The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Mysfit on October 20, 2018, 10:36:27 PM
-
Hello,
I have just finished an experiment into what i called the 'small effect'.
The small effect was what theoretically allowed other planets to have moons/belts. And moons to have moon moons.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10924.msg169587#new (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10924.msg169587#new)
The experiment resulted in a failure to prove the effect using a local facsimile of a planet/moon.
As such, it brings into question what causes such a weird anomaly within the flat theorem.
That leaves me with the question.
How do other planets have moons that orbit them?
-
I never thought of this, also how would the planets move across the sky if they aren't orbiting anything? and the Earth isn't spinning.
-
I never thought of this, also how would the planets move across the sky if they aren't orbiting anything? and the Earth isn't spinning.
Undeniable facts...
1. Stars have a north polar axis they rotate around perfectly and a south axis, 180 degrees apart, taking nearly 24 hours for a perfect rotation.
2. Star trails show angular velocity is highest above the equator and slows down to zero at the poles.
So, either everything in the universe rotates at different speeds to perfectly maintain their distances from each other or the Earth is spinning? Including the planets ( which don’t orbit the earth, easily seen) Which is more likely?
3. Polaris angular height gives northern latitudes, but it disappears when you go south of three equator and the polar axis in the south will give southern latitudes.
Now, with those undeniable facts in mind, what possible shapes and scenarios account for that?
-
I never thought of this, also how would the planets move across the sky if they aren't orbiting anything? and the Earth isn't spinning.
Undeniable facts...
1. Stars have a north polar axis they rotate around perfectly and a south axis, 180 degrees apart, taking nearly 24 hours for a perfect rotation.
2. Star trails show angular velocity is highest above the equator and slows down to zero at the poles.
So, either everything in the universe rotates at different speeds to perfectly maintain their distances from each other or the Earth is spinning? Including the planets ( which don’t orbit the earth, easily seen) Which is more likely?
3. Polaris angular height gives northern latitudes, but it disappears when you go south of three equator and the polar axis in the south will give southern latitudes.
Now, with those undeniable facts in mind, what possible shapes and scenarios account for that?
I'm unsure that has anything to do with moons.
-
I never thought of this, also how would the planets move across the sky if they aren't orbiting anything? and the Earth isn't spinning.
Undeniable facts...
1. Stars have a north polar axis they rotate around perfectly and a south axis, 180 degrees apart, taking nearly 24 hours for a perfect rotation.
2. Star trails show angular velocity is highest above the equator and slows down to zero at the poles.
So, either everything in the universe rotates at different speeds to perfectly maintain their distances from each other or the Earth is spinning? Including the planets ( which don’t orbit the earth, easily seen) Which is more likely?
3. Polaris angular height gives northern latitudes, but it disappears when you go south of three equator and the polar axis in the south will give southern latitudes.
Now, with those undeniable facts in mind, what possible shapes and scenarios account for that?
I'm unsure that has anything to do with moons.
That's easy... We can observe other planets spinning, they have tidally locked observably spinning moons around them. Whether we are like other planets spinning is absolutely a fair question to ask. Our shape, our moons shape, and if we are spinning are integral to better understand planetary physics.
-
I'm just worried about moons atm.
Specifically the ones that are not ours and are still somehow stuck to their respective planets.
Flat Theory doesn't cover it, and it is either a HUGE or tiny problem
-
I'm just worried about moons atm.
Specifically the ones that are not ours and are still somehow stuck to their respective planets.
Flat Theory doesn't cover it, and it is either a HUGE or tiny problem
Here's what I think I know of FET so far.
The planets are different than the special kind of crazy that the earth is.
For the most part, it is somewhat agreed that the planets are round and presumably so are their moons.
They, like the sun and our moon, rotate above the earth.
The earth does not spin/rotate so gravity as we know it doesn't exist.
What takes the place of 'gravity' is surmised to be Universal Acceleration (UA), an unknown force that pushes the earth and everything above it upwards.
So, perhaps, in FET, planets are round, appear to rotate and actually do possess a Newtonian gravitational pull on their moons as well as being pushed up by UA?
-
I'm just worried about moons atm.
Specifically the ones that are not ours and are still somehow stuck to their respective planets.
Flat Theory doesn't cover it, and it is either a HUGE or tiny problem
Here's what I think I know of FET so far.
The planets are different than the special kind of crazy that the earth is.
For the most part, it is somewhat agreed that the planets are round and presumably so are their moons.
They, like the sun and our moon, rotate above the earth.
The earth does not spin/rotate so gravity as we know it doesn't exist.
