Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AstralSentient

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Relative Acceleration/Inertia?
« on: October 15, 2017, 08:32:46 AM »
This is all very well understood.

Check out "Newton's Bucket":
Sure, that argument represents the notion that since the accelerations may be experienced by one observer and not the other and so is absolute, but it doesn't exactly specifically address the 'exclusive to my reference frame' addition of transferring coordinates to your reference frame, which is what I was wondering about.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 15, 2017, 08:22:19 AM »
source? I don't think this is as established as you think.
Here are some where you find explanations of it:

I think basic popular science forums and such are good places to look since they give you a basic idea from people who have understanding of basic concepts in modern science like relativity.
the aether, the rejection of euclidean geometry, the "Ferrari effect" etc are all things you have to put up on top of the understood model. My "why" question still stands.
The aether represents the 4D space-time continuum held with GR, as explained in the OP. The Ferrari Effect is simply the illusion of a round earth under warped space-time (not a departure from GR clearly). I feel the most controversial part in terms of modern science and Relativity is 'relative motion' ("Relacentrism") actually.
not really. That is a matter of frames of references and it is well understood. If anything, it was a movement in the direction of a simpler model, not the contrary.
Heliocentrism assumed motion was absolute in the sense that the Earth accelerated through a sort of 'ether' or of the like so the motion was in fact absolute. Also, it had the sun at the center of the universe, which isn't assumed in modern astronomy. Heliocentrism is used in the context of a solar system reference frame for sure, but it isn't anything privileged like the common person assumes.
so I wasted time answering you in those threads. I'll make a note for the future of first asking if you actually hold the views you are defending...
Why would it be a 'waste of time' even if I didn't necessarily accept all aspects of something but yet provided a defense of some sort?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: High tide(s)
« on: October 15, 2017, 07:59:06 AM »
Quote from: AstralSentient link=topic=7111.msg128697#msg128697 and =1508039173
Two tides a day are because the water is warped away from a particular part of Earth and other water is left behind, having two high tides.
ok, this part has to be explained, as for the rest, you seem to use aether as a substitute for gravity, so no problem there. (Well there are some, I guess, but they can wait)
The water is warped away from a particular area (the moons geodesic deviation is at the highest magnitude in the area it is most directly facing), and other water farthest away lags behind, leaving a tidal bulge opposite of the moon. This leaves one tide facing the moon and the other opposite of the moon (two tides, separated almost 12 hours apart).
Is the rest of the Flat Earth Society ok with this explanation? I understand that aether isn't part of the "standard model" (lol)
What "standard model"? I thought the celestial gravitation wiki page made it clear that multiple with differing explanations may exist.
Aether is just a term for the space-time fabric of the universe (there may be disagreements on how to describe it and it's effects).

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: High tide(s)
« on: October 15, 2017, 07:50:28 AM »
It sounds to me like you are just using different terminology for the newtonian model of tides. I'm not sure what I could disagree with here, except, is there a way to quantify the tides using your aether idea? Newton's laws give you tidal forces quite accurately - as in, Newton calculated these exact numbers in his Principia.
It is quite similar to gravitation in that if you assume euclidean space-time ('aether'), this geodesic deviation could be described as gravitation (boil down to equivalent effects on the water), these geodesic deviations would give a relative acceleration between the moon and the Earth. So, it equates to a celestial gravitation in terms of effect but differs in that it has water find its straightest path through the warped aether.
The geodesics calculations would get quite complicated, but I'll put up a couple links to descriptions that may clarify it for you. (pg. 275)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 15, 2017, 07:31:16 AM »
So what we have here is:

* A lot of new hypotheses - none of which are backed by any sort of observational/experimental evidence.
There are many, I only scratched the surface with the ones I mentioned.
* Which (if true) would produce a reality that would (it is claimed) PRECISELY match every observation you'd expect to find in a Round Earth.
* Which produce NO testable statements that would distinguish it from RET.
No, radio signals and light wouldn't match warped space-time on a round earth, time dilation (due to non-euclidean space-time itself), inertial satellites, G waves, etc. It is a different conception to the round earth in that it is distinguished by the property of aether (space-time continuum fabric) being non-homogenous with flat geodesics crossing it.
This is all fine and dandy - but why would anyone be interested in this new concept?
It isn't quite new actually, it's based on non-euclidean space-time. It describes a flat plane under the framework of GR and the space-time continuum, it has properties that have been useful in modern science.
Unfalsifiable hypotheses really aren't very interesting - especially if they introduce new concepts that aren't necessary in the simpler explanation.

