distortion
The Wrong Turn #4: The Universal Speed Limit
Wrong Turn #5: Space-time

The Second Postulate regarding the speed of light as both constant and unsurpassable
was unoriginal because it came right from Poincaré, as we have just seen.
Both of these postulates are set forth in the introduction of this paper, second paragraph.
Yet, inasmuch as Albert presents no persuasive experimental or observational evidence in support of them, they are simply not acceptable and we need not proceed with any of his
reasoning or arguments, mathematical or otherwise, that follow, as they are not worth the paper they are printed on. To do so would be philosophy or academic math, maybe, but not science.

In 1962, J. Fox, of the Carnegie Institute of Technology published a paper in the
American Journal of Physics in which he reviewed the experimental evidence in support of the
Second Postulate and concluded that the evidence was “either irrelevant or inconclusive.”70 This was over “half a century after the inception of special relativity”. Yet even today relativist scientists would have us turn our minds off and accept the Second Postulate as dogma and an absolute law of physics.


Here is Tesla's classic experiment: FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED

Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.

Nikola Tesla:

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].


Tesla Patent/original paper:

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf


With the discrediting of the Second Postulate, in the words of MIT-trained geophysicist
Enders Robinson, PhD “we must kiss relativity theory goodbye.

“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy,
and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html

[ISeeColours]

 Your essay bears no touch in reality. Einstein's theory of relativity is commonly accepted amongst scientists all over the world and its wild predictions has all been correct and proven except gravity waves, we still need to detect them and there are great chances they will by the end of 2015.

[sandokhan]

All the "predictions" made by the theory of relativity can be explained much more easily in the context of ether physics.

As has been amply proven in my last message, there is no such thing as the theory of relativity.


Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’

Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’

Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since.


The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

Gravity waves have already been discovered, analyzed ever since 1911, see the experiments carried out by Dr. T. Henry Moray.

[ISeeColours]

I don't even know how to respond to that, you are clearly trolling. But yeah you seem pretty confident, how do you explain universal speed limit by "ether phyics" or what you call it? I dont know what that is. Also you did not prove anything you just copypasted a load of bullcrap, I have read the theory, its a pretty damn good one too.

And no, gravity waves are just  theoretical yet, but we have some strong indications they exist yes.

[Pickel B Gravel]

Since the sun is a big ball of helium/hydrogen plasma (the least dense of the four states of matter), it naturally rises. Stick a little fire in your microwave and turn the microwave on. The fire rises to the top of the microwave. The same is true for the Sun.

The moon is more difficult to explain. Perhaps it is repelled by the earth's magnetic field? Maybe it's a mirage caused by disturbances in the atmosphere (like the northern lights)?

[Boots]

Since the sun is a big ball of helium/hydrogen plasma

How do you know this?

(the least dense of the four states of matter), it naturally rises. Stick a little fire in your microwave and turn the microwave on. The fire rises to the top of the microwave. The same is true for the Sun.

What stops it from continuing to rise until it becomes a tiny speck and eventually fades from view altogether?

The moon is more difficult to explain. Perhaps it is repelled by the earth's magnetic field? Maybe it's a mirage caused by disturbances in the atmosphere (like the northern lights)?

How do you know it isn't hydrogen and helium or some other mixture of gases that burns at a lower temp? How do you know the northern lights are caused by disturbances in the atmosphere?


I mean, I could just take your word for it, but I think for myself and all that - so you won't catch me just accepting big sweeping claims such as these unless you have some proof that this is actually the case!

[Pickel B Gravel]

Boots,

How do you know this?

Ignore the "helium/" part. Auto correct changed it without me being aware of it. But to answer your question, I don't "know". But according to things that I do know, it makes sense. It is believed hydrogen was more abundant in the earth's atmosphere in the past. It is known that h2o makes up over 70 percent of the earth's surface. Hydrogen is a flammable gas and when combined with oxygen, combustion occurs and h20 is produced. So, this hydrogen-fueled Sun fits in nicely what is known about earth.

What stops it from continuing to rise until it becomes a tiny speck and eventually fades from view altogether?

The dome/forcefield that surrounds the earth.

How do you know it isn't hydrogen and helium or some other mixture of gases that burns at a lower temp?

For me, the features of the moon is indicative of a solid object as opposed to an object composed of plasma.

How do you know the northern lights are caused by disturbances in the atmosphere?

They take place in the atmosphere. Even spherical earth proponents accept it's caused by atmospheric disturbances (radioactive particles from the Sun bombarding the earth's atmosphere).

I mean, I could just take your word for it, but I think for myself and all that - so you won't catch me just accepting big sweeping claims such as these unless you have some proof that this is actually the case!

I concur. Proof is necessary for BOTH sides. No one knows anything for sure. All we do have are man-made models that fit the observed phenomena. Those models don't necessarily reflect what is reality; they just allow us to make sense of reality and conceptualize what is observed. However, I want to know what reality really is outside of the human understanding version of it. That is why I reject the spherical earth model.

[StinkyOne]

Boots,

How do you know this?