What takes the place of 'gravity' is surmised to be Universal Acceleration (UA), an unknown force that pushes the earth and everything above it upwards.
So, perhaps, in FET, planets are round, appear to rotate and actually do possess a Newtonian gravitational pull on their moons as well as being pushed up by UA?
Universal Acceleration has too many holes in it. Atmospheric pressure decreasing in elevation being just one of them. Comets, Wondering planets, regular periodic meteor showers, red shift/blue shifted stars, speeding up and slowing down of stars rotating around us and planets are just a few other issues UA cannot explain. Gravity works perfectly, is measurable. Why FET believes the entire universe revolving a central Earth with everything accelerating upwards near the speed of light is easier to believe then a Heliocentric solar system controlled by gravity is a mystery to me.
-
What takes the place of 'gravity' is surmised to be Universal Acceleration (UA), an unknown force that pushes the earth and everything above it upwards.
So, perhaps, in FET, planets are round, appear to rotate and actually do possess a Newtonian gravitational pull on their moons as well as being pushed up by UA?
But not everything above it. Only the earth and the heavenly bodies. If the stuff immediately above the earth's surface were also affected, we would all be floating around, weightless. Nor does UA affect planes or high altitude balloons, nor apparently things in coal mines deep below the earth's surface. Nor the very bottom of the sea nor all the stuff in the sea.
-
What takes the place of 'gravity' is surmised to be Universal Acceleration (UA), an unknown force that pushes the earth and everything above it upwards.
So, perhaps, in FET, planets are round, appear to rotate and actually do possess a Newtonian gravitational pull on their moons as well as being pushed up by UA?
But not everything above it. Only the earth and the heavenly bodies. If the stuff immediately above the earth's surface were also affected, we would all be floating around, weightless. Nor does UA affect planes or high altitude balloons, nor apparently things in coal mines deep below the earth's surface. Nor the very bottom of the sea nor all the stuff in the sea.
Are you suggesting planes aren't affected by UA? This UA would be accelerating everything upwards at near the speed of light. Think this through, everything, absolutely everything would have to be accelerating the exact same.
Let's pretend a moving train is like the Earth under UA. You are suggesting that a drone flying inside a train moving at 60mph isn't affected by this UA force, as soon as the drone flies upward the train would move forward and smash the drone. This is obviously untrue.
Back to the Earth, do you agree the atmosphere is made of gases that have mass? If they weren't being accelerated upwards then how are planes flying, how is air breathable thousands of feet in the air if it isn't moving with the Earth?
-
The question isn't necessarily how UA works, but if gravity is actually UA, what is the force that binds planetary moons to their observable orbits around their hosts? UA says that everything is accelerating upwards, cool, that maybe explains why the planetary moons are where they are. But what makes them orbit? I don't think UA has an answer.
-
Are you suggesting planes aren't affected by UA?
Yes, obviously. Apply a few minutes' thought.
-
Are you suggesting planes aren't affected by UA?
Yes, obviously. Apply a few minutes' thought.
So... the Earth is moving upwards at near the speed of light but the planes are not affected, wouldn’t everything need to accelerate upwards? You haven’t given any explanation for how the stars are accelerating to get above us and then deccelerating to get below us.
-
Are you suggesting planes aren't affected by UA?
Yes, obviously. Apply a few minutes' thought.
So... the Earth is moving upwards at near the speed of light but the planes are not affected, wouldn’t everything need to accelerate upwards? You haven’t given any explanation for how the stars are accelerating to get above us and then deccelerating to get below us.
To avoid confusion: neither planes nor people or buildings on earth are affected, otherwise they too would be accelerating upwards at 10m/s^2, and everything would be floating in space. For UA to work, the stuff on and above the earth's surface is not affected, but the earth is. This is what keeps us pinned to the ground.
-
To avoid confusion: neither planes nor people or buildings on earth are affected, otherwise they too would be accelerating upwards at 10m/s^2, and everything would be floating in space. For UA to work, the stuff on and above the earth's surface is not affected, but the earth is. This is what keeps us pinned to the ground.
Ok, what is keeping the theoretical near sun and near moon chasing eachother orbiting the north pole above us then? (Nevermind it is demonstrably impossible to have a near moon and sun with the moons phases).
Moons on other planets are clearly going around their planets, not above them. Is it Gravity keeping their orbits? Or UA? We can't have both in my mind, how would both work or why would both be a better explanation then just having Gravity as an explanation for everything we observe.