Occams razor says that this isn't worth worrying about.
How is it 'unfalsifiable'? If GR or the Ferrari effect are deconstructed, then it falls apart.
Sorry - it's a big yawn.
It gives the impression that you are overtly dismissive of 'flat earth' ideas.
You can't use it to predict anything new - and there is no evidence that it's true - and you seem to believe that there is no way to prove it false.
And, It seems you didn't read it.

I think you people are missing the point here.

If I use a flight model that assumes a flat and stationary Earth, I never 'proved' the Earth is flat and stationary but rather used it in a particular situation.
If I launch a satellite using a rotating round earth model, I never proved it was round and rotating, I simple used a representative model to get my achievement.

There isn't a 'correct' model and that doesn't matter in science.
The moment you start thinking you can prove things true in science, you've jumped to philosophy, and have left science.
There isn't an objective model that must apply to every situation.

We apply concepts and models to a universe we seek to understand in terms of applying conceptual understanding to our surroundings.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the Earth is Flat...
« on: October 15, 2017, 04:01:04 AM »
If you have to say 'if' then clearly we wouldn't know for sure. It's not like there is a single description for all 'if' situations.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: High tide(s)
« on: October 15, 2017, 03:46:13 AM »
Tides are due to the Geodesic deviation by the moon and sun. Think of it this way, you got aether (a fabric of space-time), the moon (and sun) warps it (because of its energy content), any object or fluid it moves by will be affected, it will follow that warp. The water will remain at it's level but when the aether it is in becomes more non-homogeneous (distorted, not equal across like flat undistorted aether), it's going to follow that aether warp as straight.

'Celestial Gravitation" is not the correct term for it since it's not forcing water away from its level, but rather, the aether it is in is non-homogeneous, so therefore the straightest path of water is non-homogeneous (equating to what we perceive as a rise or a bulge in water).

Two tides a day are because the water is warped away from a particular part of Earth and other water is left behind, having two high tides.

I've heard of other explanations for tides in the context of Flat Earth models that may not include the moon and sun, but I feel there is good evidence that the moon contributes greatly to tides.

Flat Earth General / Re: where we live!
« on: October 15, 2017, 02:13:35 AM »
Why do you think the reason planes only fly in two directional path's from east ending in the west or from the west ending up in the east ? Have your vote ! Would be interesting to find out everyone's opinion ! Btw I'm the newest member tonight so a big flat hello from me hahah
Are you asking people what they think the reason is for continuation of west or east meeting itself? This itself wouldn't be evidence of a flat or round earth, but I guess it is basically asking what they think the reason for this is.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where do the rockets go?
« on: October 14, 2017, 11:47:02 PM »
I've been to Cape Canaveral before and watched a space shuttle leave the launchpad with my own eyes. Where do these rockets go once they leave the launchpad? Do they reach the firmament, hang out there for a while, then come back down? I'm wondering to what extent the FES believes space travel happens, and where it draws the line when it comes to the truth of NASA's accomplishments. For example, are satellites placed into orbit by NASA, or are they a hoax as well?

I'll sum up a few different views on it:

1. They fly out of sight, to be demolished by flying into the water. As a rocket or shuttle leaves, they tend to curve to enter orbit, and they take this as the rocket curving to crash into the water, to be destroyed and never be seen again. They claim returning shuttles or rockets may be disguised jets or clones that they fly back to trick us that they are going to space.

2. The conspiracy, description by the wiki:

There is a 'weak' and 'strong' conspiracy, weak conspiracy being that NASA and other agencies simply hoax space travel and missions (including satellites usually), while not knowing the true shape of the Earth since they never went up to find out. Then there is the strong conspiracy, where the 'elites' know it's flat and hide it for their own purposes of ruling, whether for religious (hiding God) reasons or controlling our way of thinking further.

3. They are legitimately entering a space above the flat earth, it may appear round in many orbit photos because it's an illusion or so, but it's mostly legit (more rare position). Orbit may be above a flat earth working by some means like the sun and moon would move.

The solution to being unable to distinguish between the two rival interpretations of the Eratosthenes experiment is that if you do the measurement from more than two locations, you get different answers in one model, and the same answer in the other model. This argues for either one model to be wrong, or for Magic Perspective to come to the rescue of the failing model, and sheer coincidence to allow the other model to be wrong though it predicts consistent answers.

So a single Eratosthenes experiment can't distinguish between the two situations in your model, the iterated Eratosthenese experiment can, by getting conflicting values for the distance to the Sun.

