The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Jimmy McGill on September 03, 2018, 05:40:25 AM
-
I want to start off by thanking you guys and girls in the forums for helping me sort through some of these questions.
A working model on the shape of the planet and nature of our solar system should be able to explain all of the questions I have, yet I’ve not found suitable answers yet.
If you don’t have the answers to all of my questions that’s fine, I’m sure another will chime in and help me piece this puzzle together. Just help me understand what you can without dropping random YouTube videos. Your own words please.
- What is a satellite?
- If they aren’t real, then what are we seeing?
- If they’re balloons; How high are they? How do they attain such speed? Where are they launched and landed? How do they overcome wind currents? What propels them? Why can I see an obviously non-balloon shape in my telescope?
- Is the sun flat?
- How large and how far away is the sun?
- If the law of perspective pushed by flat earthers is true, and the earth is indeed flat, why does the sun not grow from dawn to noon and shrink from noon to dusk? The moon also? They should appear to shrink and grow and shrink again as the day goes by, and significantly at that, depending on their sizes and their distance away from the earth!
- If “perspective” is true and the earth is flat, then why can’t we bring the sun or moon back into view with binoculars or a telescope?
- What are solar and lunar eclipses?
- What are the planets?
- Why do they move in relation to the stars?
- How does the FE Model explain the obviously spherical shape of these planets? (Rotation, rings, moons, solar eclipses from the moons, etc.)
- What do the governments of the world gain from covering up the flat earth?
- How do they keep it a secret?
- What is gravity?
Again I want to thank you all for your cooperation. After my friend brought them up to me in a good natured debate, these issues have been bugging me. They’ve really forced me to reconsider my views on the flat earth model.
-
Search the wiki and the forums, you'll find tons of stuff. To get you started:
- What is a satellite?
- If they aren’t real, then what are we seeing?
- If they’re balloons; How high are they? How do they attain such speed? Where are they launched and landed? How do they overcome wind currents? What propels them? Why can I see an obviously non-balloon shape in my telescope?
Anyway, here are a few threads I picked out from my search for "satellites". They don't directly address your question, but they do explain the FES's general views on satellites and their existence (n.b. I am not trying to make this an exhaustive list, just providing a starting point):
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1150.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2141.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3359.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2445.0
- Is the sun flat?
- How large and how far away is the sun?
- If the law of perspective pushed by flat earthers is true, and the earth is indeed flat, why does the sun not grow from dawn to noon and shrink from noon to dusk? The moon also? They should appear to shrink and grow and shrink again as the day goes by, and significantly at that, depending on their sizes and their distance away from the earth!
- If “perspective” is true and the earth is flat, then why can’t we bring the sun or moon back into view with binoculars or a telescope?
- What are solar and lunar eclipses?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
- What are the planets?
- Why do they move in relation to the stars?
- How does the FE Model explain the obviously spherical shape of these planets? (Rotation, rings, moons, solar eclipses from the moons, etc.)
https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions
- What do the governments of the world gain from covering up the flat earth?
- How do they keep it a secret?
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
- What is gravity?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
-
- Still nothing to address the shape of the sun (spherical, flat plane, etc)
- If the sun were spherical, 32 miles in diameter, and 3,000 miles above the earth, then at any point on the planet, at any given time, a person could see the sun.
- If it were a 32 mile flat circle, then at dawn and dusk it would appear elliptical, while at noon appearing as a circle. For those in the northern and Southern Hemispheres, not directly beneath it, it would always appear slightly elliptical.
- Does not address the fact that if the earth were flat, you should be able to bring the sun (or moon) back into view with a pair of binoculars or a telescope, regardless of its shape, just like how FE claims you can do with boats on the ocean (you can’t).
(Edit to add... Doesn’t address the fact that the sun would grow drastically larger until noon and shrink until dusk.) :)
- FE apparently accepts that the planets are spherical, but aren’t comparable objects to the earth, thus not proving RE.
- Doesn’t give a specified size/distance from the earth/sun. Needs to do this to account for visual observations of solar eclipses from the various moons of Jupiter and Saturn that any layman can witness with a 200$ telescope.
- There is no coverup. But NASA faked it all in the early stages of the program to advance the US’s military dominance. But NASA isn’t covering anything up.... they genuinely believe the earth is round. Right.
- Still nothing concrete on satellites. Just a few FE’rs arguing amongst themselves and RE’rs. Something claim about fluid-like “aether” rushing past earth, somehow pushed by UA faster than earth, creating a void above the earth in which satellites are possible. No evidence, can be disregarded.
- No evidence for UA, can be disregarded without evidence (even though evidence for gravity as we know it is abundant).
I was really hoping some of you would actually try to defend your positions but it looks like I’m going to be bored by the conversation.
-
I was really hoping some of you would actually try to defend your positions but it looks like I’m going to be bored by the conversation.
My experience as to the way it works around here (and rightfully so) is that you need to express your concerns/desire for explanations for each issue individually. Case in point, Universal Acceleration. There are many threads with dozens of pages devoted to the exploration of such. Just search on ‘Universal Acceleration’, for example, and you’ll see what I mean. Same goes for the other topics. Or, start your own topic, but best to address a single issue at a time.
-
I was really hoping some of you would actually try to defend your positions but it looks like I’m going to be bored by the conversation.
My experience as to the way it works around here (and rightfully so) is that you need to express your concerns/desire for explanations for each issue individually. Case in point, Universal Acceleration. There are many threads with dozens of pages devoted to the exploration of such. Just search on ‘Universal Acceleration’, for example, and you’ll see what I mean. Same goes for the other topics. Or, start your own topic, but best to address a single issue at a time.
It’s really not that complicated though. A person should be able to address multiple issues at once with a proper theory.
Besides, in my OP I made it clear that ny questions didn’t need to be addressed all at once.
I’ve read the threads about UA. There is not a shred of evidence in support of it. For gravity as all scientists understand it today, it’s obvious that objects with mass attract each other. This has been tested. Gravitational lensing bends space so much that we can even see the effects on light rays.
Maybe rename it the flat earth hypotheses?
-
I was really hoping some of you would actually try to defend your positions but it looks like I’m going to be bored by the conversation.
My experience as to the way it works around here (and rightfully so) is that you need to express your concerns/desire for explanations for each issue individually. Case in point, Universal Acceleration. There are many threads with dozens of pages devoted to the exploration of such. Just search on ‘Universal Acceleration’, for example, and you’ll see what I mean. Same goes for the other topics. Or, start your own topic, but best to address a single issue at a time.
It’s really not that complicated though. A person should be able to address multiple issues at once with a proper theory.
Besides, in my OP I made it clear that ny questions didn’t need to be addressed all at once.
I’ve read the threads about UA. There is not a shred of evidence in support of it. For gravity as all scientists understand it today, it’s obvious that objects with mass attract each other. This has been tested. Gravitational lensing bends space so much that we can even see the effects on light rays.
Maybe rename it the flat earth hypotheses?
There is a lot of information abotut GR and gravitational lensing in the books and materials I posted here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9359.msg165265#msg165265).
In specific to the lensing of light around the sun, see Professor Poor's assessment in the following article: Is Einstein Wrong? The Errors of Einstein (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2626)
Per the Cavendish Experiment, that experiment does not properly account for the electrostatic force, which is much stronger than the alleged force of "gravity". Read: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
Globebusters also looked at the Cavendish Experiment in the video I posted in the recent UA thread on the investigations forum:
Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10592.0)
Scroll back a little on that video in the above thread and you will find them talking about the Cavendish Experiment.
-
"There is a lot of information abotut GR and gravitational lensing in the books and materials I posted here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9359.msg165265#msg165265)."
Thanks Tom! The refutations of these sources would probably take months to document. I perused several links and immediately discovered multiple issues. For evidence, I provide one here, check out page 102 (chosen almost at random):
http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0082v1.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0082v1.pdf)
Any physics freshman would immediately identify that this expression cannot describe reality. Dimensional analysis is one of the first things we teach our students.
"In specific to the lensing of light around the sun, see Professor Poor's assessment in the following article: Is Einstein Wrong? The Errors of Einstein (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2626)"
One example about this link is the lack of consistency with metric definitions. The author posits multiple amendments to relativistic kinematics, and many of them result in distances which have a negative or zero length! This is not even in the ballpark of science. It is hackwork that anyone who has taken even a semester or two of physics can identify. Moreover, there have been dozens of observations which support the bending of light. These all accord with Einstein's calculations. The entire field of modern astronomy relies upon it!
"Per the Cavendish Experiment, that experiment does not properly account for the electrostatic force, which is much stronger than the alleged force of "gravity". Read: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html"
Well sure it does! The objects are electrically neutral. Hence, the electrostatic force is MUCH smaller than the gravitational force....it is zero.
-
"There is a lot of information abotut GR and gravitational lensing in the books and materials I posted here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9359.msg165265#msg165265)."
Thanks Tom! The refutations of these sources would probably take months to document. I perused several links and immediately discovered multiple issues. For evidence, I provide one here, check out page 102 (chosen almost at random):
http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0082v1.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0082v1.pdf)
Any physics freshman would immediately identify that this expression cannot describe reality. Dimensional analysis is one of the first things we teach our students.
Page 102 is in the middle of the Mach's Principle section. Mach didn't use a traditional physics cosmology. It's not a specific theory of gravity or motion, at least not one like the Newtonian or Einsteinian one. You should look into Mach's work.
