Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2017, 04:59:21 PM »
3DGeek, garygreen, Tom Bishop, why are you talking about eclipses, when the topic is about the nature and structure of sun?

The first problem to address with FET is WHERE is the sun?   From that you can calculate it's size - and from that you can at least speculate on it's composition.

The issue of eclipses - and the deeper issue of how you can calculate them - has bearing on the "WHERE" question.  Tom said that there was no way for them to be calculated using gravitation and the modern scientific RET model of the universe because of a problem called "The Three Body Problem" - which has been a thorn in the side of mathematicians and physicists since forever.    Tom is narrowly correct in saying that the three body problem is analytically unsolvable.   However, there are approximate solutions that work with extreme precision (albeit not perfectly) from making the assumption that one of the three bodies has a much smaller mass than the larger of the other two.   In this case, the mass of the moon (in RET) is negligible compared to the mass of the sun - so we can come up with very VERY good approximations.   If that's not the case then we can solve the problem numerically.   In either case, we can calculate bounds on the size of the error and verify that our calculation for the moment of the eclipse is correct to within better than a millisecond.

So - all of this verbiage and math is required in this discussion to demonstrate that (a) Tom is incorrect in saying that we can't accurately predict eclipses...we most certainly can and (b) that FET cannot make any predictions whatever about these events.

You get to choose between a set of mathematical steps that can ONLY predict eclipses to that precision if the sun, moon and earth are of the masses, distances and orbital properties that RET says they are.   Or shrugged shoulders from the FET community who can't show math to predict anything of the sort.

So what FE'ers are saying is that the RET math is complete nonsense, based on false data - yet somehow, as if by magic - unerringly predicts every single eclipse with extremely good precision - and using two unrelated techniques to arrive at the same answer.

Is that credible?

If you think not - then how can we rely on FET to predict the altitude of the Sun above the flat earth?   The critical equation required to predict even the simplest of things (sunrise and sunset times) relies on something called "The Bishop Constant" - which even Mr Bishop himself doesn't know the value of.   The equation he claims to use to calculate such things is on the Wiki - but without any kind of even approximate value for this wondrous constant, is useless.   Even worse, he claims (on the Wiki) that this equation isn't even the right one - it's a simplification of something much more complicated.   Repeated efforts to have him provide us with the full version (so we can check his derivation techniques) have failed to produce an answer.

Bottom line here - it's all smoke and mirrors.   The FET guys can't even predict the tides or sunrise and sunset times around the world - yet they happily wave an inconsequential "factoid" about the three body problem to deflect from their utter failure to describe the world in a predictable manner.

* Do they have an equation for the motion of the sun and moon - or the planets?   No - they do not.
* Do they have an equation for the distortions in the atmosphere necessary for sun and moon rising and setting to happen?  Well, if they do, they won't reveal it - and even the approximated/simplified version can't be tested because nobody know the value of the constant embedded into it.

There is a very VERY good reason for this lack - the Flat Earth model of the universe simply doesn't work.   If the FE'ers ever came up with an equation of any kind for any of these key things - it could be tested against the real world - and it would FAIL.

On the other hand, everything in Round Earth theory is out there - you can find all of those equations, you can plug in the constants that have been measured to many decimal digits of precision - and you can use those equations to predict the position of stars, sun, moon, planets for thousands of years into the past and the future...and they work PERFECTLY.

OK - so we establish that the FE people don't know with any accuracy where the sun and moon are...they GUESS that the sun is 3000 miles away.

Using that guess, they estimate the diameter of sun and moon to both be around 30 miles.

This produces a problem for them because there is NOTHING known to science that can produce the amount of energy we get from the sun in such a small object.  Even nuclear fusion cannot do that.

So FET cannot tell you what the sun is made of or it's structure or how it works...I can tell you what it's made of and how it works in eye-watering detail for the Round Earth - and back it up with equations and observations - but for FET it's all a matter of guesswork and "We don't know".

So this is why discussion of the 3 body problem is relevant here.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?