The sun moves 15 degrees every hour. At the equator, 15 degrees of longitude is about 1000 miles. if you did an east-west Eratosthenes experiment where you measure the angle to the sun at a given time over 4 different timezones, you would find the following distances to the sun:

1000 miles / tangent(15 degrees) = 3700 miles
2000 miles / tangent(30 degrees) = 3500 miles
3000 miles / tangent(45 degrees) = 3000 miles
4000 miles / tangent(60 degrees) = 2300 miles

Of course, this would resolve to the sunset problem - at 90 degrees, the sun is touching the earth. The solution to the sunset problem is "perception" so I guess they would give you the same answer to this. And, "perspective" changing in ways that nobody has a model for means that the answer to how far the sun is from the earth is "nobody has any idea."

This might bother someone who thought they knew how far it was from, say, New York to Paris, but if you disclaim knowledge of such things then why would you be worried about the sun possibly being closer to the earth than San Francisco is to New York?
Do you mean this?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 14, 2017, 09:47:25 PM »
I came on this forum stating that I hold to an alternate view than mainstream FE, so I'll put it here for comments, discussion, etc. like I did in the other forum. [...]
Frankly I don't know where to start... there are a lot of things that don't sound right, but it has been too much time since I studied relativity, and the wall of text is hard to parse.

One thing I have to ask though: why?

I mean, as far as i understand, you have a model that mimics perfectly the current accepted RE model, but has a bunch of extra ad hoc stuff, that no physicist has ever even noticed or proposed,  to accommodate for the flatness of the earth. Why?
What makes you think "no physicist" has never noticed or proposed this?
It has been known that 'orbits' are straight line geodesics in curved space-time with General Relativity. It has been known that 'Gravity' is simply geometry and not a force with General Relativity.

I think you are presuming that since mainstream society and science communicators have been proclaiming the Earth is round, that it is a consensus among scientists that given all the theories they got (including Relativity) have a round earth, and so what I'm saying here must include GR but add in extra things to make it flat (because a flat earth certainly can't agree with modern physics, right?).
But it's important to understand that the Earth being 'round' is simply a conceptualization of a geometry of the Earth under basic Newtonian Gravitation, a non-euclidean surface can be describe as 'round' in simple terms. In GR, it gets more complicated since space-time itself is warped, and saying something is round or flat usually presumes euclidean flat space. So, it gets to using spatial geometry to define Earth's surface, and it is conceptually 'flat' in Non-euclidean space-time.
A good example is with Heliocentrism, we presume that the Earth is orbiting the sun and Galileo was right and the church was wrong, but Heliocentrism wasn't 'correct' since it assumed the sun was at the center of the universe and that motion was objective through an ether. Then GR revealed the possibility of inertial 'orbits' through curved space-time and scientists today may presume different frames like a galaxy centric coordinate system for their purposes of study. However, it is still understood today that heliocentrism was right and 'proven', despite that it's simply a constructed coordinate system in respect to a frame.

I think the main issue of contention here is the 'all motion is relative' conception, since it can be argued that in fact, some motions are absolute, mainly acceleration.
Btw, weren't you the guy defending tom's magic perspective in another thread, and the infinite plane with gravity in yet another? How many mutually exclusive view are you holding? ;D
I find other Flat Earth ideas merely interesting views that may have some merit every now and then, I don't really hold to all these other ideas (maybe a few that I don't find mutually exclusive and supposedly work out).

Science & Alternative Science / Relative Acceleration/Inertia?
« on: October 14, 2017, 04:37:04 AM »
Was having a discussion and thought this would be interesting to think about. I'll start it off with a thought experiment:

Let's suppose that you are in a room, maybe a circular room. That circular room is on a shaft that starts turning. The room starts rotating.
You got two observers, observer A in the rotating room, and observer B outside observing it. Observer A experiences centrifugal force, they experience a tendency to be forced to the wall. Now, the room is closed, no windows or doors, so they don't exactly know whether it's rotating or not by appearance, but surely they know it is rotating because they experience a centrifugal force. Or do they? Observer A starts wondering whether it is really true that the centrifugal force they seem to be experiencing implies they are objectively rotating independent of the universe outside. Maybe the centrifugal force that they are experiencing is from relative acceleration and therefore it could be equally true that the universe itself is rotating rather than you, giving the centrifugal force. The reasoning here isn't inaccurate in Relativity as applied to inertial frames since motion is indeed relative between reference frames. However, this is an accelerating frame (since it is changing velocity by rotating), not an inertial one, so the question becomes, does relative motion apply to accelerating frames as well?
Now, this is where observer B comes in. Observer B is not accelerating and so observer A's conclusion that the universe may just as well be rotating instead would be flawed. If the universe is indeed rotating to give the centrifugal force, then observer B would be experiencing centrifugal force as well.
This may seem to end it, showing that Accelerating frames have absolute motion rather than relative, but could it be that the accelerating reference frame of observer  A could transfer coordinates of a rotating universe to this reference frame and therefore allow a rotating universe exclusively to this frame?
It may sound like observer A might as well be in a rotating room rather than a rotating universe anyways, but if they can be equivalent, then possibly the inertial forces present are determined by the relative accelerations between a reference frame and the universe.