-
In order for UA to work it would have to push on the back side of the earth, like wind in a sail. The dark force field would then have to bend around the edges of the earth and push on the sun and moon to keep them accelerating at the same rate as the earth. Otherwise the sun and moon would either fall to the earth's surface or slowly wander off in space. That means that the dark force influences the earth, moon, and sun by giving these bodies a push, but also the earth (at least) effects the dark force because that dark force kind of bounces off the bottom of the earth and flows around it before coming back together on the top of the earth to then push on the moon and sun. If the dark force energy didn't do that and just flowed thru the earth then it would act on everything on the top side of the earth and we would all be weightless. The force of gravity has a well known equation for the imparted force. It only depends on the mass and the distance apart any two objects are. What about the dark energy force. This force doesn't seem to be effected by the mass of an object, otherwise the earth would have a different acceleration rate than the sun or moon. The amount of surface area doesn't seem to matter either, for the same reason. If the FE model is to be believed then a simple equation should be put forth that can be tested and verified just like the force of gravity has been done so many times.
-
In order for UA to work it would have to push on the back side of the earth, like wind in a sail. The dark force field would then have to bend around the edges of the earth and push on the sun and moon to keep them accelerating at the same rate as the earth. Otherwise the sun and moon would either fall to the earth's surface or slowly wander off in space. That means that the dark force influences the earth, moon, and sun by giving these bodies a push, but also the earth (at least) effects the dark force because that dark force kind of bounces off the bottom of the earth and flows around it before coming back together on the top of the earth to then push on the moon and sun. If the dark force energy didn't do that and just flowed thru the earth then it would act on everything on the top side of the earth and we would all be weightless. The force of gravity has a well known equation for the imparted force. It only depends on the mass and the distance apart any two objects are. What about the dark energy force. This force doesn't seem to be effected by the mass of an object, otherwise the earth would have a different acceleration rate than the sun or moon. The amount of surface area doesn't seem to matter either, for the same reason. If the FE model is to be believed then a simple equation should be put forth that can be tested and verified just like the force of gravity has been done so many times.
Correct.
-
Moons on other planets are clearly going around their planets, not above them. Is it Gravity keeping their orbits? Or UA? We can't have both in my mind, how would both work or why would both be a better explanation then just having Gravity as an explanation for everything we observe.
I have disproved any sort of attraction with my earlier 'small effect' experiment.
If UA exists, then I don't think gravity can.
Unless... UA affects only a specific place... No, the other planets move in front of the sun, which is affected by UA. Worth a thought though.
-
In order for UA to work it would have to push on the back side of the earth, like wind in a sail. The dark force field would then have to bend around the edges of the earth and push on the sun and moon to keep them accelerating at the same rate as the earth. Otherwise the sun and moon would either fall to the earth's surface or slowly wander off in space. That means that the dark force influences the earth, moon, and sun by giving these bodies a push, but also the earth (at least) effects the dark force because that dark force kind of bounces off the bottom of the earth and flows around it before coming back together on the top of the earth to then push on the moon and sun. If the dark force energy didn't do that and just flowed thru the earth then it would act on everything on the top side of the earth and we would all be weightless. The force of gravity has a well known equation for the imparted force. It only depends on the mass and the distance apart any two objects are. What about the dark energy force. This force doesn't seem to be effected by the mass of an object, otherwise the earth would have a different acceleration rate than the sun or moon. The amount of surface area doesn't seem to matter either, for the same reason. If the FE model is to be believed then a simple equation should be put forth that can be tested and verified just like the force of gravity has been done so many times.
Correct.
I agree, correct. Which brings us back to square: What is causing a planet's moon to orbit? UA doesn't seem to be the answer.
-
You can't have gravity on the flat earth model because gravity means everything is pulled toward the center of mass of any object. On a global earth that's no problem. Everything is pulled toward the center. On a flat earth those nearer to the edge would be pulled off in a slanted direction. The closer to the center you are the more your vertical would be straight down. The more you are out towards the edge the more your 'down' would be slanted towards the center of the earth. The UA model would solve that little problem, but then brings up others.
-
Agreed. That's why I'm thinking there must be a hybrid.
Earth is flat, non-rotating, no gravity.
Enter UA.
Celestial objects above earth are being pushed up by UA as the dark energy swirls up and over the sides of the earth disc.
Planets are round, with round moons, all of which being pushed up by UA.
These moons orbit b/c of their host planet's own gravitational pull that is separate from UA.
I know, down the rabbit hole we go.
-
Agreed. That's why I'm thinking there must be a hybrid.
Earth is flat, non-rotating, no gravity.
Enter UA.
Celestial objects above earth are being pushed up by UA as the dark energy swirls up and over the sides of the earth disc.
Planets are round, with round moons, all of which being pushed up by UA.
