81

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model

« on: August 10, 2019, 04:03:51 PM »

Please explain the difference between an analytic solution and a numerical solution and how they are differentiated when it comes to a problem involving math?

This post sums it up nicely:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-numerical-and-an-analytical-solution

An analytical solution is exact.
A numerical solution is an approximation that's used when an analytical solution is unavailable or unusable.
Maybe you remember using the trapesium rule to estimate the area under a curve in maths class - that's using a numerical method instead of an analytic one. If the curve was simple enough you could have just used calculus to integrate it get an exact solution and you wouldn't need to bother with the trapesium rule.

If you're doing this for a living you'd use more complicated algorithms than the trapesium rule, and you'd generally know how accurate your numerical solution is.

This is why we can say that not having an analytical solution to the three-body problem is okay. You compute a numerical solution and know how good your solution is. This means that if I want to know the position of Jupiter in X years with an accuracy of Y meters, I can do that.

82

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model

« on: August 09, 2019, 10:35:01 PM »

If so, why no solution announced from on high?

Why no smoke from the chimney?

Numerical solutions and analytical solutions are not the same thing.
Either you already knew this and you're just trolling around, or you didn't know this and you should really go back to basics on this.

83

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model

« on: August 02, 2019, 02:38:16 PM »

What makes you think that is based on the laws of Newton, rather than a pattern-based model?

I asked you in a different thread about astronomical observations that cannot be pattern-based, such as calculating the trajectory of an asteroid that's coming close to Earth. How could you calculate a close-approach of an asteroid if it's the first time this object has encountered Earth?

What kind of pattern are you talking about here, exactly? The Newtonian approach would of course be simple if you have enough data about the asteroid's velocity and position - you can just whack it into your favourite equation solver and calculate its position at future times to arbitrarily high accuracy with a large enough computer.

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity

« on: July 30, 2019, 08:35:22 PM »

Then why engage in a discussion about a hypothetical thought experiment?

I didn't. The objection I addressed was that it would be impossible for the velocity of the Earth to continuously increase at a constant rate for an extended period of time, and thus UA is impossible.

Pointing out that this is not required or even implied under UA is absolutely essential. There exists no actual location in which the requirements of this argument would be met.

It seems to me like this whole discussion started from Zonk's comment, If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?. It sounds to me like this whole discussion is about a thought experiment.

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity

« on: July 29, 2019, 10:39:30 PM »

I'm not interested in hypothetical thought experiments.

Then why engage in a discussion about a hypothetical thought experiment?

86

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model

« on: July 29, 2019, 02:37:12 PM »

The peer review system is used to promote science within the accepted model and discourages critical thinking and can thus ignore experimental proof that the mainstream model is wrong .

I strongly disagree with this. If you were right, then places like CERN wouldn't exist. They are explicitly searching for physics that is beyond the Standard Model.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: July 28, 2019, 09:39:03 PM »

If it is game over, then why are all maps flat?

It is the undulations and rises of terrain causing distortion.

Maps are flat because carrying a globe around in your pocket isn't comfortable, and because paper and screens are flat. What matters when drawing a map is that it's usable to navigate, not that it's an undistorted representation of the earth.

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: July 25, 2019, 10:39:45 PM »

Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.

Much like when I look at a united states road atlas the scale changes based on what state you look at. If you put all of the states together and gave them an interactive scale would that make them distorted? I guess some people could say yes. It's my option that, as long as the scale accurately shows all of the individual states and USA as a whole correct then it's not distorted.

My points are:
- You cannot draw a single flat map that is correct AND covers the entire earth
- As soon as you have some kind of 'interactive scale', you're not drawing a single map anymore. When you zoom in on Bing maps, it draws a different map. If a country is the wrong size when you're zoomed out but becomes the correct size when you zoom in, the zoomed in and zoomed out maps are not the same map.

So I think we agree basically. You can't draw a flat map of the whole world, but you can draw a flat map of e.x. a single state. Where we differ is on my first point. As soon as you can't draw a flat map that covers the entire earth, that's game over.