Anyways, something to think about, I would like to hear thoughts on this and whether the concept of relative motion could be applied to accelerating frames or not.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 14, 2017, 04:07:04 AM »
Quote from: AstralSentient
1.   There is no accurate map projection that conveys the surface, since space is non-Euclidean in this model and therefore can’t be mapped on 2D to complete scale.


6.   Satellites, space travel, Apollo moon landings, astronauts, and modern space exploration are all consistent with this model, as opposed to the mainstream FE concept of “The Conspiracy” with the faking of space travel.


7.   This FE model is most consistent with modern mainstream science and with general relativity.

Your problem is that you are assuming that all of these things are true, and have not debated with enough Round Earthers to see that their arguments are not really all that defendable.
It shows a greater appeal to round earthers for sure, I would say it's an advantage if it doesn't 'depend' on there being a necessary faking of all space travel missions, considering that it doesn't apply an extra burden of assumptions.
Otherwise, I don't see an issue with this greater appeal to mainstream science than ordinary FE, it's just that these main premises that follow are quite unique to this model.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 14, 2017, 04:00:12 AM »
OK. I'll have to dig through this a bit more, but at least we got the basics out of the way. Some of these are definitely words I know, but brain doesn't give a quick answer.

Mind maybe a brief info blurb on 'space-time geodesics'? One of those I feel I recognize and should know, but what my brain is coming up with doesn't make sense in this scenario. If you covered them in your first post no problem, I'll get to reading it in full instead of skimming it soon!
It's basically a straight path in curved space-time. If I toss an object, it follows straight paths, and so 'gravity' is not a force since it doesn't deviate from a straight line but rather an effect of the geometry of space-time itself. The earth's surface is a straight line like a circular orbit is within this non-euclidean 4D continuum.

A 'Geodesic' by definition is simply applying straight lines to non-euclidean (curved surfaces) in which in this case, it would be space-time itself that works as the "surface" in which the geodesic is on.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 13, 2017, 09:22:01 PM »
I would simply say you cannot simply throw out everything but personal sensation/perception in order to pretend Einstein's equivalence works. You still need to describe how the Earth can be accelerating at a different rate in different locations without tearing itself apart.
I'm not proclaiming that the Earth is accelerating upwards through space uniformly, I don't appeal to UA here, simply pointing out that the equivalence principle with a gravitational field and acceleration isn't invalidated by the fact that anomalies may exist in a gravitational field (since I've seen people make a big deal about it with this).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it be completely incorrect to say this model is curved space instead of curved Earth?
That would work, basically worded as a flat earth in non-euclidean space-time, and vs a non-euclidean round earth in Euclidean space-time.
Otherwise for all intents and purposes it's a round Earth?
No, but it can be represented as a round earth by presuming Euclidean space (Minkowski space-time) and basic Newtonian Gravitation.
As in your postulating that spacetime bends significantly more than Relativity currently states it should?
No, I am actually basing the space-time geometry here more on GR, where space-time geodesics surround the Earth.

I liked Zeteticism as a method, but I really feel it's limitations ruin it, here's my understanding of it:

Zeteticism and the Zetetic Method

Basic explanation found here:

The mainstream scientific method involves these main steps:
1.   Ask a Question
2.   Do background research
3.   Construct a hypothesis
4.   Test with an experiment
5.   Analyze data and conclusions
6.   Report/communicate results
This would include theories which serve to put data and observations into an explanatory framework with predictive capabilities to determine such success. Any failure in predictions would result in either changing your model or abandoning it altogether. Due to this possibility, it can be abused with bias by altering the model’s parameters that had failed predictive capabilities to fit the data. This is a big problem with the mainstream scientific method; it allows abuse of objective experimental support to fit changeable parameters of a specific developed explanatory framework. A solution to this tendency of bias to corrupt objective inquiry is the Zetetic method.
The Zetetic method is an empirical method of basic scientific inquiry which bases a conclusion on the experiment and observation rather than an adjustable explanatory framework as fit to data (or an initial theory which is to be verified). This removes the potential bias which allows altering of your theory to match and therefore describe reality (the natural world in particular). With Zeteticism, rather than collecting data and adding them to a theory with further predictive capabilities that can be dealt with by adjusting, the conclusion to be derived relies solely on what the experiment was set to determine. Zeteticism is the system of scientific inquiry which is based on the Zetetic method, any person who practices this way of scientific inquiry is a ‘Zeteticist’. There is no ‘hypothesis’ in Zeteticism, such a step is replaced by the results of experimentation/ observation in the Zetetic Method.
The basic Zetetic Method works as follows:
1.   Come up with a question about the world
2.   Design an experiment
3.   Experiment and collect results/data
4.   Draw conclusion from the experiment
5.   Communicate results to others
Such an experiment devised in accordance with the Zetetic method will require the design to include the derivable conclusions planned out. This would count as part of the experiment design, which is included in step #2.