These moons orbit b/c of their host planet's own gravitational pull that is separate from UA.
I know, down the rabbit hole we go.
So, what is causing the stars to accelerate and decelerate as they orbit the Earth? Speeding up to get above us, then slowing down to get below, and why are they orbiting us in the first place? Not only that but with perfect angular momentums maintaining their distance from each other. I.E. stars moving at different apparent speeds looking at their star trails.
-
Agreed. That's why I'm thinking there must be a hybrid.
Earth is flat, non-rotating, no gravity.
Enter UA.
Celestial objects above earth are being pushed up by UA as the dark energy swirls up and over the sides of the earth disc.
Planets are round, with round moons, all of which being pushed up by UA.
These moons orbit b/c of their host planet's own gravitational pull that is separate from UA.
I know, down the rabbit hole we go.
So, what is causing the stars to accelerate and decelerate as they orbit the Earth? Speeding up to get above us, then slowing down to get below, and why are they orbiting us in the first place? Not only that but with perfect angular momentums maintaining their distance from each other. I.E. stars moving at different apparent speeds looking at their star trails.
Great question. Like how UA doesn't solve for orbiting moons, it doesn't solve for this issue either. At least I haven't seen an explanation.
-
The eternal plane paradigm would preclude having any dark energy swirling around the edge of the earth and pushing up on the sun and moon. How would you get around the plane if it's eternal? You could say that the dark energy could flow thru the earth and provide an acceleration to an object according to it's mass. That would keep all the small stuff on the earth's surface. If that same dark energy was also keeping the sun and moon at a constant distance from the earth then the accelerations would be the same. Now, if that is the case then the mass of the sun and moon would have to be the same as the earth. I'm assuming that the sun and moon are composed of different substances. One substance (extremely dense) would have to provide a lot of heat (sun) and the other would have to be cool (moon). Additionally the same dark energy would have to contain the atmolayer to the top surface of the earth. That's a very tall order for dark energy. Somehow it can provide just the right amount of push on all kinds of objects and get them all to stay in their assigned locations. Is that same dark energy pushing on the side of the sun when necessary to change the orbit to so the seasons change? Now you have dark energy that can provide a push in multiple directions because after the sun moves to a larger orbit, it will have to be pushed in the opposite direction to move back. It's also smart. It knows when it time for winter, spring, summer, and fall. I'm going to need a cell phone application to keep track of all that. If you believe in Occam's razor, gravity would make a lot more sense.
-
Something else about our moon is the waxing crescent changes direction for the same location on the planet as the year progresses as well as its path. In the summer in northern latitudes, the moon is lit from the side making the familiar “C” shape and a shallower angle through the sky yet in the winter the same waxing crescent is lit from below and looks more like a “U” with a much sharper angle through the sky. What is making the phase shift as well as changing the path of the moon? UA would by definition be universal so what other force that’s periodic on a yearly basis is affecting the moon?
-
Here in lies the rub for much of of FET to both RonJ's & JSM's recent points as well as the OP itself. As one FET solution is proposed to solve for one observation, it has a tendency to break a bunch of others. Perhaps why there isn't really a cohesive even semi-agreed upon theory. UA is one of these conundrums; you can't have gravity on a finite flat earth so something else has to be postulated. I think the concept of UA is pretty interesting and a clever answer to the absence of a 'gravity' concept, but a lot has to be done to fill in the gaping holes it presents. Suffice to say, UA, in my opinion, has no explanations for most of the observations presented here. Which leaves us where? I don't know. But as with many other observations FET can't mesh with even adequately, the explanation is 'unknown'.
-
Perhaps why there isn't really a cohesive even semi-agreed upon theory.
I have requested a page on the flat earth theory on the wiki (thanks for your help), but my request has led to doubt of even calling it 'theory'
I have never liked the term "Flat Earth Theory." Although I have used it in the past to refer to FE, I actually think this term should be abolished.
I believe it to be a movement of empirical discovery of our world, and is not about one particular theory or idea.
Considering a lack of solidarity, the act of disproving parts of flat theory, such as my 'small effect' seem a bit moot.
A flat earther looks at my claims and disregards them based on their own model in their head. This assumes that they believe my work at all. Hurdle one.
The only way I can think about going about discussion is to point out when someone claims something against the wiki. Treating the wiki as law.
-
Perhaps why there isn't really a cohesive even semi-agreed upon theory.
I have requested a page on the flat earth theory on the wiki (thanks for your help), but my request has led to doubt of even calling it 'theory'
I have never liked the term "Flat Earth Theory." Although I have used it in the past to refer to FE, I actually think this term should be abolished.