Ignore the "helium/" part. Auto correct changed it without me being aware of it. But to answer your question, I don't "know". But according to things that I do know, it makes sense. It is believed hydrogen was more abundant in the earth's atmosphere in the past. It is known that h2o makes up over 70 percent of the earth's surface. Hydrogen is a flammable gas and when combined with oxygen, combustion occurs and h20 is produced. So, this hydrogen-fueled Sun fits in nicely what is known about earth.

What stops it from continuing to rise until it becomes a tiny speck and eventually fades from view altogether?

The dome/forcefield that surrounds the earth.

How do you know it isn't hydrogen and helium or some other mixture of gases that burns at a lower temp?

For me, the features of the moon is indicative of a solid object as opposed to an object composed of plasma.

How do you know the northern lights are caused by disturbances in the atmosphere?

They take place in the atmosphere. Even spherical earth proponents accept it's caused by atmospheric disturbances (radioactive particles from the Sun bombarding the earth's atmosphere).

I mean, I could just take your word for it, but I think for myself and all that - so you won't catch me just accepting big sweeping claims such as these unless you have some proof that this is actually the case!

I concur. Proof is necessary for BOTH sides. No one knows anything for sure. All we do have are man-made models that fit the observed phenomena. Those models don't necessarily reflect what is reality; they just allow us to make sense of reality and conceptualize what is observed. However, I want to know what reality really is outside of the human understanding version of it. That is why I reject the spherical earth model.

The most obvious question is why doesn't the hydrogen spread out when it hits the dome??

[Pickel B Gravel]

Stinkyone,

The most obvious question is why doesn't the hydrogen spread out when it hits the dome??

What do you mean exactly? Why doesn't the fire spread out? I'm not necessarily arguing that the hydrogen is concentrated in one area. I cannot say for sure what prevents the Sun from spreading out.

Flat earth theory hasn't had the kind of support and funding that the spherical earth theory has had throughout history. So, we haven't had the opportunity to advance our theory the way spherical earth theorists have.

Regardless, one explanation could be that the properties at the top of the dome are different. According to NASA (https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ), fire behaves differently in "zero gravity". Excerpts from the article:

"Flames in low-gravity tend to spread slowly..."

"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."

"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."

So, the topmost part of the dome may be less affected by the universal acceleration. Thus, the sun is able to form into a sphere, let the fuel come to it instead of expanding, and remain a constant size.

[StinkyOne]

Stinkyone,

The most obvious question is why doesn't the hydrogen spread out when it hits the dome??

What do you mean exactly? Why doesn't the fire spread out? I'm not necessarily arguing that the hydrogen is concentrated in one area. I cannot say for sure what prevents the Sun from spreading out.

Flat earth theory hasn't had the kind of support and funding that the spherical earth theory has had throughout history. So, we haven't had the opportunity to advance our theory the way spherical earth theorists have.

Regardless, one explanation could be that the properties at the top of the dome are different. According to NASA (https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ), fire behaves differently in "zero gravity". Excerpts from the article:

"Flames in low-gravity tend to spread slowly..."

"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."

"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."

So, the topmost part of the dome may be less affected by the universal acceleration. Thus, the sun is able to form into a sphere, let the fuel come to it instead of expanding, and remain a constant size.

You stated the dome stops the Sun from rising. According to observation, the Sun is not deformed in any way (i.e. spreading out along the surface of the dome), therefore there is not dome preventing its rise. The Sun's distance is not receding from us, therefore it is not rising as you stated.

The Sun holds its shape due to gravity.

[Pickel B Gravel]

Stinkyone,

You stated the dome stops the Sun from rising. According to observation, the Sun is not deformed in any way (i.e. spreading out along the surface of the dome), therefore there is not dome preventing its rise.

Actually, I said a dome or a type of forcefield. What observations? May you please cite a few. Regardless, as I've said, properties at the top of the dome may be different. Fire in zero gravity becomes spherical. You are assuming the properties of fire are constant when I cited a NASA article that says otherwise.

The Sun's distance is not receding from us, therefore it is not rising as you stated.

Strawman fallacy. I NEVER said the Sun is rising. I said the Sun naturally rises due to plasma being the least dense of the four states of matter.

The Sun holds its shape due to gravity

.

That's according to the spherical earth view, which I do not subscribe to.

[StinkyOne]

Actually, I said a dome or a type of forcefield. What observations? May you please cite a few. Regardless, as I've said, properties at the top of the dome may be different. Fire in zero gravity becomes spherical. You are assuming the properties of fire are constant when I cited a NASA article that says otherwise.

You are kind of proving the point I've made in several threads. You're just making stuff up to fulfill some weird need for the Earth to be flat and domed. Maybe the dome has different properties at the top? More like, maybe the dome doesn't exist.

Strawman fallacy. I NEVER said the Sun is rising. I said the Sun naturally rises due to plasma being the least dense of the four states of matter.

According to the laws of physics a body in motion will stay in motion until acted on by an outside force. What stopped it? Without the dome, of which there is no evidence, and gravity, the sun, once in motion, would continue.

That's according to the spherical earth view, which I do not subscribe to.

The real question is why not? Why deny reality? I'm guessing it may be on religious grounds since you advocate for a dome, which is almost universally a religious thing.