Limitations of Zeteticism
The lack of a hypothesis or theory in Zeteticism will inevitably imply a large limit on explanation and further theoretical based understanding. Zeteticism ignores this; such concepts may likely have no basis in experimentation but rather derived from fitted data or predictions of the theory in use. This means that scientific inquiry is kept inside directly observable phenomena rather than concluding an array of past events from predictive theories.
Zeteticism misses that there may be numerous ways to represent our world. For example, I could presume a flight model that includes a flat and stationary Earth like NASA did, but presume a rotating round earth model in the case of a geosynchronous satellite (whether or not you accept that as real is beside the point). Which is correct? It depends on the purpose. 'Correctness' could only be described in terms of how we represent it, and apply our experimentation and observation.
In Zeteticism, you are faced with an observation/results that require a direct conclusion, but which can be represented distinctly by an alternative framework.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on the 'Zeteticism vs scientific method'.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Best Eric Dubay videos
« on: October 13, 2017, 08:54:07 PM »
I never really liked Dubay, the conspiracy and Neo-Nazi aspect of him plus the fact that he views the FES and all other planarists departing from him as controlled kinda gets me ignoring him. I don't particularly favor his perspective on flat earth either.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 13, 2017, 08:47:02 PM »

How do basic phenomena like day-night and seasons work in this model?
Day-night occurs by the sun moving relative to the Earth in a circle around it, and the curved aether gives it its apparent position and the sun sets to night when the sun is facing away from your position relative to the aether bend you are in. Seasons are the varying position of the sun relative to the Earth in a annual cycle, with its position directly perpendicular to the tropic of cancer in the June solstice, the equator at the equinox, and the tropic of Capricorn in the December solstice.

How does Gravity work?

Masses will follow the aether bend around and towards the Earth’s large mass; this gives acceleration and therefore makes an observer standing on Earth in a non-inertial reference frame. The warping of time and space gives all objects acceleration on earth; they simply follow a straight geodesic through this warped space-time. The bend in space and time will accelerate the path of any object to Earth. Think of this as the change in aether accelerating object paths through time and space into earth, giving the illusion of gravitation.

But isn’t it true that the acceleration across Earth is not completely uniform and so it’s invalid to compare it to a uniformly accelerating elevator?

For the purposes in mind here with that scenario, this is not important and an irrelevant consideration, since the acceleration experienced by a single observer standing somewhere on Earth compared to an accelerating elevator is what we are imagining.

This model seems very similar to the round earth; why not just consider this as the round earth?

The definition of a ‘flat’ earth fits what’s described in this model; therefore it is a flat earth model, not round earth, so whatever striking similarities may exist in your conception of a spheroid earth to this are therefore irrelevant.

How far and large are the sun, moon, and stars in this model?

Same distances as the modern mainstream heliocentric model, approximately 93 million miles for the sun, 239,000 miles on average for the moon, and numerous light years for the stars. The sun would then be about 2,713,406 miles in diameter, the moon approximately 6,790 miles in diameter, and the stars will vary with many larger than the sun.

Wait, it seems you got the diameter and circumference mixed up, is that a mistake?

I’m glad you noticed, I used the circumference as the diameter because I’m thinking of them as flat bodies, by traversing them in a straight line, the diameter would be the same as we determine the circumference of them since we treat them as spheres as that’s how they appear from our point of view. However, remember the Ferrari principle, it applies to the celestial bodies as well, they appear as if they are spheres but we are observing a bend in the aether, curved space.

So, the sun, moon, planets, and stars are flat too?

Yes, they all bend aether around them due to their mass, making them flat just like the earth.

How does the conspiracy fit here?

As far as I know, this is the only flat earth model that does not have the conspiracy as a necessary consequence. Satellites travel in a straight line according to Newton’s first law while the curved space gives it the orbital path (it’s actually travelling a flat/straight line in curved space) and the supposed pictures of Earth from space and Apollo missions would fall under the Ferrari Effect, the curved space giving the appearance of a round earth. The Apollo Astronauts landed on a flat moon, since if they tried to cross it in a straight/flat line, they would traverse it entirely. However, since the moon has lower mass, the aether bend has a lower magnitude, and therefore lower acceleration on the moon.