I believe it to be a movement of empirical discovery of our world, and is not about one particular theory or idea.
Considering a lack of solidarity, the act of disproving parts of flat theory, such as my 'small effect' seem a bit moot.
A flat earther looks at my claims and disregards them based on their own model in their head. This assumes that they believe my work at all. Hurdle one.
The only way I can think about going about discussion is to point out when someone claims something against the wiki. Treating the wiki as law.
That is my opinion as well. What I don’t understand is this notion of FE believers is that having 8 different flat earth ideas is ok and somehow helps their theory when it really just shows the extent of its enormous failures to describe simple observations. Perhaps the only thing one can have a discussion about is flatness of any kind, all else is immaterial as 7 other “theories” are used as a defense of a specific issue. If being flat at all is impossible, that is what is worth discussing in the long run.
-
If the Round Earth Theorists could prove their case decisively, it shouldn't matter how many ideas we have about a topic.
-
If the Round Earth Theorists could prove their case decisively, it shouldn't matter how many ideas we have about a topic.
A: I don't believe kangaroos exist
B: What are you talking about? Of course kangaroos exist! I've seen pictures of them.
A: Those are fake. CGI.
B: O...K...right, but here's my friend Bruce, he comes from Australia and has seem them in the wild
A: I don't believe him, he's in on the great kangaroo conspiracy
B: Right! Right! We're at a zoo. Look! There's a kangaroo
A: That's clearly animatronic, the zoo must be in on it too!
B: *sigh*
You are A. And you run away from this conversation claiming you won the argument and that B hasn't proven the existence of kangaroos "decisively".
The mindset is well explained in this article:
http://theconversation.com/how-to-reason-with-flat-earthers-it-may-not-help-though-95160
They’re right that you don’t know the earth is round. But they’re only right in a context where testimonies of hundreds are disregarded, where widely accepted facts among the scientific community don’t count, where photographic evidence is inadmissible, and so on.
The flat earther’s argument is framed in a context where you can’t set aside the possibility that there’s a pervading global conspiracy – albeit one which somehow intermittently leaves glaring errors which give them away. In that context, you don’t know the earth is round. But in that context, nobody knows much at all and so this conclusion is simply unsurprising.
In the more everyday contexts that we care about, we can rely on testimony. We can rely on the fact that every educated physicist, cartographer and geographer never pauses to think the earth might be flat. And we are correct to rely on these things. If it was incorrect, we’d never get treated at hospitals – for in a context where we can’t trust the established laws of physics, how could we trust the judgements of medical science?
So do you know whether the earth is round? It turns out it depends on context. But in most regular contexts then, yes, you do
You demand a level of proof for a round earth which is impossible to satisfy and which you do not apply to anything else, you certainly don't apply it to Rowbotham's pontification which you accept at face value.
-
If the evidence for RET were so mountainous as you guys allege then you guys would EASILY be able to prove any of these topics beyond doubt.
You would be able to show three body problem models that could predict the eclipses.
You would be able to show a model that can predict the position of the planets.
You would be able to show that the sinking ship effect reflects the amount of disappearance for a round earth.
You would be able to show that the position of the sun or moon can be predicted under assumptions of a round earth.
You have none of that. You guys just mumble "refraction" and "patterns" and "gravitational perturbations" or whatever.
-
If the evidence for RET were so mountainous as you guys allege then you guys would EASILY be able to prove any of these topics beyond doubt.
[…]
You would be able to show three body problem models that could predict the eclipses.
You would be able to show a model that can predict the position of the planets.
[…]
Neither of these is necessary to demonstrate curvature of the earth.
The strongest evidence we have is the science of measurement, which was developed to an incredible accuracy even by the early nineteenth century.
-
If the evidence for RET were so mountainous as you
guys allege then you guys could EASILY prove any of these topics beyond doubt.
You would be able to show three body problem models that could predict the eclipses.
You would be able to show a model that can predict the position of the planets.
You would be able to show that the sinking ship effect reflects the amount of disappearance for a round Earth.
You would be able to show that the position of the sun or moon can be predicted under assumptions of a round earth.
You have none of that. You guys just mumble "refraction" and "patterns" and "gravity perturbations" or whatever.
1. August 21, 2017.. are you suggesting that that eclipse was not predicted to an acceptable precision? If so, your demand is unrealistic. April 8 2024 we have another path of totality through the easternU.S. It will cross over Mazatlán, Mexico and will be great vacation destination to view such an event. Are you suggesting that this will not happen?
2. Can’t predict planet positions? You can buy off the shelf software which can control your mounted computer guided telescope and will point at those planets for you... Nevermind the planetary missions from various space agencies using launch windows and gravity’s assists to navigate the solar system. Nevermind the discovery of Neptune. Where do you get this stuff?
3. The sinking ship, and other objects hidden by the curve is well documented and explained both visually and mathematically proven. Rabinoz and JackBlack and others have shown the math and the visuals dozens of times. You like to find mirages and special cases of refraction then apply that special case to every curvature example and incorrectly assume it breaks the globe. As well as using the wrong math to describe how much should be hidden, knowingly so, demonstratably so, then say see.... no globe.
4. Round Earth doesn’t predict the positions of the Sun and Moon? This is pretty rich when there is not one FE explanation for 1. Sun shape 2. Moonphases 3. Suns path in summer/winter 4. FE has no explanation for how in the Northern Hemisphere in summer, the Sun rises in the northeast, and then sets in the northwest, whereas in the Southern Hemisphere in summer, the Sun rises in the southeast, and then sets in the southwest. Tell me how that is possible of a flat earth but makes perfect sense on a globe tilted on its axis.
If 99.99% accurate isn’t enough proof for you then what exactly do you want? RE people say the Earth is moving, the Sun is moving, all the planets are moving, the entire solar system has its own rotation, and the entire galaxy is moving through space. All of it affected by gravity from everything. That sounds like a complicated system, it’s not simplistic fantastical celestial gears periodic in nature you can just make a timetable and solve. That’s what the earliest skywatchers thought and they were wrong. If you want a clockwork model that works like a machine which can perfectly predict everything every time to hundreds of years in the future that I see is simply impossible which I think is your aim. At least be honest, what you want is impossible.
-
If the evidence for RET were so mountainous as you
guys allege then you guys could EASILY prove any of these topics beyond doubt.
You would be able to show three body problem models that could predict the eclipses.
You would be able to show a model that can predict the position of the planets.
You would be able to show that the sinking ship effect reflects the amount of disappearance for a round Earth.
You would be able to show that the position of the sun or moon can be predicted under assumptions of a round earth.
You have none of that. You guys just mumble "refraction" and "patterns" and "gravity perturbations" or whatever.
1. August 21, 2017.. are you suggesting that that eclipse was not predicted to an acceptable precision? If so, your demand is unrealistic. April 8 2024 we have another path of totality through the easternU.S. It will cross over Mazatlán, Mexico and will be great vacation destination to view such an event. Are you suggesting that this will not happen?
2. Can’t predict planet positions? You can buy off the shelf software which can control your mounted computer guided telescope and will point at those planets for you... Nevermind the planetary missions from various space agencies using launch windows and gravity’s assists to navigate the solar system. Nevermind the discovery of Neptune. Where do you get this stuff?
3. The sinking ship, and other objects hidden by the curve is well documented and explained both visually and mathematically proven. Rabinoz and JackBlack and others have shown the math and the visuals dozens of times. You like to find mirages and special cases of refraction then apply that special case to every curvature example and incorrectly assume it breaks the globe. As well as using the wrong math to describe how much should be hidden, knowingly so, demonstratably so, then say see.... no globe.
4. Round Earth doesn’t predict the positions of the Sun and Moon? This is pretty rich when there is not one FE explanation for 1. Sun shape 2. Moonphases 3. Suns path in summer/winter 4. FE has no explanation for how in the Northern Hemisphere in summer, the Sun rises in the northeast, and then sets in the northwest, whereas in the Southern Hemisphere in summer, the Sun rises in the southeast, and then sets in the southwest. Tell me how that is possible of a flat earth but makes perfect sense on a globe tilted on its axis.
If 99.99% accurate isn’t enough proof for you then what exactly do you want? RE people say the Earth is moving, the Sun is moving, all the planets are moving, the entire solar system has its own rotation, and the entire galaxy is moving through space. All of it affected by gravity from everything. That sounds like a complicated system, it’s not simplistic fantastical celestial gears periodic in nature you can just make a timetable and solve. That’s what the earliest skywatchers thought and they were wrong. If you want a clockwork model that works like a machine which can perfectly predict everything every time to hundreds of years in the future that I see is simply impossible which I think is your aim. At least be honest, what you want is impossible.
No. Those predictions are based on the ancient method of pattern-based prediction, not a model of the round earth system. The eclipses are phenomena that come in patterns. By identifying the pattern, one can make a future prediction. The prediction of the planets are likewise made on a pattern-predicting method. If you know the pattern the bodies move in, an equation can be made to express it and predict what it will do in the future.