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question

« on: July 25, 2019, 10:24:23 PM »

I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.  If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.  The earth is older.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.

Oh dear god. Were you asleep? Did you accidentally attend biology lectures for the whole semester?

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity

« on: July 25, 2019, 10:20:41 PM »

If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?

This is like undergrad relativity, lecture 0. Maybe picking up a textbook is a good idea, rather than telling other people that they don't have a clue, hmm?

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: July 01, 2019, 09:51:18 PM »

An interactive map has an interactive scale. I've demonstrated many times where, based on the interactive scale, there is no distortion.

When you zoom all the way out, it's distorted. That's all that matters. I don't think anybody is arguing about being able to zoom in and have things appear locally flat except you.

Of course if you look at a map of any single country it will get sizes and distances etc. almost exactly right, because across small distances the Earth's curvature is small. According to your logic, this means the Earth is flat, and lets you ignore that it's impossible to produce a flat map of the entire world.

Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: July 01, 2019, 09:45:20 PM »

There is a huge difference between Einstein's concept of ether (he was practically forced to reintroduce the ether into his general relativity) and Weyl's theory of the ether.

For Weyl, first comes the topological manifold. Then, an affine-connection is added: a world endowed with a gravitation-inertial field named by Weyl "fuhrungsfeld", guiding field. The components of the affine connection, and not those of the metric field, are taken as the field strengths of the gravitational field.

Weyl no longer has an invariant unit of length, so in order to introduce a metric at all, it is necessary to specify an arbitrary unit length at each point, to GAUGE the space, by adding a pseudo-vector field. Then, Weyl equates ψ with the potential of the electromagnetic field. What Weyl accomplished is to anticipate the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 30 years.

"The role of the metric is taken over by the wave function, and the rescaling of the metric has to be replaced
by a phase change of the wave function."

Why is there not a unified field theory at the present time?

Because virtually all mathematicians and physicists fail to notice that within a permanent magnet there are two fluxes of streams: South-Center-North AND North-Center-South.

The modern study of the magnetic field/electromagnetism ONLY includes the South to North flow.

Yet, there are TWO continuous streams of different particles.

What, then, is the nature of the SECOND flux of particles?

https://web.archive.org/web/20160203121514/http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/hojo-leed.jpg

"Magnetic current is the same as electric current is a wrong expression. Really it is not one current they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and the other is composed of South Pole magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screw like fashion, and with high speed."


Modern science only studies one of these streams.


Whittaker proved that the potential consists of pairs of bidirectional longitudinal scalar waves, and that the same equation governs both gravity and magnetism.


The second flow/stream of particles IS THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVE, which has a dextrorotatory spin. Both flows/streams form the ELECTROGRAVITATIONAL FIELD.

Ahh okay, I get it now. Thanks for clearing that one up

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 30, 2019, 10:13:42 AM »

Wanna show me some experimental evidence of these thrusters you keep going on about working in a vacuum?

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194918#msg194918

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194921#msg194921

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194939#msg194939 (two videos in vacuum)

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194953#msg194953

I've already responded to your the links you gave about B-B in a vaccum. If I recall correctly, you dismissed every experiment except this single one by Townsend for some reason that you didn't make clear.

Weyl's gauge theory requires an ether just as much an Einstein's. That is - not really at all. See this interesting article:
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 29, 2019, 12:16:27 AM »

Not fermions, but electrogravity. Weyl unified gravity and electricity using gauge theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319

Great! So can you respond to my point? In fact, when did we start talking about Weyl instead of Biefield-Brown effect. Wanna show me some experimental evidence of these thrusters you keep going on about working in a vacuum? You already gave me some experiments that pretty much destroyed your idea that a Biefield-Brown-type thruster will work in a vacuum, so now you seem to be hiding behind some obscure theoretical physics that neither of us actually understand instead of carrying on down the Bilefield-Brown-clearly-doesn't-work-in-a-vacuum rabbit hole.

I wonder why.

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: June 29, 2019, 12:13:43 AM »

Again this is just a difference of opinion. In my opinion I have given a map, which depicts the earth as a flat plane, in which the map, by my definition, is undistorted. 

You required that it gets sizes correct, and yet both maps you show clearly don't get sizes correct.

The fact that you can zoom in on Greenland and it shows it as being the correct size is entirely irrelevant: if I'm zoomed in on Greenland, you can't compare the sizes of all the countries anymore because you're no longer looking at a map of the Earth, you're just looking at a map of Greenland. If you zoomed in on every country and grabbed the map that it gave you, every country would be the same size. Great! Except then if you tried to stitch all of those maps that get the relative country sizes correct together, you'd end up with a map that gets other things wrong.

I think my main points are really this:
- zooming in on Bing maps is the same as looking at a different map. The "zoomed in" map and the "zoomed out" map are not the same map. This should be obvious enough, as Greenland is horribly stretched when zoomed out and not when zoomed in.
- The only important question is "can I draw a single map that accurately represents the entire globe on a flat surface". No zooming, just a flat plane with the countries drawn on. This isn't the programming problem that you're making it out to be: it's a question of geometry.

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: June 27, 2019, 08:33:23 PM »

Not it does not. The scale is interactive. Do I really need to save the image of bing maps that i'm looking at now showing that greenland is about 2k miles from north to south and a second screenshot of bing maps showint that 2k miles is like a third of the height of Africa? Do you know what an interactive map is with an interactive scale is?

Ahh I see, so it only gets the sizes correct when you're zoomed in far enough that it's not showing any other countries, but it can't show direction or distance in this zoomed-in format. Why not just stitch together all of these zoomed-in images into a full flat map that has the correct sizes and distances? The answer is: you can't. That's why it distorts when you zoom out.

I think we're pretty much agreeing here: the Earth is locally flat-ish, so if you zoom in you lose a lot of the distortion and you can do small distances and sizes accurately, but when you actually want to map a significant portion of the Earth on a flat map, you are guaranteed distortion.

97

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: June 27, 2019, 07:42:28 PM »

I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.

The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion

My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:

1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth

Bing maps has all of those listed above but was rejected because it has an interactive scale. I've only really done a lot of extensive traveling in North America, South America, and Europe so I can't corroborate the accuracy of #4 in Africa, Asia, and Australia but, based on my sample data, I will assume that you can.

Bing uses the Mercator projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
Look at the size of Greenland. It fails #1 miserably.

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: June 27, 2019, 07:25:31 PM »

I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.

The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion

99

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: June 27, 2019, 07:20:31 PM »

What is your definition of "undistorted"? Because clearly having countries the correct size, distance away from each other, or direction relative to each other aren't in your definition.

I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.

It also seems to have Russia around the same size as Africa, which is completely wrong.

I don't know how to calculate the internal area of an abstract shape such as the borders of Russia on that map so I don't know if it is the correct size or not.

You don't need much experience. A cursory glance shows that going from South Africa to South America requires crossing the whole of Europe and North America.

This is not a map used by airlines to map flight paths. I had already shown a map which almost all flights are mapped on but, because it has an interactive scale, it was rejected.

You didn't answer my question about your definition of "undistorted".

I don't know how to calculate the internal area from the map either. I can however just put some paper over my screen, trace around Russia and overlay it on Africa, and see that there's zero chance that Africa is twice the area that Russia is on that map, like it should be.

100

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: June 27, 2019, 05:02:20 PM »

I don't have enough experience with the undistorted map (which you said was impossible if the earth was a sphere) to map a flight path on it.

You don't need much experience. A cursory glance shows that going from South Africa to South America requires crossing the whole of Europe and North America. Or, as I pointed out earlier, that North America is about thrice as close to Antarctica as South Africa. To get from New Zealand to Antarctica on this map, you'd need to travel North West (or whatever the equivalent cardinal directions are on this map), and yet you claim it's undistorted?

It also seems to have Russia around the same size as Africa, which is completely wrong.

What is your definition of "undistorted"? Because clearly having countries the correct size, distance away from each other, or direction relative to each other aren't in your definition.