Since all paths of objects on Earth follow straight geodesic paths through the aether, wouldn’t that imply that Earth curves up, down, or give an undulating pattern in the case of elliptical orbits and therefore not be flat relative to numerous observers?

The definition of a flat earth provided here implies that the straight line geodesic be a parallel traversal to directly define the Earth’s surface itself. Such geodesic paths exist in curved space-time, and define a flat earth. Examples of other geodesics don’t define Earth since they aren’t parallel (or basically equidistant across the traversal) or traverse earth at all. We can define it as flat since its surface is derived as a flat one from such a parallel geodesic.

In non-euclidean geometry, can’t parallel lines be curved and flat and other odd things that may defeat this definition of ‘flat’?

In this case, we derive the Earth is flat because a line traversing the surface is in fact straight. The Earth’s surface itself is straight along with this parallel geodesic. This can be represented in a 2D plane and shown to be parallel and therefore the same, giving our flat surface.

Isn’t the Relacentrism mentioned here without explanatory power since it doesn’t include inertial forces and other defining factors for motion?

Explanatory power is simply what this can explain, and it explains all motion. All motion is relative between abstract frame coordinates and no inertial forces are required to explain this as such. Relacentrism is an explanation of motion mechanics in our universe according to the relativity model.

Flat Earth Debate / Relativity Model
« on: October 13, 2017, 08:45:31 PM »
I came on this forum stating that I hold to an alternate view than mainstream FE, so I'll put it here for comments, discussion, etc. like I did in the other forum.

The Relativity Model

The Relativity model is a flat earth model that states the Earth is a flat plane in non-euclidean aether (space-time continuum) in relative motion with other celestial bodies, including the sun, moon, planets, and stars. This is a combination of Einstein’s General Relativity and the Ferrari Effect. This is one of the only flat earth models that don’t rely on the conspiracy (weak or strong) and is unique in that it is based on Relativity (unlike many other typical flat earth models).

Link I recommend for some other explanation of it:

The Earth is a flat plane including the sun, moon, planets, and stars. The Earth is no more unique in terms of its physical geometry than the other celestial bodies. The universe consists of aether (basically space-time), which is bent around any large mass. Think of any mass as ‘displacing’ the aether, a large mass will bend aether around it. All large masses will bend aether around them in a similar way, following that distortion of otherwise “flat” space. This means that the Earth bends aether around it, including the moon, sun, planets, and distant stars.
Aether is a term that represents the fabric of the 4-dimensional space-time continuum, in which times and distances between event pairs vary by the inertial frame of reference in which they are determined, while any event pair remains independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Aether can bend due to energy/mass, which is basically described in Einstein’s field equations, basically put out as:
Where Gμν is the Einstein Tensor (with the geometry of space-time), and Tμν is the stress-energy tensor, which describes the movement of matter and energy through aether.
Please note that this is how aether is defined into this specific flat earth model, and is not to be taken into the context of other models.
Now, it is important to define “flat plane” in this model because this model does fall under the category of being a flat earth model. Flat in this case, does not mean two-dimensional, anyone could agree that the existence of mountains is not something that defines the geometry of the Earth when we are talking “flat” or “round” Earth. Rather, it is something based on space and how it relates to the Earth. A flat plane would be defined by the ability to traverse it in a straight line between two spatial coordinates. A “straight line” would be a line in a constant direction in three dimensional space, or any tangent vector on the surface always touching across it would be a flat surface and therefore a flat earth. So, if the Earth is able to be traversed in a straight line parallel to the surface (constant distance from it in traversal), it follows under the definition of a flat plane. Due to the fact that space is bent around the Earth, a straight line traversing the Earth in bent space will appear to curve relative to an observer in flat space around it, while maintaining a straight line since space curves independent of this line. This means that it maintains itself as straight but in simplistic terms, ‘space curves instead of the line’. With this, we start jumping into Frames of reference, which is an important concept in relativity. A great analogy is an elevator in space accelerating in a direction at 9.81 m/s/s (accelerating by going 9.8 meters per second faster for every second that goes by), which is indistinguishable from standing on Earth.
We can deduce that in the Earth’s non-inertial reference frame, the bending of space makes travelling through it as if in a straight line through flat space, but the space distortion around it changes its direction from a frame of reference independent of this bent space, so, we can define the path of an object through this linear direction as straight, and therefore flat. Flat can also and accurately be defined as the straight path of an object according to Newton's first law, which would be considered a satellite. Such a path defined as parallel to a straight path through space defines the path as flat, and therefore the Earth as flat. If we were to leave the Earth and look back at it, it would indeed appear as a curved spheroid, this is because the aether bends around it and therefore it becomes apparent when you can see across it, but from this appearance, we certainly can’t distinguish whether it is flat or literally round as we cannot perceive how space is being affected from your standpoint away from Earth (The Ferrari Effect). The same applies to the sun, moon, and planets, they are perceived as spheroids from our standpoint on Earth, but you couldn’t leap to the conclusion that it is surrounded by flat space from visual appearance. Due to the fact that aether bends due to mass like objects displace mediums, the Earth is flat and so are other masses throughout the universe.
What about the movement of the celestial bodies like the sun, moon, and stars? Is it geocentric or heliocentric? Such a concept of ‘Heliocentrism’ or ‘Geocentrism’ is non-existent in our universe since all motion is relative to other frames, so rather than saying “the Earth rotates around the sun” or “the sun rotates around the stationary earth”, it is most accurate to describe it as “the Earth and sun are in motion relative to the other”. This is most accurately described as a relative acentric description; I will call it ‘relacentric’. Relacentric as a new term, must be defined, so I define it as follows:
The barycenter rotation point between two objects is relative to each objects frame of reference, having each of the frames of reference as valid centers.
This challenges the common assumption of absolute motion; people tend to speak of the solar system and moving objects in terms of objective motion and objectively stationary objects. With this, they may confine all motion in terms of the solar system since other motion is irrelevant and proclaim we live in a heliocentric system, however, in absolute terms, this is incorrect, and it is simply used as a model of our solar system to explain movements for simplification and explanation in terms of basic laws and theories.  A “Frame of reference” is an abstract coordinate system that has fixed physical reference points that locate and orient the coordinate system and measurements. We can use numerous reference frames for distinctive purposes, but there is no ‘correct’ one, to say so is nonsense, since motion is not absolute. If you were to be in a universe with only you as the frame of reference and no other, then you wouldn’t be able to derive your state of motion. From this, we conclude that the Earth is in motion relative to other distinct reference frames following geodesics in curved aether. There is no center of rotation in any solar system or absolute orbit motion but rather the reference frame we define that is in the frames in relative movements serves as its own distinct center in which to observe and measure.