The truth is that the Round Earth Theory cannot predict anything at all.
Per the sinking ship, we've had many examples on this forum where the sinking effect does not reflect the predictions of RET.
-
You can't get far about arguing about theory. I would have a very difficult time 'proving' to my wife, just using words, that I actually went to the grocery store on my way home from work. We could argue indefinitely, but if I pulled out that loaf of bread and the quart of milk, along with a receipt, that would quickly end the argument. The simple act of producing the grocery sack & receipt would quickly convert the theory into fact. The round earth people have developed a theory about the earth that's based on it being spherical and with gravity. That theory is just ideas and words. By itself it's mostly meaningless. What's important is what you can actually do that is useful with your theory. That effectively converts your theory to fact. A mindless, soulless, piece of equipment has 'no dog in the fight', it just works or doesn't work according to it's design and the way it was built. I contend that there is equipment out there that was designed and built with a spherical earth as an essential part of the design. That equipment works as expected. Doesn't that effectively convert any theory to fact?
-
You can't get far about arguing about theory. I would have a very difficult time 'proving' to my wife, just using words, that I actually went to the grocery store on my way home from work. We could argue indefinitely, but if I pulled out that loaf of bread and the quart of milk, along with a receipt, that would quickly end the argument. The simple act of producing the grocery sack & receipt would quickly convert the theory into fact. The round earth people have developed a theory about the earth that's based on it being spherical and with gravity. That theory is just ideas and words. By itself it's mostly meaningless. What's important is what you can actually do that is useful with your theory. That effectively converts your theory to fact. A mindless, soulless, piece of equipment has 'no dog in the fight', it just works or doesn't work according to it's design and the way it was built. I contend that there is equipment out there that was designed and built with a spherical earth as an essential part of the design. That equipment works as expected. Doesn't that effectively convert any theory to fact?
I am not making a philosophical argument that "nothing can be proven." Just make accurate predictions with the Round Earth Theory. That demonstrates its validity beyond doubt.
-
The truth is that the Round Earth Theory cannot predict anything at all.
But the round earth hypothesis does explain the precise measurements we have, which are entirely inconsistent with flat earth hypothesis.
-
No. Those predictions are based on the ancient method of pattern-based prediction, not a model of the round earth system. The eclipses are phenomena that come in patterns. By identifying the pattern, one can make a future prediction. The prediction of the planets are likewise made on a pattern-predicting method. If you know the pattern the bodies move in, an equation can be made to express it and predict what it will do in the future.
The truth is that the Round Earth Theory cannot predict anything at all.
Per the sinking ship, we've had many examples on this forum where the sinking effect does not reflect the predictions of RET.
If you took a few seconds to search online, you would see that the exact times, places, paths, are predicted out hundreds of years. They also explain the margin of error in km tightening up if within only a few hundred years. Show me where it’s just a pattern. You have not only the date to prove a pattern but it’s exact PATH, WIDTH, LENGTH, DURATION, DIRECTION, and LOCATION on the planet. You are making the affirmative statement it’s just a pattern, show me the pattern, then apply that’s pattern to your map. Evil NASA has figured this out, and it is near perfectly reproducible and confirmable. They have nothing to prove here.
-
It is possible to make a prediction 'down to the gnats ass' about things in the round earth theory just using well known equations. What isn't possible is knowing 'down to a gnats ass' the value of all the variables. Things about the total mass of the earth, it's density or it's exact radius are just 'best guesses' made over many years of measurement. Even if you could hold a tape measure between the center of the earth and a point on the outer edge it would still only be an estimate because the sphere isn't totally round or smooth. That means that there will always be a 'fudge factor' in any prediction you make. In some of my college engineering classes we were always taught to include in all our equations an estimated error and factor that into the result calculation. What's smaller than a gnats ass? Many error factors are not constant at all. That's where stochastic differential equations come into play. Sometimes you make a prediction of an expected event and something goes wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean that your theory, or equations, are wrong. There are plenty of places where you could have made mistakes. I once saw a total eclipse of the moon at sea that was predicted by the navigation officer based on the data in our nautical almanac. It happened just when expected. For other events that may only occur every 20 years or so, it can take a long time to completely verify a theory. Things in life are mostly probabilistic. A single observation can't really prove or disprove much of anything.
-
You guys just mumble "refraction" and "patterns" and "gravitational perturbations" or whatever.
For one, I think Rowbotham was 'mumbling' about refraction in Earth Not a Globe long before we were.
Quote from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm
If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.
Yet the question remains, what in FET explain moons predictably, 'patternistically' orbiting planets? So far, from an FET perspective, I would say the explanation is unknown.
-
Yet the question remains, what in FET explain moons predictably, 'patternistically' orbiting planets? So far, from an FET perspective, I would say the explanation is unknown.
Thanks for getting back on topic, stack.
I have done research into an alternative force for moons (not our moon), the 'small effect', but came up with diddly. No evidence whatsoever for the 'small effect', unless i misunderstood my findings
And yet. The moons are there, taunting.
-
If the evidence for RET were so mountainous as you guys allege then you guys would EASILY be able to prove any of these topics beyond doubt.
There's a good reason that the UK legal system demands proof beyond reasonable doubt.
You can always cast doubt on something as I showed above in my silly conversation.
Your list of demands are spurious. Most people would argue those things have been done, but even if they hadn't, we have film from space and endless photographs, we have hundreds of people who have been there and orbited the globe earth including 7 space tourists who have paid for the privilege.
Yes, you can cast doubt on all their testimony and all the photos and film. You can claim there's a worldwide space travel conspiracy. But you have no really evidence.
That doubt is really you guys just mumbling "CGI" and "wires" and "bubbles" or whatever.
And you don't apply this sceptical context consistently. Till recently you blindly accepted Rowbotham's claim about the horizon being at eye level. You have now inexplicably changed your mind about that. Something for you to think about: if he's wrong about that then what else might he be wrong about?
-
In getting back to the first post on this tread, I made a 'back of the envelope' calculation. I assumed a 5 meter sphere with a mass of 2,887,881 kg, and a pebble of 0.005 meters radius with a mass of 0.00288 kg. I came out with a force of gravity deflection of less than a millionth of a newton. That would mean that you would never be able to see or measure anything given the conditions of your experiment. In order to see the force of gravity you will need much bigger masses and more sensitive measurement instruments.
-
In getting back to the first post on this tread, I made a 'back of the envelope' calculation. I assumed a 5 meter sphere with a mass of 2,887,881 kg, and a pebble of 0.005 meters radius with a mass of 0.00288 kg. I came out with a force of gravity deflection of less than a millionth of a newton. That would mean that you would never be able to see or measure anything given the conditions of your experiment. In order to see the force of gravity you will need much bigger masses and more sensitive measurement instruments.
Not quite, I was not measuring gravity. I was attempting to measure an effect, not present in the GIANT Flat Theory Sun and Moon, but present in the tiny Flat Theory planets or meteors etc.
I was assuming flat theory was correct and may have disproven it that way.
Glad to know that my noticing nothing works with round theory, though. Thanks.
-
In other words this 'universal acceleration' is some kind of 'gravity simulator' which is needed in order to create the illusion of gravity on a FE. I can't argue with the idea that motion in a particular direction will create the impression of weight but in the case of a FE, what is causing the motion in the first place. And motion relative to what?
They say that the Earth is not a planet. So what is it then?
-
In other words this 'universal acceleration' is some kind of 'gravity simulator' which is needed in order to create the illusion of gravity on a FE. I can't argue with the idea that motion in a particular direction will create the impression of weight but in the case of a FE, what is causing the motion in the first place. And motion relative to what?
They say that the Earth is not a planet. So what is it then?
See my other post on auxiliary assumptions. One assumption underlying most of physics is conservation of energy. The energy for the constant acceleration of the earth over time must be vast. But where does it come from?
By contrast, the Newtonian theory of gravity is much simpler, and consistent with conservation of energy. You lift up a heavy object, and it acquires potential energy. The energy came from the food you ate. You drop it, and that energy converts to heat and sound. Much simpler.
-
According to FET the earth is being constantly accelerated at 9.8 meters per second squared. That acceleration is due to the force of 'dark energy' pushing on the bottom of the earth. If the disk earth had gravity like any other object of mass then the only place that the gravity would be at 90 degrees to the earth's surface would be at the North Pole. Of course this whole scenario is very interesting. What solid surface does the 'dark energy' push against? There is gravitational attraction between the water on the earth and the 'heavenly' bodies but other objects don't have gravitational attraction toward the earth. The sun and moon circle the flat earth above but have to means of 'propulsion' to keep them in orbit. I'm just scratching the surface of the impossible things going on under FET. The earth is more like a space ship going at nearly the speed of light thru the universe. Dark Energy flows around the edges to hold the atmosphere to the earth is another option of the theory. If you wish to believe in some of Newton's laws of motion then many of the things under FET are impossible and unexplained. At least under FET I wouldn't have to worry much about an alien invasion because any aliens would have to work hard to keep up with the earth and would have to break thru the 'dome' to get at any earthlings.