"In specific to the lensing of light around the sun, see Professor Poor's assessment in the following article: Is Einstein Wrong? The Errors of Einstein (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2626)"
One example about this link is the lack of consistency with metric definitions. The author posits multiple amendments to relativistic kinematics, and many of them result in distances which have a negative or zero length! This is not even in the ballpark of science. It is hackwork that anyone who has taken even a semester or two of physics can identify.
Charles Lane Poor was a professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University and held a PhD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor). What makes you think that he never took a semester of physics?
Moreover, there have been dozens of observations which support the bending of light. These all accord with Einstein's calculations. The entire field of modern astronomy relies upon it!
You were lied to. Einstein specifically lost the Nobel Prize for Relativity because his theories were NOT successful.
See these articles:
No doubt: Einstein’s General Theory Of Relativity Was Wrong (https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-evidence-albert-einstein-s-general-relativity-theory-was-wrong-90e9904351e0)
Astronomical Data of 1919 -1973 Eclipse Prove Einstein’s Prediction Doesn’t Work (https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/eclipses-data-of-1919-1973-verify-einstein-s-prediction-really-doesn-t-work-913c345a5e17)
"Per the Cavendish Experiment, that experiment does not properly account for the electrostatic force, which is much stronger than the alleged force of "gravity". Read: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html"
Well sure it does! The objects are electrically neutral. Hence, the electrostatic force is MUCH smaller than the gravitational force....it is zero.
That is false. Read the material that I linked.
-
"There is a lot of information abotut GR and gravitational lensing in the books and materials I posted here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9359.msg165265#msg165265)."
Thanks Tom! The refutations of these sources would probably take months to document. I perused several links and immediately discovered multiple issues. For evidence, I provide one here, check out page 102 (chosen almost at random):
http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0082v1.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0082v1.pdf)
Any physics freshman would immediately identify that this expression cannot describe reality. Dimensional analysis is one of the first things we teach our students.
Page 102 is in the middle of the Mach's Principle section. Mach didn't use a traditional physics cosmology. It's not a specific theory of gravity or motion, at least not one like the Newtonian or Einsteinian one. You should look into Mach's work.
Mach in fact uses the most conventional cosmology at the time: Minkowski geometry. It was not called that then, of course, but that is what he was using. Thomas, you see...I teach Mach's work at the college level. I am sure you don't believe that, but it is easy for me to prove: Mach's developments never divorce from dimensional analysis.
Dimensional analysis is not an issue of Newton or Einstein. It is an issue of units. One cannot add 5 seconds to 3 meters and get an answer that makes sense. This is just fundamentally wrong. Mach would never make such a mistake. What you are proposing is not only preposterous, but preposterous to a freshman physics student.
"In specific to the lensing of light around the sun, see Professor Poor's assessment in the following article: Is Einstein Wrong? The Errors of Einstein (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2626)"
One example about this link is the lack of consistency with metric definitions. The author posits multiple amendments to relativistic kinematics, and many of them result in distances which have a negative or zero length! This is not even in the ballpark of science. It is hackwork that anyone who has taken even a semester or two of physics can identify.
Charles Lane Poor was a professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University and held a PhD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor). What makes you think that he never took a semester of physics?
Moreover, there have been dozens of observations which support the bending of light. These all accord with Einstein's calculations. The entire field of modern astronomy relies upon it!
You were lied to. Einstein specifically lost the Nobel Prize for Relativity because his theories were NOT successful.
See these articles:
No doubt: Einstein’s General Theory Of Relativity Was Wrong (https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-evidence-albert-einstein-s-general-relativity-theory-was-wrong-90e9904351e0)
Astronomical Data of 1919 -1973 Eclipse Prove Einstein’s Prediction Doesn’t Work (https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/eclipses-data-of-1919-1973-verify-einstein-s-prediction-really-doesn-t-work-913c345a5e17)
Oh dear, you are quite mistaken. Einstein was never a contender for the Nobel Prize for relativity. This is a sophomoric belief. We correct this misunderstanding of history in freshman physics classes. Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to Quantum Mechanics, believe it or not.
"Per the Cavendish Experiment, that experiment does not properly account for the electrostatic force, which is much stronger than the alleged force of "gravity". Read: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html"
Well sure it does! The objects are electrically neutral. Hence, the electrostatic force is MUCH smaller than the gravitational force....it is zero.
That is false. Read the material that I linked.
Mach in fact uses the most conventional cosmology at the time: Minkowski geometry. It was not called that then, of course, but that is what he was using. Thomas, you see...I teach Mach's work at the college level. I am sure you don't believe that, but it is easy for me to prove: Mach's developments never divorce from dimensional analysis.
Dimensional analysis is not an issue of Newton or Einstein. It is an issue of units. One cannot add 5 seconds to 3 meters and get an answer that makes sense. This is just fundamentally wrong. Mach would never make such a mistake. What you are proposing is not only preposterous, but preposterous to a freshman physics student.
Oh dear, you are quite mistaken. Einstein was never a contender for the Nobel Prize for relativity. This is a sophomoric belief. We correct this misunderstanding of history in freshman physics classes. Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to Quantum Mechanics, believe it or not.
No, it is not false. The material you have linked does not demonstrate in any way, shape, or form that the Coulomb force is operative. Look, the Coulomb force is an easy sum. You just add the charges up. This link does nothing of the sort. Look at the actual equations in the link! Nothing shows that Coulomb is greater than gravity! No equation in this link even compares the two! You are being duped!
I cannot believe you do not see this!
-
You were lied to. Einstein specifically lost the Nobel Prize for Relativity because his theories were NOT successful.
This statement is sort of bending the argument to your will. If anything, as the Nobel committee stated with their caveat to Einstein's Nobel award, "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future". In other words, the committee felt relativity was untested at the time. NOT that his theories were unsuccessful.
See these articles:
No doubt: Einstein’s General Theory Of Relativity Was Wrong (https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-evidence-albert-einstein-s-general-relativity-theory-was-wrong-90e9904351e0)
Astronomical Data of 1919 -1973 Eclipse Prove Einstein’s Prediction Doesn’t Work (https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/eclipses-data-of-1919-1973-verify-einstein-s-prediction-really-doesn-t-work-913c345a5e17)
As well, this author seems to be pretty liberal with the facts and is full of conjecture and is definitely not a physicist.
This regarding the 1919 Eclipse experiment as well as subsequent experiments further cementing Einstein was correct and actually, his theories quite successful - From the APS:
"Not everyone immediately accepted the results. Some astronomers accused Eddington of manipulating his data because he threw out values obtained from the Brazilian team’s warped telescopes, which gave results closer to the Newtonian value. Others questioned whether his images were of sufficient quality to make a definitive conclusion. Astronomers at Lick Observatory in California repeated the measurement during the 1922 eclipse, and got similar results, as did the teams who made measurements during the solar eclipses of 1953 and 1973. Each new result was better than the last. By the 1960s, most physicists accepted that Einstein’s prediction of how much light would be deflected was the correct one.”
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201605/physicshistory.cfm
-
Mach in fact uses the most conventional cosmology at the time: Minkowski geometry. It was not called that then, of course, but that is what he was using. Thomas, you see...I teach Mach's work at the college level. I am sure you don't believe that, but it is easy for me to prove: Mach's developments never divorce from dimensional analysis.
Dimensional analysis is not an issue of Newton or Einstein. It is an issue of units. One cannot add 5 seconds to 3 meters and get an answer that makes sense. This is just fundamentally wrong. Mach would never make such a mistake. What you are proposing is not only preposterous, but preposterous to a freshman physics student.
Sergey N. Arteha is hardly a freshman physics student. Take a look at his biography. (https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Sergey_N_Arteha)
Oh dear, you are quite mistaken. Einstein was never a contender for the Nobel Prize for relativity. This is a sophomoric belief. We correct this misunderstanding of history in freshman physics classes. Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to Quantum Mechanics, believe it or not.
Here is an article:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/oct/08/einstein-nobel-prize-relativity
Why Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity
Nobel prizes often attract controversy, but usually after they have been awarded. Albert Einstein's physics prize was the subject of argument for years before it was even a reality
...
By this time, Einstein had a decade's worth of Nobel nominations behind him. Yet each year, to mounting criticism, the committee decided against his work on the grounds that relativity was unproven. In 1919, that changed. Cambridge astrophysicist Arthur Eddington famously used a total eclipse to measure the deflection of stars' positions near the Sun. The size of the deflection was exactly as Einstein had predicted from relativity in 1915. The prize should have been his, but the committee snubbed him again.
Why? Because now dark forces were at work.
...
It has been argued that this work, which introduced the concept of photons, has had more impact than relativity. I'm not sure. With relativity, Einstein gave us a way to understand the Universe as a whole. It was a staggering leap forward in our intellectual capability.
The Nobel citation reads that Einstein is honoured for "services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". At first glance, the reference to theoretical physics could have been a back door through which the committee acknowledged relativity. However, there was a caveat stating that the award was presented "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future".
To many, and to Einstein himself, this felt like a slap in the face.
Einstein was set to receive a Nobel Prize for Relativity, but he didn't. They didn't give it to him. In fact, when they gave him any recognition, they specifically spelled out that they were not doing so for his work on relativity. Slap in the face, indeed.
This particular author thinks that Einstein deserved the prize because he was right and wah wah. In the last two articles on Medium we read that his bending starlight predictions were NOT correct. The Eddington result was pretty questionable and Einstein's theory was observed to be false on several other occasions.