The Pillars of this Model

This model has a few main supports that keep it standing; crippling any of the supports will damage it.
The Pillars:
1.   Theory of General Relativity
2.   Aether- 4D space-time continuum (not the luminiferous aether medium of the late 19th century, but rather a term for space-time, which is influenced by mass)
3.   The Ferrari Effect

The Ferrari Effect is something not so well known outside of the Flat Earth Society. The Ferrari Effect is basically the effect of viewing the Earth and it appearing round (spherical) due to curved space. The appearance is actually an illusion due to how we interpret space in our minds, when viewing space as curved, we can’t distinguish it from a round Earth at a glance, just like the accelerating elevator and standing on Earth with the gravity to give it that acceleration. The Earth’s geometry following the curved space is what makes it flat, so we can essentially say that areas of high density in molecular clouds collapsing into stars is them “flattening out”.

I defined flat Earth as the Earth being able to traverse it in a three dimensional straight line. Just like the path of an object in accordance with Newton's first law at a specific velocity.
This, on earth, would be defined as drawing a straight line from the apex of a parabolic path of a ball, forming a tangent. If it could be demonstrated that Earth can be traversed between two spatial coordinates in a straight path across, it satisfies a flat Earth.
Now, how would we demonstrate this? We can determine the nature of space's relation to Earth.
In the early 20th century, Albert Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity where space is non Euclidean and is the equivalent of acceleration, which can be standing on Earth or an elevator accelerating at 9.81 m/s/s. This means acceleration would be indistinguishable from a gravitational field. Space curves and therefore affects the straight path of any object. If this is the case, and space bends around any object, as long as the acceleration across it is relatively constant like is the case on Earth. This is because the change in bend of space gives the acceleration and keeps things on Earth. So, from this, we can deduce that a straight line follows the bend if space, giving a flat Earth.

Now, from an outer observer, it appears as if a straight line is curved since it follows the bend in space, but the observer following the bend is following a straight line while space is bending their path relative to outer flat space.
This is the Ferrari Effect, brought up by philosopher and free thinker Leo Ferrari.

