The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: jimster on September 13, 2024, 09:54:13 PM
-
I searched for the definition of frames in relativity because I have seen FE explanations that talk about frames:
A “frame of reference” is a standard relative to which motion and rest may be measured; any set of points or objects that are at rest relative to one another enables us, in principle, to describe the relative motions of bodies.
When I learn about FE models, the most popular is the dome. Far as I know, there is no observation or explanation, possibly no way to know what lies beyond the inside of the dome. The UA theory says we are accelerating, which implies a location outside the dome to measure acceleration relative to. Incidentally, lucky us that the acceleration is not in the opposite direction, or we would be pinned to the dome looking up at thew earth's surface.
Seems to me that in FE models, there is only one possible frame. Most popular is the dome model, its own frame that includes nothing beyond it. My question is whether there is a FE model with multiple frames, or is the frame relativity theory wrong/nonexistent, or what????
-
There is only one frame of reference below the first dome, it is the ether frame of reference, the ultimate reference point.
Each and every nanometer of space is filled with Riemann zeta function ether waves: sound travels through ether, not air molecules. If the air is removed in a vacuum chamber, what is left is the ether, and sound does travel even in such a VC but it is not audible anymore.
General relativity is a subluminal theory, the superluminal theory is J.S. Bell's quantum entanglement, where the superluminal highway travels through gray wormholes between each and every subquark/boson.
Above the first dome we have the rotating ether gravitational force, which keeps in motion the stars/planets.
-
I think you should write your theories up and submit them to all the leading scientific journals. You truly have revolutionary and paradigm shifting discoveries. No sane man can dispute them, lest he lose his sanity too. I look forward to seeing them publish confirmation and extension to your theories. You will be more famous and respected than Newton and Einstein. Let me know if I can help spread the word. You might start by getting all FEs to believe your model.
-
The Clay Mathematics Institude owes me one million dollars for not only having solved the Riemann hypothesis but also for having discovered the algorithm which produces the zeta zeros:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2082278#msg2082278
-
Every nanometer of space contains ether waves from the Riemann zeta function; sound travels through ether rather than air. In a vacuum, while ether remains, sound can still travel, but it becomes inaudible.
-
My question is whether there is a FE model with multiple frames, or is the frame relativity theory wrong/nonexistent, or what????
As far as I know most flat eathers reject relativity, and gravity altogether. They kind of have to - a physics simulation of a flat earth using standard ideas of gravity just wouldn't match what people actually experience on the surface of the earth.
-
Seems to me that in FE models, there is only one possible frame.
Highly questionable. If I were you I'd stop relying on your gut feeling - it "seems" to only make things harder for you.
The UA theory says we are accelerating, which implies a location [...] to measure acceleration relative to.
It actually specifies the observer. You could have just read the basics section of the UA page.
outside the dome
This is likely incorrect.
As far as I know most flat eathers reject relativity, and gravity altogether.
I really don't understand why we have so many people here discussing a wiki page they blatantly haven't read. Aren't you RE'ers supposed to be the enlightened intellectuals in the room? Wouldn't it have been prudent to read the document you're debating before declaring what you "know"?
-
I really don't understand why we have so many people here discussing a wiki page they blatantly haven't read. Aren't you RE'ers supposed to be the enlightened intellectuals in the room? Wouldn't it have been prudent to read the document you're debating before declaring what you "know"?
I don't believe I said anything about a wiki page. What are you talking about?
-
I don't believe I said anything about a wiki page. What are you talking about?
You're in a thread about one - it's where UA is defined. I suggest you failed to read it before posting. It sounds like I didn't go nearly far enough.
-
I don't believe I said anything about a wiki page. What are you talking about?
You're in a thread about one - it's where UA is defined. I suggest you failed to read it before posting. It sounds like I didn't go nearly far enough.
The only place "the ua" is defined in the entire internet is the wiki? And I was supposed to guess that just from a single mention of "the ua" in the op?
It feels like you're being exceptionally unreasonable. You're not even giving me a chance lol. The op doesn't give a link to the wiki and it doesn't mention the wiki. How could I possibly meet your expectation?
Hell, even when I Google "the ua flat earth" it doesn't look like anything from whatever wiki you're referring to comes up on the entire first page of results
-
The only place "the ua" is defined in the entire internet is the wiki?
Incorrect.
And I was supposed to guess that just from a single mention of "the ua" in the op?
No. You are supposed to be familiar with the FET prior to posting here. You shouldn't have to guess the very basics, because you're supposed to already know them. You agreed to this when you chose to post here. If you don't like that, post somewhere else.
Please either brush up on the basics and start engaging in good faith, or refrain from spamming the forum. I'm making this request politely for now, but if you don't make a decision, one will be made for you instead.
It feels like you're being exceptionally unreasonable. You're not even giving me a chance lol.
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I hope you'll be able to find a place online to hang out at that makes you feel better.
Hell, even when I Google "the ua flat earth" it doesn't look like anything from whatever wiki you're referring to comes up on the entire first page of results
I'm not sure why you'd admit to this. "I can't work a search engine, life is so unfair 😢". Just conceding that you failed to even try would have been a better look.
(https://i.imgur.com/p5oCjbs.png)(https://i.imgur.com/MGcABnv.png)(https://i.imgur.com/NSgBsy0.png)(https://i.imgur.com/c1Tkb3G.png)
-
The idea that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards is so prominent that the upwards acceleration of the earth's surface is the current theory of Gravity in Round Earth Theory, with some modifications to the nature of space to make it work.
See: General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards (https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards)
-
The idea that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards is so prominent that the upwards acceleration of the earth's surface is the current theory of Gravity in Round Earth Theory, with some modifications to the nature of space to make it work.
See: General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards (https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards)
An inertial object always moves in a straight line, but relative to an inertial observer an accelerated object moves on a curvature, even if an accelerated observer experiences the motion as a straight line. In fact, if UA were really a thing, then relative to an inertial observer, the earth is moving hyperbolically even though we would experience the upward acceleration as a straight line.
Curved spacetime is how GR explains the difference. How does UA/FE explain it?