From Medium:
In the month of May 1919 the weather in Principe was not favourable because it was cloudy, and so was the time before the eclipse. However, Eddington succeeded in taking the photo of the solar eclipse taking place for 6 minutes 30 seconds. And the calculation output on light deviation by Arthur Eddington was 1.62 seconds of an arc, close to the Einstein’s calculation output of 1.75 seconds of an arc.
It is really hard to understand that the proving method was conducted by a team led by Arthur Eddington. Therefore, output of the said proving performed by Arthur Eddington must be rejected.
Moreover later on it was found out that based on the data from RAS (Royal Astronomical Society) that in the year 1919 RAS had sent two teams of expedition, namely Arthur Eddington and Edwin Cottingham to Principe Island in West of Africa, Andrew Crommelin and Charles Davidson to Sobral in North East of Brazil.
Calculation output of Arthur Eddington’s team was 1.62 seconds of an arc, while the calculation output of Andrew Crommelin was 0.93 seconds of an arc. This very vivid difference was ignored as if the expedition team performing the measuring from Sobral never existed.
There is also mention in The Guardian article that Einstein did not receive the prize and that his work was being snubbed due to racism/anti-semitism... which is the official story... Einstein was right but the scientists were jew haters!
Face the facts. If Einstein really had presented an elegant model of the world he would have been given a Nobel Prize for it.
-
In the last two articles on Medium we read that his bending starlight predictions were NOT correct. The Eddington result was pretty questionable and Einstein's theory was observed to be false on several other occasions.
A) Medium is not known for being a scientific journal.
B) The author you reference is a former naval navigator, not a theoretical physicist and none of his 'works' have been peer reviewed.
C) And yes, Eddington's results were questioned by some.
However, unlike what the author makes up in his medium articles, the subsequent eclipse tests, in 1922, 1953 and 1973 each confirmed with greater accuracy Einstein's predictions.
-
The Eddington result was pretty questionable and Einstein's theory was observed to be false on several other occasions.
A) Medium is not known for being a scientific journal.
B) The author you reference is a former naval navigator, not a theoretical physicist and none of his 'works' have been peer reviewed.
C) And yes, Eddington's results were questioned by some.
However, unlike what the author makes up in his medium articles, the subsequent eclipse tests, in 1922, 1953 and 1973 each confirmed with greater accuracy Einstein's predictions.
Not only was it questionable, Eddington was also accused of throwing out data entirely.
That's right, the author is a naval professional. That makes him qualified to show how the eclipse data is fallacious. He speaks about deflection of light when measuring the sun in his article Astronomical Data of 1919 -1973 Eclipse Prove Einstein’s Prediction Doesn’t Work (https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/eclipses-data-of-1919-1973-verify-einstein-s-prediction-really-doesn-t-work-913c345a5e17)
Einstein calculated the degree of deflection that should be observed and predicted that for the stars closest to the Sun the deviation would be about 1.75 sec. arc. The important things to be noted, the amount of 1.75 sec.arc without mentioning the altitude of the Sun as the object of observation. This is a fatal mistake; or something like a joke; because the deviation of starlight will always vary depending on the altitude of the object of observation from the sea level.
Sounds like something a naval navigator experienced with measuring the sun and the stars would say. The author goes on to provide several sources for that assertion, with data showing where the sun was in the sky on that day and how much deflection should be seen.
One need only casually peak into the mess that is going on with "dark matter" and the "dark energy" which needs to hold most of the universe together to see that Einstein's theories don't really explain anything. We don't have an elegant model of the universe. Gravity, whether by Newton or Einstein, doesn't even work.
Look no further than the rotation of galaxies. Astronomers can't even use GR to explain very simple things like the spinning movement of galaxies. Galaxies are observed to spin as if they were solid disks, but according to theory, the center of the galaxy should be spinning much faster than the edges. In order to explain the rotation of galaxies they need the entire galaxy filled with some kind of substance which holds the stars strongly together.
See http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml
According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below).
From https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/ we read:
For decades, astronomers have noticed that the behavior of galaxies and galaxy clusters doesn’t seem to fit the predictions of general relativity. Dark matter is one way to explain that behavior. Likewise, the accelerating expansion of the universe can be thought of as being powered by a dark energy.
All attempts to directly detect dark matter and dark energy have failed, however. That fact “kind of leaves a bad taste in some people’s mouths, almost like the fictional planet Vulcan,” said Leo Stein, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology. “Maybe we’re going about it all wrong?”
For any alternative theory of gravity to work, it has to not only do away with dark matter and dark energy, but also reproduce the predictions of general relativity in all the standard contexts. “The business of alternative gravity theories is a messy one,” Archibald said. Some would-be replacements for general relativity, like string theory and loop quantum gravity, don’t offer testable predictions. Others “make predictions that are spectacularly wrong, so the theorists have to devise some kind of a screening mechanism to hide the wrong prediction on scales we can actually test,” she said.
Astronomers search for an alternative, because General Relativity can't explain basic movement and behavior of the universe. It is a failure.
-
Tom. I seriously can’t believe you referenced this dude to refute the Cavendish Experiment
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
I see that that’s also where you got the pi = 4 nonsense from.
-
Tom. I seriously can’t believe you referenced this dude to refute the Cavendish Experiment
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
I see that that’s also where you got the pi = 4 nonsense from.
That's a humor website. What are the credentials of those people who call his work "comical attempts"?
Pi not equaling its traditional value is entirely valid. Pi is a concept that depends on the existence of perfect circles. If the circle is not perfect, and if space is "quantized" (divisible by discrete units) rather than continuous then the distance around all of the little pixelized elements is much longer. Who proved that mathematically perfect circles exist?
Are you going to prove the existence of perfect circles in this thread? I don't think that you will.
If you are not going to actually address arguments and instead resort to attempted attacks on character, then you should not bother to debate. Why should I address your arguments? What are your credentials to say that General Relativity and gravity as it exists in the mainstream is correct, in contradiction to the physicists and professors who say that it is not correct?
-
Astronomers search for an alternative, because General Relativity can't explain basic movement and behavior of the universe. It is a failure.
Here's a recent non-failure:
Gravitational Starlight Deflection Measurements during the 21 August 2017 Total Solar Eclipse
Abstract:
The final result was a deflection coefficient L = 1.752 arcsec, compared to the theoretical value of L = 1.751 arcsec, with an uncertainty of only 3%."
"Corrections for atmospheric refraction were still needed, but those were easily calculated from local weather measurements. Hence, this particular trial had fewer obstacles to reach high accuracy.”
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1802/1802.00343.pdf
-
Astronomers search for an alternative, because General Relativity can't explain basic movement and behavior of the universe. It is a failure.
Here's a recent non-failure:
Gravitational Starlight Deflection Measurements during the 21 August 2017 Total Solar Eclipse
Abstract:
The final result was a deflection coefficient L = 1.752 arcsec, compared to the theoretical value of L = 1.751 arcsec, with an uncertainty of only 3%."
"Corrections for atmospheric refraction were still needed, but those were easily calculated from local weather measurements. Hence, this particular trial had fewer obstacles to reach high accuracy.”
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1802/1802.00343.pdf
The author freely uses statistical terms such as "mean deflections," etc. It is very easy to lie with statistics. These guys don't get paid by saying that modern science is wrong. That causes you to not be funded. Professor Charles Lane Poor says that other phenomenon unrelated to space-time bending would create similar effects as the "bending" of light. You can see a list of his articles here: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/545/Charles%20Lane,%20Poor -- most of those are critiques of the supposed bending of light.
The bending of light was known before Einstein. It is not some new discovery. He made this specific theory and predicted that starlight would bend to a certain number (numbers that some suspect were likely already known). Unfortunately, not only do different people report different results to that experiment, with some telling us that the phenomenon has nothing to do with bending space-time at all, Einstein's theory is not even championed in popular myth to predict much else.
Just listen to the logic you are proposing. You are asserting that Einstein can predict the starlight deflection, but by focusing on that you also implicitly admit that he cannot predict anything else in the universe, the universe needing to be filled with dark matter and dark energy to fill in any and all gaps.
Wow, starlight "bending." Amazing! Einstein proofed victori!
What a weak argument. Throw it away and start over. The physics of the universe isn't about the deflection of starlight around the sun.
-
The author freely uses statistical terms in his work. Terms such as "mean deflections," etc. It is very easy to lie with statistics. These guys don't get paid by saying that modern science is wrong. That causes you to not be funded.
Who are you to assume what the author's motivations are? And just about everything can be manipulated, doesn't mean that it is. What kind of an argument is that?
Just listen to the logic you are proposing. You are asserting that Einstein can predict the starlight deflection, but cannot literally predict anything else in the universe, the universe needing to be filled with dark matter and dark energy to fill in any and all gaps.
I never made that assertion. I'm asserting that Einstein made the starlight deflection prediction and 100 years later, it still holds, period. You brought up dark matter and such, I never mentioned that.
What a weak argument. Throw it away and start over. The physics of the universe isn't about the deflection of starlight around the sun.
Ummm, you brought up the whole "deflection of starlight" issue to begin with. And no one was talking about the entirety of the physical universe.
That's a humor website. What are the credentials of those people who call his work "comical attempts"?
Yeah, you cited this guy, definitely a gentleman and a scholar. Good job.
Just a smattering of his excellent investigative work (Check out the rest here: http://mileswmathis.com/bestfake.html):
NEW PAPER, added 8/20/16, The Lizzie Borden Axe Murders Never Happened. Another major hoax from Massachusetts.
NEW PAPER, added 7/19/16, The Society of Friends looks like another Jewish Front. We look at George Fox, founder of the Quakers.
NEW PAPER, added 5/5/16, The French Revolution. A backwards continuation of my Napoleon paper, with more appearances of the House of Vasa. Also some news about Louis XVI.
NEW PAPER, added 4/18/16, Was Napoleon Jewish? Plus many other things that will shock and confound you, including more on Laplace.
NEW PAPER, added 1/8/16, Steve Jobs: Bold, Brilliant, Brutal. . . Fake. We find that everyone involved in the Apple project is not who you were told.
NEW PAPER, added 11/19/17, Bill Gates: Jewish Aristocrat. Where we link Gates to everyone else you have ever heard of, and show Microsoft is one more front of the MATRIX.
-
The author freely uses statistical terms in his work. Terms such as "mean deflections," etc. It is very easy to lie with statistics. These guys don't get paid by saying that modern science is wrong. That causes you to not be funded.
Who are you to assume what the author's motivations are? And just about everything can be manipulated, doesn't mean that it is. What kind of an argument is that?
Just listen to the logic you are proposing. You are asserting that Einstein can predict the starlight deflection, but cannot literally predict anything else in the universe, the universe needing to be filled with dark matter and dark energy to fill in any and all gaps.
I never made that assertion. I'm asserting that Einstein made the starlight deflection prediction and 100 years later, it still holds, period. You brought up dark matter and such, I never mentioned that.
What a weak argument. Throw it away and start over. The physics of the universe isn't about the deflection of starlight around the sun.
Ummm, you brought up the whole "deflection of starlight" issue to begin with. And no one was talking about the entirety of the physical universe.
People are tying to prove that "Einstein was right all along!!" because there is considerable doubt that he was right.
Einstein himself gave this bending light test as a test of his theory. The deflection of starlight was known before Einstein. He gave a number for what he thought it would be. Since this phenomenon was known before Einstein, what was stopping him from cheating by peaking at the answer when designing his theory?
It also seems that Einstein has been changing his answers:
From the book The Universe at Midnight: Observations Illuminating the Cosmos by Ken Crosswell we read (https://books.google.com/books?id=41XBXCJrPVwC&lpg=PA163&ots=KhOJz0Jfuq&dq=solar%20eclipse%20light%20bending%20%22long%20before%20einstein%22&pg=PA163#v=onepage&q&f=false):
(https://i.imgur.com/ILnRcId.png)
Considering that this phenomenon has been known in the past, before Einstein was even born, and Einstein went around changing his predictions, how can we trust this at all?
Ken Crosswell has a PhD in Astronomy from Harvard University. Wikipedia page for the author. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Croswell)
So yes, we should expect more than this. Einstein's theory should explain the universe if we are to accept it as the model for the universe.
Yeah, you cited this guy, definitely a gentleman and a scholar. Good job.
Just a smattering of his excellent investigative work (Check out the rest here: http://mileswmathis.com/bestfake.html):
NEW PAPER, added 8/20/16, The Lizzie Borden Axe Murders Never Happened. Another major hoax from Massachusetts.
NEW PAPER, added 7/19/16, The Society of Friends looks like another Jewish Front. We look at George Fox, founder of the Quakers.
NEW PAPER, added 5/5/16, The French Revolution. A backwards continuation of my Napoleon paper, with more appearances of the House of Vasa. Also some news about Louis XVI.
NEW PAPER, added 4/18/16, Was Napoleon Jewish? Plus many other things that will shock and confound you, including more on Laplace.
NEW PAPER, added 1/8/16, Steve Jobs: Bold, Brilliant, Brutal. . . Fake. We find that everyone involved in the Apple project is not who you were told.
NEW PAPER, added 11/19/17, Bill Gates: Jewish Aristocrat. Where we link Gates to everyone else you have ever heard of, and show Microsoft is one more front of the MATRIX.
It's not false that a lot of people in power were historically Jewish. What this implies is up to interpretation. And an axe murder that happened in the 1800's being false? There have been a lot of falsities about axe murderers going around in popular myth. Have you even looked at his claims to make a valid critique?
All of that is off topic, and fallacious reasoning without proper vetting of the work.
We were looking at one of his Sandy Hook School Shooting Hoax articles on this forum, and the only thing he was really asserting is that the media was preparing the parents with statements because they wanted a certain media narrative rather than those parents giving their honest opinions. The article wasn't actually that radical, or even unreasonable. This is why you need to actually address and assess the subject matter before making rash decisions.
-
One need only casually peak into the mess that is going on with "dark matter" and the "dark energy" which needs to hold most of the universe together to see that Einstein's theories don't really explain anything. We don't have an elegant model of the universe. Gravity, whether by Newton or Einstein, doesn't even work.
Look no further than the rotation of galaxies. Astronomers can't even use GR to explain very simple things like the spinning movement of galaxies. Galaxies are observed to spin as if they were solid disks, but according to theory, the center of the galaxy should be spinning much faster than the edges. In order to explain the rotation of galaxies they need the entire galaxy filled with some kind of substance which holds the stars strongly together.
We (RE) don't have an elegant model of the universe. You (FE) don't have a model of the universe at all.
You talk about galaxies as if they are simple? Think of the shear enormity of the issue, we don't fully understand something at that scale. Can the flat earth give even a single mathematical prediction for any observation?
Tom, I think you should leave discussions about astrophysics to the adults. The galaxies we don't understand are just 'lights in the sky' to you. Can you explain or predict anything about them with your flat earth nonsense?
-
One need only casually peak into the mess that is going on with "dark matter" and the "dark energy" which needs to hold most of the universe together to see that Einstein's theories don't really explain anything. We don't have an elegant model of the universe. Gravity, whether by Newton or Einstein, doesn't even work.
Look no further than the rotation of galaxies. Astronomers can't even use GR to explain very simple things like the spinning movement of galaxies. Galaxies are observed to spin as if they were solid disks, but according to theory, the center of the galaxy should be spinning much faster than the edges. In order to explain the rotation of galaxies they need the entire galaxy filled with some kind of substance which holds the stars strongly together.
We (RE) don't have an elegant model of the universe. You (FE) don't have a model of the universe at all.
You talk about galaxies as if they are simple? Think of the shear enormity of the issue, we don't fully understand something at that scale. Can the flat earth give even a single mathematical prediction for any observation?
Tom, I think you should leave discussions about astrophysics to the adults. The galaxies we don't understand are just 'lights in the sky' to you. Can you explain or predict anything about them with your flat earth nonsense?
You (RE) do not have any model of the universe. There is literally nothing that can be predicted using the Round Earth model. The public is educated to be ignorant to astronomy by design. The standard models are not actually based on heliocentric theory at all. The Ancient Babylonians, a Flat Earth civilization, came up with the pattern-based method that is still used to find the timing of the eclipse today, for example.
Astronomy, is, and always has been, based on patterns in the sky. They are still in the stone age, and it is quite pathetic.
Astronomy is based on patterns in the sky:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_(astronomy)
Special Perturbations
In methods of special perturbations, numerical datasets, representing values for the positions, velocities and accelerative forces on the bodies of interest, are made the basis of numerical integration of the differential equations of motion.[6] In effect, the positions and velocities are perturbed directly, and no attempt is made to calculate the curves of the orbits or the orbital elements.[2] Special perturbations can be applied to any problem in celestial mechanics, as it is not limited to cases where the perturbing forces are small.[4] Once applied only to comets and minor planets, special perturbation methods are now the basis of the most accurate machine-generated planetary ephemerides of the great astronomical almanacs.[2][7] Special perturbations are also used for modeling an orbit with computers.
Thomas Winship provides the following—
"Sir Richard Phillips in his Million Facts, says, 'Nothing therefore can be more impertinent than the assertion of modern writers that the accuracy of astronomical predictions arises from any modern theory. Astronomy is strictly a science of observation, and far more indebted to the false theory of Astrology, than to the equally false and fanciful theory of any modern.
We find that four or five thousand years ago, the mean motion of the Sun, Moon and Planets were known to a second, just as at present, and the moon's nodes, the latitudes of the planets, &c., were all adopted by Astrologers in preparing horoscopes for any time past or present. Ephemerides of the planet's places, of eclipses, &c., have been published for above 600 years, and were at first nearly as precise as at present.'"
Pattern-based prediction methods can predict the elements of the eclipses. Read the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter in Earth Not a Globe. A method is shown: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm
From the book Galileo Was Wrong (p 58 - 61) (https://archive.org/stream/GallileoWasWrong/Gallileo%20was%20wrong#page/n69/search/flat+earth) we read the following:
As Imre Lakatos admits:
"The superior simplicity of the Copernican theory was just as much of a myth as its superior accuracy. The myth of superior simplicity was dispelled by the careful and professional work of modern historians. They reminded us that while Copernican theory solves certain problems in a simpler way than does the Ptolemaic one, the price of the simplification is unexpected complications in the solution of other problems. The Copernican system is certainly simpler since it dispenses with equants and some eccentrics; but each equant and eccentric removed has to be replaced by new epicycles and epicyclets...he also has to put th e center of the universe not at the Sun, as he originally intended, but at an empty point fairly near to it....I think it is fair to say that the ‘simplicity balance’ between Ptolemy’s and Copernicus’ system is roughly even. 125"
In fact, considering how mathematically complex the motions of the celestial bodies really are (e.g., the complex motions of the sun and moon cited earlier; Newton’s “three-body” problem and the “perturbations” of the planets, all requiring the use of complex differential and integral calculus to chart their motions), no cosmological system should base its appeal on the simplicity of its system, for in the case of celestial motion, modern science has actually found that if the solution is too simple it is probably wrong, for it means that it isn’t taking everything into account.
Even more revealing is the fact that, as modern science prides itself on having dispensed with Ptolemy’s epicycles, conceptually speaking they are still very much in use, although they are labeled with different names in order to conceal their identity.
Charles Lane Poor revealed this secret back in the 1920s:
The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations”.... In calculating the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name is may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions."
In essence, Poor tells us that the introduction of the Fourier series, invented by Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (d. 1830), takes the veil off the Copernican system and re-establishes geocentrism to its rightful place. The Fourier series plainly shows that any cosmological system can be demonstrated within reasonable accuracy simply by introducing the proper amount of cyclical modulations (or “circular arguments,” if you will, including, as we will see, the “curved space” of General Relativity). In other words, one can create any mathematical system and then “curve-fit” any deviations or discrepancies back into the system. In the end, Fourier inadvertently exposed the shaky foundations of modern cosmology by showing that there is simply no possibility of being certain about the coordinates of any rotating system, since the math and geometry can be manipulated to fit the observations. In fact, based on Fourier analysis one could design a universe that is constructed from the foundation of a flat Earth (as we see in a two-dimensional map) and make it mathematically indistinguishable from one based on a spherical Earth. Math works wonders, but it doesn’t provide us with the knowledge of how the actual physical system work. As Poor notes:
"No more did Hipparchus believe that the bodies of the solar system were actually attached to the radial arms of his epicycles; his was a mere mathematical, or graphical device for representing irregular, complicated motions. While the graphical, or mechanical method is limited to a few terms, the trigonometrical, or analytical method is unlimited. It is possible to pile epicycle upon epicycle, the number being limited only by the patience of the mathematician and computer. The expressions for the disturbing action of one planet upon another, due the attraction of gravitation, involve an unlimited number of such terms; or, as the mathematician puts it, the series is infinite."
Koestler adds:
"The Copernican system is not a discovery...but a last attempt to patch up an out-dated machinery by reversing the arrangement of its wheels. As a modern historian put it, the fact that the Earth moves is “almost an incidental matter in the system of Copernicus which, viewed geometrically, is just the old Ptolemaic pattern of the skies, with one or two wheels interchanged and one or two of them taken out.”
-
Pattern based eclipse prediction is only accurate if you use a globe-Earth. Weird coincidence. Surely Tom has a good explanation for that.
-
Pattern based eclipse prediction is only accurate if you use a globe-Earth. Weird coincidence. Surely Tom has a good explanation for that.
Pattern based eclipse prediction only says that if you look at a table of historic eclipse predictions, that the timing of the eclipse will eventually repeat. That will allow you to predict a future event. The Ancient Babylonians, a flat earth civilization, originated the eclipse timing concept of the Saros Cycle.
It is possible to look at such patterns and create algorithms from them, and that is the entire basis of astronomy. It has nothing to do with the shape of the earth or kind of solar system.
NASA freely admits that they use ancient cycle charts for their eclipse predictions. The Saros Cycle and those cobby old ancient methods which simply look at past patterns in the sky to predict the next one is precisely how "modern theorists" predict the lunar eclipse today.
Video: http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/5fdaffdc-ba0f-45a2-b895-4026b6a5951f
-
Pattern based eclipse prediction is only accurate if you use a globe-Earth. Weird coincidence. Surely Tom has a good explanation for that.
Pattern based eclipse prediction only says that if you look at a table of historic eclipse predictions, that the timing of the eclipse will eventually repeat. That will allow you to predict a future event. The Ancient Babylonians, a flat earth civilization, originated the eclipse timing concept of the Saros Cycle.
It is possible to look at such patterns and create algorithms from them, and that is the entire basis of astronomy. It has nothing to do with the shape of the earth or kind of solar system.
NASA freely admits that they use ancient cycle charts for their eclipse predictions. The Saros Cycle and those cobby old ancient methods which simply look at past patterns in the sky to predict the next one is precisely how "modern theorists" predict the lunar eclipse today.
Video: http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/5fdaffdc-ba0f-45a2-b895-4026b6a5951f
And they also admit that they apply geometric transformation to Saros cycle coordinate predictions so that they can find eclipse times (full, partial or otherwise) for any coordinate on Earth. That’s how they can predict the best viewing spots to be in remote places and be right.
-
Pattern based eclipse prediction is only accurate if you use a globe-Earth. Weird coincidence. Surely Tom has a good explanation for that.
Pattern based eclipse prediction only says that if you look at a table of historic eclipse predictions, that the timing of the eclipse will eventually repeat. That will allow you to predict a future event. The Ancient Babylonians, a flat earth civilization, originated the eclipse timing concept of the Saros Cycle.
It is possible to look at such patterns and create algorithms from them, and that is the entire basis of astronomy. It has nothing to do with the shape of the earth or kind of solar system.
NASA freely admits that they use ancient cycle charts for their eclipse predictions. The Saros Cycle and those cobby old ancient methods which simply look at past patterns in the sky to predict the next one is precisely how "modern theorists" predict the lunar eclipse today.
Video: http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/5fdaffdc-ba0f-45a2-b895-4026b6a5951f
And they also admit that they apply geometric transformation to Saros cycle coordinate predictions so that they can find eclipse times (full, partial or otherwise) for any coordinate on Earth. That’s how they can predict the best viewing spots to be in remote places and be right.
The Saros Cycle will tell you the timing of the lunar eclipse. If you want to know whether the moon is in the sky at the time you would need to use one of the Moon calculators. During a Lunar Eclipse anyone who has the moon in their sky can see it. You just need to figure out if the moon is going to be in your sky.
There are also algorithms for predicting the position of the moon. We have only briefly looked at the moon calculators, but we have looked somewhat at the NOAA Solar Calculator:
https://wiki.tfes.org/NOAA_Solar_Calculator
Feel free to download the worksheet and look at the equations. There is nothing specifically "round earth" in them. They appear to be trigonometric/polynomial relationship equations.
You put in your latitude and get the sunrise and sunset times and such related information, but can we really say that a function cannot be created that relates your latitude to a sunrise time or the time the sun is in the sky over the year based on previous occurrences, wihich off-shifts when the latitude is changed?
You are presuming that all of this must have to do with the Round Earth Theory. At the bottom of the above article we see a demonstration that the data from the NOAA calculators cannot be used to triangulate the position of the sun in the sky. That is, multiple calculator observation data from different parts of the earth show that the sun does not triangulate to be in the same place.
This tells me that it is truly just based on relationships, and not a Round Earth Theory.
-
You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?
(http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/weathertogether.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/08/SE2017Aug21T.png)
-
Tom. I seriously can’t believe you referenced this dude to refute the Cavendish Experiment
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
I see that that’s also where you got the pi = 4 nonsense from.
That's a humor website. What are the credentials of those people who call his work "comical attempts"?
Have you read the things Mathis claims? The man is a nut case of conspiracy.
-
You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?
This is absolutely correct, but Tom will never concede it. Indeed, when NOAA talks about predicting solar eclipse paths, it specifically documents the process of applying coordinate transformations to eclipse predictions so that they are useful for every coordinate on Earth. It's obvious that Tom's objection to astronomy is feeble, but he will never, ever concede a point.
EDIT: According to NASA, they use ephemerides and currently observed locations and velocity of the sun and moon. Plug them into numerical solutions of the 3-body problem and can thusly predict eclipses for 100s of years with a minute accuracy. Literally no mention of Saros cycles, only mentions of the solutions to 3-body problems that Tom ostriches about. Not only are they able to use this process to predict eclipse paths of totality with incredible accuracy, super accurate maps of the earth and moon are used to predict paths within 100m's of accuracy as well so that observers can observe exotic effects that only occur along the edge of the eclipse path. None of this depends on Saros cycles, all of it depends on things Tom claims do not exist.
-
If you are not going to actually address arguments and instead resort to attempted attacks on character, then you should not bother to debate.
I'm not attacking his character, I'm sure he's lovely to his mother.
What I'm questioning is his credentials to weigh in on the Cavendish experiment or any other topic.
What are HIS credentials to do so?
Look at his website and all the crazy things he claims - an example I was looking at early was another one about Stephen Hawking being "replaced" years ago. Is this someone we are supposed to be taking seriously?
You repeatedly do this, Tom. You just cherry pick quotes or articles from anyone who you think backs up your views. Some of those articles you clearly don't understand yourself and this one is from someone who sounds seriously mentally ill.
-
If you are not going to actually address arguments and instead resort to attempted attacks on character, then you should not bother to debate.
I'm not attacking his character, I'm sure he's lovely to his mother.
What I'm questioning is his credentials to weigh in on the Cavendish experiment or any other topic.
What are HIS credentials to do so?
Look at his website and all the crazy things he claims - an example I was looking at early was another one about Stephen Hawking being "replaced" years ago. Is this someone we are supposed to be taking seriously?
You repeatedly do this, Tom. You just cherry pick quotes or articles from anyone who you think backs up your views. Some of those articles you clearly don't understand yourself and this one is from someone who sounds seriously mentally ill.
Let's not forget that he says the Beach Boys and the Beatles were part of the CIA and MI6 respectively. Oh and that John Lennon and Michael Jackson are alive and well.
So yes, I think its safe to attack his credibility.
-
You guys have pretty much roasted Tom Bishop on Relativity and he won’t even directly apply when told that it’s impossible to predict eclipses without globe geometry.
I’m wondering if Tom can weigh in on the Sun’s size and elevation above earth and why it doesn’t increase and decrease in apparent size over the course of the day.
Also explain why can we not bring it back into view if what FE’s think they know about “the law of perspective” is true.
-
It really is the most simple of questions and their inability/unwillingness to answer them that makes me wonder if this is actually Poe’s law at work.
-
You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?
If you can identify the pattern, you can predict anything.
You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?
This is absolutely correct, but Tom will never concede it. Indeed, when NOAA talks about predicting solar eclipse paths, it specifically documents the process of applying coordinate transformations to eclipse predictions so that they are useful for every coordinate on Earth. It's obvious that Tom's objection to astronomy is feeble, but he will never, ever concede a point.
EDIT: According to NASA, they use ephemerides and currently observed locations and velocity of the sun and moon. Plug them into numerical solutions of the 3-body problem and can thusly predict eclipses for 100s of years with a minute accuracy. Literally no mention of Saros cycles, only mentions of the solutions to 3-body problems that Tom ostriches about. Not only are they able to use this process to predict eclipse paths of totality with incredible accuracy, super accurate maps of the earth and moon are used to predict paths within 100m's of accuracy as well so that observers can observe exotic effects that only occur along the edge of the eclipse path. None of this depends on Saros cycles, all of it depends on things Tom claims do not exist.
The 3-Body Problem has never been solved. I disagree with that. The numerical simulations are very limited in what they can do.
If you are not going to actually address arguments and instead resort to attempted attacks on character, then you should not bother to debate.
I'm not attacking his character, I'm sure he's lovely to his mother.
What I'm questioning is his credentials to weigh in on the Cavendish experiment or any other topic.
What are HIS credentials to do so?
Look at his website and all the crazy things he claims - an example I was looking at early was another one about Stephen Hawking being "replaced" years ago. Is this someone we are supposed to be taking seriously?
You repeatedly do this, Tom. You just cherry pick quotes or articles from anyone who you think backs up your views. Some of those articles you clearly don't understand yourself and this one is from someone who sounds seriously mentally ill.
Where have you proven him wrong on anything he has ever said? You have not shown or demonstrated anything. You are committing fallacies by relating one thing with another. I don't really care about whatever water cooler discussions he has.
In fact, I care more about people who make arguments without evidence than Miles Mathis who does try to provide a level of evidence. In his articles he does try and provide some level of evidence. What are you complaining about? You and others tend to go around thinking and claiming things on this website without providing any evidence at all. Due to that, if Miles Mathis were make a post in the Alternative Science board about some kind of topic, I would pay more attention to it than one of your posts.
If you believe that an idea is incorrect, it is your obligation to show that it is incorrect. It is also your responsibility to back up any idea or argument you have with evidence.
Here you are posting on a website where people believe that the earth is flat. Even Mathis has his limits. Mathis won't touch the subject. Why are you more credible than he is?
-
"Sergey N. Arteha is hardly a freshman physics student. Take a look at his biography."
I understand that he is not a freshman physics student. I am simply saying that he argues points which can easily be refuted by freshman physics students. You believe his arguments, and so this indicates, apparently, that you do not understand freshman physics. So why should anyone believe your claims/evaluations regarding physics?
This is not a good position to champion, Thomas. At some point, Sergey fell off the rail and started spouting nonsense. Do not follow if you wish to maintain credibility.
"Here is an article:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/oct/08/einstein-nobel-prize-relativity"
Your article definitely has merit. There is a debate among historians regarding anti-Semitic treatments with Einstein. Nevertheless, I maintain that this article supports my claim: for whatever reason, Einstein was never a contender for the Nobel Prize for relativity. Be it anti-Semiticism or whatever. Part of this may indeed be anti-Semiticism (I would bet), and part of this is history/context. At this time, Quantum Mechanics was an explosive field. Hence, the contribution Einstein made to it was weighted more heavily.
In my opinion, his evidence for Brownian motion was the most exceptional. He demonstrated, using macroscopic data, that atoms exist! This may seem trivial to us today. But let me tell you, it was not trivial then. He basically answered a gigantic long-standing problem almost as an aside comment to other published works that same year. He was a genius, and gave us a rare gift.
I would give anything to experience his thought process for a day or two.
-
"Sergey N. Arteha is hardly a freshman physics student. Take a look at his biography."
I understand that he is not a freshman physics student. I am simply saying that he argues points which can easily be refuted by freshman physics students. You believe his arguments, and so this indicates, apparently, that you do not understand freshman physics. So why should anyone believe your claims/evaluations regarding physics?
This is not a good position to champion, Thomas. At some point, Sergey fell off the rail and started spouting nonsense. Do not follow if you wish to maintain credibility.
You are claiming that a Theoretical Physicist with a PhD and who is Deputy Chief of the Department of the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Science does not understand freshman physics?
-
You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?
This is absolutely correct, but Tom will never concede it. Indeed, when NOAA talks about predicting solar eclipse paths, it specifically documents the process of applying coordinate transformations to eclipse predictions so that they are useful for every coordinate on Earth. It's obvious that Tom's objection to astronomy is feeble, but he will never, ever concede a point.
EDIT: According to NASA, they use ephemerides and currently observed locations and velocity of the sun and moon. Plug them into numerical solutions of the 3-body problem and can thusly predict eclipses for 100s of years with a minute accuracy. Literally no mention of Saros cycles, only mentions of the solutions to 3-body problems that Tom ostriches about. Not only are they able to use this process to predict eclipse paths of totality with incredible accuracy, super accurate maps of the earth and moon are used to predict paths within 100m's of accuracy as well so that observers can observe exotic effects that only occur along the edge of the eclipse path. None of this depends on Saros cycles, all of it depends on things Tom claims do not exist.
The 3-Body problem has never been solved. I disagree with that. The numerical simulations are very limited in what they can do.
At this point your opinion means little. You have been pointed to multiple sources indicating that numerical solutions have been produced and are used, in practice to create, extremely accurate simulations. Nasa cites it as the basis for their eclipse prediction using supercomputers, scientists refer to working solar system simulations that use numerical solutions. All you have pointed out is a paper produced by a high school competition. I post this not for you, but for all the other readers who might consider taking you seriously.
"Sergey N. Arteha is hardly a freshman physics student. Take a look at his biography."
I understand that he is not a freshman physics student. I am simply saying that he argues points which can easily be refuted by freshman physics students. You believe his arguments, and so this indicates, apparently, that you do not understand freshman physics. So why should anyone believe your claims/evaluations regarding physics?
This is not a good position to champion, Thomas. At some point, Sergey fell off the rail and started spouting nonsense. Do not follow if you wish to maintain credibility.
You are claiming that a Theoretical Physicist with a PhD and who is Deputy Chief of the Department of the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Science does not understand freshman physics?
Hey look! Tom attributing a position to someone that they haven't claimed! So dishonest...
-
You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?
This is absolutely correct, but Tom will never concede it. Indeed, when NOAA talks about predicting solar eclipse paths, it specifically documents the process of applying coordinate transformations to eclipse predictions so that they are useful for every coordinate on Earth. It's obvious that Tom's objection to astronomy is feeble, but he will never, ever concede a point.
EDIT: According to NASA, they use ephemerides and currently observed locations and velocity of the sun and moon. Plug them into numerical solutions of the 3-body problem and can thusly predict eclipses for 100s of years with a minute accuracy. Literally no mention of Saros cycles, only mentions of the solutions to 3-body problems that Tom ostriches about. Not only are they able to use this process to predict eclipse paths of totality with incredible accuracy, super accurate maps of the earth and moon are used to predict paths within 100m's of accuracy as well so that observers can observe exotic effects that only occur along the edge of the eclipse path. None of this depends on Saros cycles, all of it depends on things Tom claims do not exist.
The 3-Body problem has never been solved. I disagree with that. The numerical simulations are very limited in what they can do.
At this point your opinion means little. You have been pointed to multiple sources indicating that numerical solutions have been produced and are used, in practice to create, extremely accurate simulations. Nasa cites it as the basis for their eclipse prediction using supercomputers, scientists refer to working solar system simulations that use numerical solutions. All you have pointed out is a paper produced by a high school competition. I post this not for you, but for all the other readers who might consider taking you seriously
Feel free to point out on NASA's Eclipse Website where they are using a Three Body Problem solution, like I demonstrated how they are using the Saros Cycle solution.
Demonstrate rather than assert.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html
-
"Sergey N. Arteha is hardly a freshman physics student. Take a look at his biography."
I understand that he is not a freshman physics student. I am simply saying that he argues points which can easily be refuted by freshman physics students. You believe his arguments, and so this indicates, apparently, that you do not understand freshman physics. So why should anyone believe your claims/evaluations regarding physics?
This is not a good position to champion, Thomas. At some point, Sergey fell off the rail and started spouting nonsense. Do not follow if you wish to maintain credibility.
You are claiming that a Theoretical Physicist with a PhD and who is Deputy Chief of the Department of the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Science does not understand freshman physics?
This is what we call in the business: the fallacy of appeal to authority.
You see, I hold a PhD in physics too, and sustain a rather lucrative position in the US public sector. The RAS defines multiple degrees of membership. Not all of them equal, and not all of them recognized across the globe as reputable. This is Russia we are talking about here. There are no checks and balances, and everyone else besides them knows this.
Thomas, you are slipping.
I do not claim that this person misunderstands freshman physics. Again, I am stating that YOU do not understand it, and he is fooling you with easily disprovable claims.
-
"Sergey N. Arteha is hardly a freshman physics student. Take a look at his biography."
I understand that he is not a freshman physics student. I am simply saying that he argues points which can easily be refuted by freshman physics students. You believe his arguments, and so this indicates, apparently, that you do not understand freshman physics. So why should anyone believe your claims/evaluations regarding physics?
This is not a good position to champion, Thomas. At some point, Sergey fell off the rail and started spouting nonsense. Do not follow if you wish to maintain credibility.
You are claiming that a Theoretical Physicist with a PhD and who is Deputy Chief of the Department of the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Science does not understand freshman physics?
This is what we call in the business: the fallacy of appeal to authority.
You see, I hold a PhD in physics too, and sustain a rather lucrative position in the US public sector. The RAS defines multiple degrees of membership. Not all of them equal, and not all of them recognized across the globe as reputable. This is Russia we are talking about here. There are no checks and balances, and everyone else besides them knows this.
Thomas, you are slipping.
I do not claim that this person misunderstands freshman physics. Again, I am stating that YOU do not understand it, and he is fooling you with easily disprovable claims.
What are you even talking about? You posted one of his sections and accused him of misunderstanding physics, and that even a freshman could see through it. Now you are claiming that he wrote a fake book to fool people?
You are making no sense at all.
-
You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?
This is absolutely correct, but Tom will never concede it. Indeed, when NOAA talks about predicting solar eclipse paths, it specifically documents the process of applying coordinate transformations to eclipse predictions so that they are useful for every coordinate on Earth. It's obvious that Tom's objection to astronomy is feeble, but he will never, ever concede a point.
EDIT: According to NASA, they use ephemerides and currently observed locations and velocity of the sun and moon. Plug them into numerical solutions of the 3-body problem and can thusly predict eclipses for 100s of years with a minute accuracy. Literally no mention of Saros cycles, only mentions of the solutions to 3-body problems that Tom ostriches about. Not only are they able to use this process to predict eclipse paths of totality with incredible accuracy, super accurate maps of the earth and moon are used to predict paths within 100m's of accuracy as well so that observers can observe exotic effects that only occur along the edge of the eclipse path. None of this depends on Saros cycles, all of it depends on things Tom claims do not exist.
The 3-Body problem has never been solved. I disagree with that. The numerical simulations are very limited in what they can do.
At this point your opinion means little. You have been pointed to multiple sources indicating that numerical solutions have been produced and are used, in practice to create, extremely accurate simulations. Nasa cites it as the basis for their eclipse prediction using supercomputers, scientists refer to working solar system simulations that use numerical solutions. All you have pointed out is a paper produced by a high school competition. I post this not for you, but for all the other readers who might consider taking you seriously
Feel free to point out on NASA's Eclipse Website where they are using a Three Body Problem solution, like I demonstrated how they are using the Saros Cycle solution.
Demonstrate rather than assert.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html
The three body problem is indeed not solvable analytically...yet. We may need new mathematics to do so. It may be that we never find this...
Numerically, the three-body problem is trivial. We just make computers do it. They cannot provide a closed-form solution; a perfect mathematical solution. But that is okay, they can render numerical estimates that are demonstrably so close that we would never notice. Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulation)
We are well beyond three-body. We simulate millions of bodies!
-
"Sergey N. Arteha is hardly a freshman physics student. Take a look at his biography."
I understand that he is not a freshman physics student. I am simply saying that he argues points which can easily be refuted by freshman physics students. You believe his arguments, and so this indicates, apparently, that you do not understand freshman physics. So why should anyone believe your claims/evaluations regarding physics?
This is not a good position to champion, Thomas. At some point, Sergey fell off the rail and started spouting nonsense. Do not follow if you wish to maintain credibility.
You are claiming that a Theoretical Physicist with a PhD and who is Deputy Chief of the Department of the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Science does not understand freshman physics?
This is what we call in the business: the fallacy of appeal to authority.
You see, I hold a PhD in physics too, and sustain a rather lucrative position in the US public sector. The RAS defines multiple degrees of membership. Not all of them equal, and not all of them recognized across the globe as reputable. This is Russia we are talking about here. There are no checks and balances, and everyone else besides them knows this.
Thomas, you are slipping.
I do not claim that this person misunderstands freshman physics. Again, I am stating that YOU do not understand it, and he is fooling you with easily disprovable claims.
What are you even talking about? You posted one of his sections and accused him of misunderstanding physics, and that even a freshman could see through it. Now you are claiming that he wrote a fake book to fool people?
You are making no sense at all.
I am not claiming this at all. I am simply saying that multiple formulae he presents are not even dimensionally justified. I have no idea why he would do this...it is not an evaluation of motive. It is an evaluation of basic physics. One cannot add 3 seconds to 5 meters and get a consistent result. Do you understand this example? Can you apply it to formulae he proposes?
How can you not see this?
I am shocked.
-
It really is the most simple of questions and their inability/unwillingness to answer them that makes me wonder if this is actually Poe’s law at work.
If you whine to whine about FE, there is a forum for that. Keep it out of the FE fora. Warned.
-
This is not a good position to champion, Thomas.
I specifically asked you to stop doing this (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10548.msg164338#msg164338) after you got back from your previous ban. You are free to be a condescending douche in AR/CN, but keep it out of the upper fora. Since we are on ban #3, you can have a month off to review the rules. I will also be banning your alt permanently.
-
I guess this is more directed to Rama Set, or whomever, now:
The three body problem is indeed not solvable analytically...yet. We may need new mathematics to do so. It may be that we never find this...
Numerically, the three-body problem is trivial. We just make computers do it. They cannot provide a closed-form solution; a perfect mathematical solution. But that is okay, they can render numerical estimates that are demonstrably so close that we would never notice. Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulation)
We are well beyond three-body. We simulate millions of bodies!
Three Body simulations cannot do anything you want them to do. They must still obey the laws of the system. Poincare pointed out that they are very sensitive and limited.
From 'Mathematics Applied to Deterministic Problems in Natural Sciences' we read an account of Poincare's discoveries:
As Poincare experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial 2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.
Look into George Hill's work on the Three Body Problem and heliocentric orbits. When you add in a third mass to a two body system, it just goes crazy as the system attempts to kick out the smallest body, often tearing apart the system or destroying it in the process. The only way Hill was able to make any progress at all was by using the Restricted Three Body Problem. The Restricted Three Body Problem assumes that the mass of the moon is zero, and even then, the mass-less moon still goes crazy in its orbits around the earth. The only benefit of the Restricted Three Body Problem and the Mass-less moon is that the moon is no longer ejected from the system. It is confined to what is known as "Hill's Region".
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem
(https://i.imgur.com/vgnLaWl.gif)
As seen above, even in this scenario the moon will go crazy and do random u-turns. If it were so easy to make the Sun-Earth-Moon system, in the above link we would be reading about a success story rather than an illustration of many problems and difficulties.
Poliastro, an astrodynamics software developer shared several Numerical Restricted Three Body Problem solutions (where the smaller body is assumed to be mass-less) as applied to the Sun-Earth-Moon system.
https://twitter.com/poliastro_py/status/993418078036873216
Look at this beautiful plot of several numerical methods for the restricted three body problem taken from Harier et al. "Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I". The use of high order Runge-Kutta methods is pervasive in Celestial Mechanics. Happy Monday!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DclUYMPXcAEOCUF.jpg)
Does this look anything like the Earth-Moon-Sun system in the heliocentric system?
See this article:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2148074-infamous-three-body-problem-has-over-a-thousand-new-solutions/
Infamous three-body problem has over a thousand new solutions
The new solutions were found when researchers at Shanghai Jiaotong University in China tested 16 million different orbits using a supercomputer.
...
Perhaps the most important application of the three-body problem is in astronomy, for helping researchers figure out how three stars, a star with a planet that has a moon, or any other set of three celestial objects can maintain a stable orbit.
But these new orbits rely on conditions that are somewhere between unlikely and impossible for a real system to satisfy. In all of them, for example, two of the three bodies have exactly the same mass and they all remain in the same plane.
...
Knot-like paths
In addition, the researchers did not test the orbits’ stability. It’s possible that the tiniest disturbance in space or rounding error in the equations could rip the objects away from one another.
“These orbits have nothing to do with astronomy, but you’re solving these equations and you’re getting something beautiful,” says Vanderbei.
Aside from giving us a thousand pretty pictures of knot-like orbital paths, the new three-body solutions also mark a starting point for finding even more possible orbits, and eventually figuring out the whole range of winding paths that three objects can follow around one another.
“This is kind of the zeroth step. Then the question becomes, how is the space of all possible positions and velocities filled up by solutions?” says Richard Montgomery at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “These simple orbits are kind of like a skeleton to build the whole system up from.”
The paths they can make are very limited. They are self admittedly at the "zeroth step."
Here is an N-Body Orbit Gallery, which showcases the limited orbits that can be made, and which must assume that the bodies are of equal mass or mass-less.
http://rectangleworld.com/demos/nBody/
As we can see, the Three Body problem simulations and solutions can't simply "do anything." They have trouble simulating things with more than two bodies.