Has it been verified as an accurate model?
Yes, it has. By observing distant objects in the universe, the path of light, and the deflection of radio waves near large masses.
It has been experimentally verified and observed that the path of light through space deflects relative to us as predicted by the curvature of space-time.
Here's a link with basic description and sources:
As you can see in the diagram presented, the straight path of light follows the curvature of space, space defines the path of an object and so a straight line in curved space implies flatness.
Now what is the angle of deflection as described mathematically with this phenomena and light?
The angle of deflection = 4GM/rc^2
Where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass, r is the distance from the mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
According to a study done with telescopes observing radio waves bear the sun, the deflection of radio waves by the sun precisely, and it confirmed the general relativity prediction of bent space time to a high degree (within 0.03 %), here it is as published in the Astrophysical journal:
This lensing effect has been observed with distant galaxies with long red shifts and the sun. Another identification published:
This effect has been observed with solar eclipses and visible stars bear the sun, verifying the predictions of general
Also, time is affected too by this curvature, which makes it so atomic clocks on Earth run slightly slower than farther away from it, the Hafelle-Keating experiment confirmed this by  comparing clocks of planes flying east and west and a stationary clock on the Earth's surface and found an inconsistency. These clocks were cesium beam atomic clocks. Here's where you can obtain the published paper on it:
This is a confirmation of general relativity and lacks an explanation by Newtonian gravitation (Basic Round Earth explanation with Minkowski space to explain the Earth's geometry).

If as general relativity claims, acceleration on Earth (accelerating free fall) is the result of the bending of space-time, then the curve in time and space accelerates any object to it. Think of a stationary object moving through time even though it is stationary in three dimensional space. Time is curved and so its path is curved. This curve is like a parabola on a graph. So, this object accelerates towards the Earth. It does this across Earth almost consistently, this consistent curve in space-time has a straight line between spatial coordinates travel a straight path through space while appearing to travel a non-Euclidean path from an independent frame of reference. Space and time are interlinked as one continuum, which is why warped time results in acceleration through spatial coordinates.

The Ferrari Effect

The Ferrari Effect is the effect of visualizing a flat plane as being a spheroid due to the curvature of aether (space-time dimensions). This was a prediction made by the philosopher Leo Ferrari that is currently a major concept in the Davis Relativity Model. Despite common conceptions, the appearance of a spherical Earth is not what defined a flat vs round surface geometry. A “flat earth” is defined by its surface geometry being so that it is traversable in a straight line as defined by the direction of linear motion according to Newton’s first law. With non-Euclidean space, a flat earth appears indistinguishable from a spheroid earth from an external point of view (just like acceleration and gravitation), what separates them is the geometry of space and its relation to Earth’s surface. Since space defines direction and geometry, the deformation of space relative to homogenous space has an equivalent definition of the geometry of a mass; it is just defined in relation to how space is changing or non-homogenous. This is based on general relativity and its conception of space.
The Ferrari Effect deals with the visual appearance of Earth, and its main implications include the possibility of orbit (considering the non-Euclidean nature of space), the potential accuracy space travel as presented by space agencies/NASA today, and an explanation of apparent curvature at high altitudes. The Ferrari Effect allows for the consistency between flat earth and modern space travel, since the apparent spheroid shape of the Earth from space travel footage and photos. Typical Flat Earth models and/or representations include the assumption that space travel is faked as a conspiracy, this is largely because of the inconsistency of the claims and apparent documentation of space travel and flat earth models and theories.

The Ferrari Effect was verified by observations of space travel and curved aether.

Why it should be more considered in mainstream FE

As anyone with a fair understanding in “Flat Earth 101” (the basics of flat earth views and models) knows, this specific model is very unique and significantly off of the mainstream. This model differs in numerous ways to the classical mainstream ones:
1.   There is no accurate map projection that conveys the surface, since space is non-Euclidean in this model and therefore can’t be mapped on 2D to complete scale.
2.   There is no surrounding ice wall; this model is bi-polar (two poles, north and south), allowing north-south circumnavigation.
3.   There is no ‘edge’ or surrounding worlds beyond; this model has the Earth contained in non-Euclidean space, so the curved space meets around it.
4.   The celestial bodies are not and need not be close to Earth, space curves away relative to the outer bodies surrounding straight across flat space.
5.   Outer space as conceived by modern society does exist, in contrast to the mainstream FE view that the celestial bodies are in a near, small, and confined space above us.
6.   Satellites, space travel, Apollo moon landings, astronauts, and modern space exploration are all consistent with this model, as opposed to the mainstream FE concept of “The Conspiracy” with the faking of space travel.
7.   This FE model is most consistent with modern mainstream science and with general relativity.
Why should planarists consider this? It appeals to skeptical globe earth advocates since it describes and works in terms of relativity. Any skeptic approaching flat earth will have many objections, questions, and potential ridiculing to go through. This will give the skeptic a reason to rethink how they originally thought this debate really means. Not only that, it is a model that can be held up to scrutiny, any flat earth model with that characteristic deserves to be considered. It also gets us to ask how we should draw the line between flat vs round earth. I consider this to be among the most advanced FE models today.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >