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.
If you guys want to know how prediction of the eclipses work, open any astronomy textbook or consult any astronomy source on the topic. That's how it is predicted. It's all there. If you are curious about the details, look into it. It has nothing to do with the Wiki.That's nice! They also say the Earth is round in there. Should I read that as well?
Based on the size of the planet and our own minuscule size over it, the tinny part we can see will always looks flat, no matter if Earth is flat or oblate spherical, also, the bottom of the clouds are flat since they are literally SIT over a cushion of warm atmosphere, it is like foam floating over water, and that, would not differ from happen on Flat Earth or oblate spherical one. The FE statement about this is the same as saying: "Oh, this car runs on gasoline, using an Otto engine, over four rubber tires, so for unquestionable truth, it is a Ford". I would like to read how a FET believe the bottom of clouds should be on a RE.... round?They don't have that much "evidence" of it being a Ford. I would say it is more like "Oh, this car has four rubber tires, so it is unquestionably a Ford! And all those saying it is a Chevy is part of a worldwide conspiracy!"
You think that these perturbations are different than the perturbation method of prediction described by the sources in the Wiki link? Interesting. However, and unfortunately, "I think that..." isn't very strong evidence. You should support your opinions. I encourage you to demonstrate yourself to be correct through references, sources or citations.Why don't YOU provide us references, sources or citations to prove your ideas and opinions? I am craving for these for years now.
You also think that these predicted positions are the result of, or match with, an n-body simulation? Interesting again. If true, that is quite extraordinary. I can only encourage you once again to provide reference, source, or citation to strengthen your ideas and opinions.
If FE theorists are going to make claims that go against the mainstream heliocentric model then they had better have compelling and verifiable evidence to back up those claims. Up to now I have not seen any of that evidence. Just the claims.You don't worry about it, neither have anyone else! You can show them all evidences of the true shape of the Earth and they won't accept it. On the other hand they can make a bunch of hollow claims and they grab it without a question.
The statement that is contained in the FW Wiki and that I have quoted above cannot produce the observed planetary motions that we see in the real sky. So why should we believe it?It looks like they think the burden of proof is on us. They forget they are the ones making wild claims.
I know all that... what you describe is the classic heliocentric model that astronomers use today. Indeed if you plot the position of Mercury and Venus against the stars on a day to day basis you will get nice curves which match their orbital paths very nicely. Mercury always closer to the Sun than Venus as you would expect.
I am targeting these questions at the FE supporters who remain adamant that the heliocentric model is not true. Their Wiki states explicitly that the Earth is not a planet. In case there is any dispute about that, here is a quote of what the Wiki currently states:QuoteThe Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve.
So I am trying to understand how they have reached the conclusions that they have about planetary motion.
If my understanding is correct, FE theory has it that all the planets orbit around the Sun, above the plane of the Earth surface. That is what seems to be implied in the Wiki page at least. That being the case, why then do not all the planets show a retrograde motion?
Further, if the diagram in the Wiki page is accurate then should not all the planets show a distinct phase pattern similar to the Moon?
Lastly, again based on the diagram contained in the Wiki, how is it possible for Mars through to Neptune to be visible on the opposite side of the sky to the Sun, while Mercury and Venus are never visible opposite the Sun in the sky?
Hi my question on here is, if you got in a large aircraft in Capetown and flew south and kept going, what happens when you reach the ice wall? Do you leave the earth? Where do you end up going to?
Why would the shadows be the same length on a flat earth?
The guy uses highway 33 in Canada.Quote from: https://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/scientist-pedalling-140km-from-regina-to-prove-the-earth-is-roundBaute will cycle approximately 140km along Highway 33 from Regina to Stoughton
That road isn't north south.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/SK-33,+Saskatchewan,+Canada/@50.0646593,-104.3574711,9z/data=!4m8!1m2!2m1!1scanada+highway+33!3m4!1s0x531e59aad00d09e5:0xb3b578691b9eb1d5!8m2!3d50.0642098!4d-103.7971402
So it is a different local time of day at the two ends of the road. Would you expect a shadow at midday to be the same length as one at sunset?
At least when Eratosthenes did the experiment he took the LOCAL noon time for each location, not at the same generic time of day.Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EratosthenesHe knew that at local noon on the summer solstice in Syene (modern Aswan, Egypt), the Sun was directly overhead.
In the video at 6:23 you can see them counting down to take the exact same real time ... not the same local time.
And you will note from the map that Syene and Alexandria are roughly North South, certainly not 45 degrees off like this guy. (Eratosthenes's done his best being as he has to use the Nile ... travelling the Sahara back then was pretty dangerous and difficult.)
This guy doesn't understand the geometry or Eratosthenes experiment. He's just an idiot in cycling shorts. He has proved nothing.
Where were you born at?
I was born in the Southernmost state of Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul, it makes division with Uruguai (33.7°S) and Argentina. The three countries share a great area known as "Pampas", plains with fantastic cattle with low muscle, the cowboys on horses are known as "gauchos". Rio Grande do Sul was basically colonized by Portuguese on the 18th century, and then heavily by Italians and Germans later on the 19th century. The cold weather is perfect for cultive of grapes, so, great wineries can be find there. They export very good lean meat and very good wines. The US steakhouse chain Texas de Brazil is based on our traditions. I could not hold myself, the climate, culture, genetic mix and influence of the southern stars, produce fantastic women, one is the actual supermodel Gisele Bündchen, also in 1963 a Miss Universe Ieda Maria Vargas, and of course my wife. The cold climate and chilling nights call for a good hot tea, made with grind leaves of "erva mate", we call "chimarrão", everybody drinks it, all the time. Impossible to put a group of friends together without sharing a "chimarrão" and stories, anytime, anyplace. That metallic straw, we call "pump", has a large round metallic filter at bottom, gold tip on top (to keep clean and free of microbes) and some has precious jewels in the middle, it is used to suck the tea from the bottom of the recipient, named "cuia", it is made of natural plant, known as "cabaça americana", origins in Africa. Impossible to see a "gaucho" without his "chimarrão" at hand.
When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.
Wowa, wait a minute. When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor. I feel it very much. Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it. Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.
Yeah, I know that... But I'm trying to simplify my explanation as much as possible... maybe it was a bit too much. But it is really hard to make FErs understand anything, so I let go of some other effects and details.
This is a matter of correct use of the terms. When standing on the ground, you do not feel an acceleration, you feel a normal force that is counter-acting your weight.
When you are falling, then you are feeling the gravitational force, which is your mass times g.
We never feel accelerations, we feel forces.
I’d like correct definitions be employed as much as possible.
But please forgive...I am just extra pedantic and precise about these things.
FEers take loose definitions and create chaos.
To have a summer day longer than 12 hours in Australia, South Africa or South of Argentina, even Uruguay (I was born close to Uruguay), the Sun's light must hit the exactly same point in the ground for more than 12 consecutive hours, changing angle of incidence, of course.
Considering the FE Sun circles over the FE disc once every 24 hours, then it must cover more than 180 degrees of the southern FE land at any specific time during southern summer. Can any FEr please, draw a specific geometric shape over the FE map, even crude, showing this coverage ?
Additional text:
The big problems for FE is the southern hemisphere, always, this is why both, FEr or REr, we need to stress any issue in attempt to clarify any doubts through the scientific way. There are plenty of FE issues there, direction of rotation and visibility of the stars, lands dimensions and ocean distances between them, times of flight, Sun presenting itself 360° all around during summer (the killer issue), etc.
I was raised watching the Crux Constellation every night, rotating in the sky, stars Acrux (the 12th brightest star in the sky), Alpha Crucis magnitude 0.77. It is on declination -63°, due the Earth's curvature it can not be seem north of latitude 27°N. It was my first telescope observation at 6 yrs old, we didn't have so much light pollution at that time, skies were really black and clean. The Crux is a circumpolar constellation at 34°S, it means it is visible all year round in the south, and its position is the opposite of Cassiopeia in the Northern sky. There is an image of the Crux on the rocks of Machu Picchu in Peru, the Inca knew it as Chakana. It is also presented on the Australian and Brazilian flag, its name was used as Brazilian currency denomination for quite some time. There is a trick to use the Crux to exactly locate the South Pole, it was an important navigation tool before GPS, as the North Star was for the northern hemisphere.
When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.
Wowa, wait a minute. When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor. I feel it very much. Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it. Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.
Of course bending light is possible on an FE. It's called refraction. You need to perform an experiment with multiple points or controls to ensure that light isn't bending.
The posted video does this. By changing perspectives, sight lines, and frames of reference — and collecting video inside the bridge cavity, and observing the SAME RESULT, we can safely conclude that refraction plays an insignificant role. Precisely because any refractive effect would adjust in a predicable fashion as the angle of perspective is modified. None of this happens.
The bending of light to cause sinking is pretty common. This road effect also gives the same result when you look at it from different positions and angles near the surface.
Looks really steaming hot on that road.
The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway he is comparing to is almost 24 miles long. How long is the road Phuket Word is showing?
Also, refraction would have to explain every ship that is not just sinking from the hull up as it moves away, but has sunk and stays sunk, gone. Same for every sunset where the sun disappears for approx. 12 hours every day for everyone on the planet. Perspective doesn't help either as has been shown before, a 3000 mile high, 32 mile wide sun or moon, even when it moves 12,000 miles away can't go below the horizon. And refraction can't push it below and hold it's head under water, so to speak, for 12 hours.
I don't need to explain it. Einstien already explained it. You just need to read up on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
This is like pulling teeth.
You do feel gravity. It pulls you to the floor.
The air is also accelerating as it is pushed up with the earth, so you don't feel wind. Where would the wind take the air? It goes with the earth. Like a truck pushing a plow.
Relativity has no relation to what we are talking about here. This is something Newton has described as "inertia" long before Einstein. You are right, though, there's no rate of change, no Delta, that's why we don't feel the "1000mph" crosswinds you said.The sea is not squashed because it is an in-compressible fluid. The air has a density profile because it is a compressible fluid.The important part is that they are both fluids. IE, you can have things float or sink in them. Compressibility is just a red herring that you have decided to introduce.Ah-ha! There's a significant difference in there! The Earth's rotation has a constant speed, it does not change every second. Therefore, no crosswinds would be expected, and indeed, we don't have them.We don't have them because the air is moving at the same rate as the earth. Exactly as the air accelerates at the same rate as the earth. No delta. No rate of change. No perceived movement. I believe a young Jewish lad once called this 'relativity'.