-
Here is a fun one from the last time we had this thread:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/6/6c/Three_body_sim.png/350px-Three_body_sim.png) (https://cloud.anylogic.com/model/f1999d97-8de2-4804-9940-5ae261d7ad86?mode=SETTINGS&tab=GENERAL)
This is a Three Body Simulator Demo. Change the slider values very slightly and see what happens.
Only very specific and very sensitive configurations may exist. In this case we have three bodies of equal mass in a very specific orbit. The slightest deviation, such as with a system with unequal masses, or the minute influence from a gravitating body external to the system, will cause the entire system to fly apart! It's a demonstration of Chaos Theory. The slightest imperfection causes wide-spread instability and destruction.
This demo illustrates why Poincare said that the stable systems were so sensitive and limited, and why the Three Body Solutions don't really apply to anything in nature.
-
You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?
This is absolutely correct, but Tom will never concede it. Indeed, when NOAA talks about predicting solar eclipse paths, it specifically documents the process of applying coordinate transformations to eclipse predictions so that they are useful for every coordinate on Earth. It's obvious that Tom's objection to astronomy is feeble, but he will never, ever concede a point.
EDIT: According to NASA, they use ephemerides and currently observed locations and velocity of the sun and moon. Plug them into numerical solutions of the 3-body problem and can thusly predict eclipses for 100s of years with a minute accuracy. Literally no mention of Saros cycles, only mentions of the solutions to 3-body problems that Tom ostriches about. Not only are they able to use this process to predict eclipse paths of totality with incredible accuracy, super accurate maps of the earth and moon are used to predict paths within 100m's of accuracy as well so that observers can observe exotic effects that only occur along the edge of the eclipse path. None of this depends on Saros cycles, all of it depends on things Tom claims do not exist.
The 3-Body problem has never been solved. I disagree with that. The numerical simulations are very limited in what they can do.
At this point your opinion means little. You have been pointed to multiple sources indicating that numerical solutions have been produced and are used, in practice to create, extremely accurate simulations. Nasa cites it as the basis for their eclipse prediction using supercomputers, scientists refer to working solar system simulations that use numerical solutions. All you have pointed out is a paper produced by a high school competition. I post this not for you, but for all the other readers who might consider taking you seriously
Feel free to point out on NASA's Eclipse Website where they are using a Three Body Problem solution, like I demonstrated how they are using the Saros Cycle solution.
Demonstrate rather than assert.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html
https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/how-do-computers-predict-eclipses
Demonstrated. You’ve had it demonstrated before too. Physicists explaining that there are simulations of the solar system that use numerical solutions to n-body problems. It’s astonishing that you fail to acknowledge this. It’s worse that other’s trust your critical mind.
-
You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?
This is absolutely correct, but Tom will never concede it. Indeed, when NOAA talks about predicting solar eclipse paths, it specifically documents the process of applying coordinate transformations to eclipse predictions so that they are useful for every coordinate on Earth. It's obvious that Tom's objection to astronomy is feeble, but he will never, ever concede a point.
EDIT: According to NASA, they use ephemerides and currently observed locations and velocity of the sun and moon. Plug them into numerical solutions of the 3-body problem and can thusly predict eclipses for 100s of years with a minute accuracy. Literally no mention of Saros cycles, only mentions of the solutions to 3-body problems that Tom ostriches about. Not only are they able to use this process to predict eclipse paths of totality with incredible accuracy, super accurate maps of the earth and moon are used to predict paths within 100m's of accuracy as well so that observers can observe exotic effects that only occur along the edge of the eclipse path. None of this depends on Saros cycles, all of it depends on things Tom claims do not exist.
The 3-Body problem has never been solved. I disagree with that. The numerical simulations are very limited in what they can do.
At this point your opinion means little. You have been pointed to multiple sources indicating that numerical solutions have been produced and are used, in practice to create, extremely accurate simulations. Nasa cites it as the basis for their eclipse prediction using supercomputers, scientists refer to working solar system simulations that use numerical solutions. All you have pointed out is a paper produced by a high school competition. I post this not for you, but for all the other readers who might consider taking you seriously
Feel free to point out on NASA's Eclipse Website where they are using a Three Body Problem solution, like I demonstrated how they are using the Saros Cycle solution.
Demonstrate rather than assert.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html
https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/how-do-computers-predict-eclipses
Demonstrated. You’ve had it demonstrated before too. Physicists explaining that there are simulations of the solar system that use numerical solutions to n-body problems. It’s astonishing that you fail to acknowledge this. It’s worse that other’s trust your critical mind.
I believe that is just a paragraph from the FAQ written by who-knows and for what-reason. There are few details.
Look where they redirect people some questions down in that same FAQ when they want to know when the eclipses will occur:
https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/faq
How many times will a total solar eclipse fall on my birthday?
Well…my birthday is November 23. The last total solar eclipse on my birthday was in 2003. The next one is in the year 2337, followed by the years 2356 and 2728, so the intervals are 334 years, 19 years and 372 years. So depending on which part of the cycle you are on, you may either wait about 20 years or about 350 years for the next occurrence! Check out the Five Millennium Canon of Eclipses to find the one nearest your birthday. It is located at https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SEcatalog.html (link is external)
eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov is NASA's main eclipse predicting site.
This website explains that the eclipse prediction methods use are via the Saros Cycle: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html
Count the number of times "Saros" appears. Many times. It's talking explicitly about the Saros cycle, not a computer model of the Three Body Problem.
If such real models exist, and is the method you assume is being used in astronomy, isn't it funny that NASA claims to be using a computer model and then sends people to their eclipse prediction page which goes to great lengths to describe a eclipse prediction method created by an ancient society of people who believed that the earth was flat?
From what I have read, the n-body problem, which was created with a goal of simulating the heliocentric solar system, is the greatest unsolved problem in physics, mathematics, and astronomy. It has has remained unresolved for hundreds of years. The solution would win a Nobel Prize. Perhaps we should lobby NASA to release this wonder to the world.
-
I believe that is just a paragraph from the FAQ written by who-knows and for what-reason. There are few details.
It demonstrates the details you requested. What you believe is irrelevant.
Look where they redirect people some questions down in that FAQ when they want to know when the eclipses will occur:
https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/faq
How many times will a total solar eclipse fall on my birthday?
Well…my birthday is November 23. The last total solar eclipse on my birthday was in 2003. The next one is in the year 2337, followed by the years 2356 and 2728, so the intervals are 334 years, 19 years and 372 years. So depending on which part of the cycle you are on, you may either wait about 20 years or about 350 years for the next occurrence! Check out the Five Millennium Canon of Eclipses to find the one nearest your birthday. It is located at https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SEcatalog.html (link is external)
eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov is NASA's main eclipse predicting site.
Great. So what?
This website explains that the eclipse prediction methods use are via the Saros Cycle: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html
Count the number of times "Saros" appears. Many times. It's talking explicitly about the Saros cycle, not a computer model of the Three Body Problem.
It’s not odd that an article titled “Eclipses and the Saros” mentions the Saros cycle multiple times or that it details the method of determining of determining an eclipse with the Saros cycle.
Furthermore, the article never says that the saros is what is used by NASA. In fact, when you look at their catalog of eclipse predictions you see that it uses VSOP87 for the sun’s coordinates and ELP2000/82 theory for the Moon’s coordinates. One might wonder why this is needed if they were using The Saros and not a computational model?
If such real models exist, and is the method you assume is being used in astronomy, isn't it funny that NASA claims to be using a computer model and then sends people to their eclipse prediction page which goes to great lengths to describe a eclipse prediction method created by an ancient society of people who believe that the earth was flat?
We’ve already seen that you have misrepresented the information on that site. Indeed I’ve demonstrated (not asserted) that they use a computational model to carry out their predictions. The theories are cited in the catalog whereas Saros cycles are not. Unfortunately for you, Astronomy is incredibly substantial and not regurgitation of ancient knowledge.
On the other hand, you regurgitate badly presented 200 year-old pseudoscience on a regular basis. It’s no wonder you feel a closer kinship to Miles Mathis than Albert Einstein.
-
Furthermore, the article never says that the saros is what is used by NASA. In fact, when you look at their catalog of eclipse predictions you see that it uses VSOP87 for the sun’s coordinates and ELP2000/82 theory for the Moon’s coordinates. One might wonder why this is needed if they were using The Saros and not a computational model?
The Saros Cycle just tells you when the Lunar or Solar Eclipse will occur. That is not to say that the sun or the moon will actually be in the sky for you at that time. There is more or less a 50/50 chance.
In order to know if the sun or moon would be visible at that time, you would need to use another model.
During a Lunar Eclipse anyone who can see the moon in their sky will see the eclipse. During the Solar Eclipse, the eclipse is only visible from a smaller strip of land around the sun, and it would also be important to know where the sun is directly over the earth is in order to attempt a map of the strip.
We’ve already seen that you have misrepresented the information on that site. Indeed I’ve demonstrated (not asserted) that they use a computational model to carry out their predictions. The theories are cited in the catalog whereas Saros cycles are not. Unfortunately for you, Astronomy is incredibly substantial and not regurgitation of ancient knowledge.
There are no such similar messages on that eclipse predicting website. See the main page (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html) and resources page (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/resource.html). It only ever talks about the Saros Cycle as the method.
If the Three Body Problem were solved, and if this were the method that was being used, is it not more reasonable that NASA would be talking about how they solved the famous Three Body Problem rather than going on and on on that website about an ancient method that is not in use?
What you are proposing seems a bit absurd. Numerous pages about the Saros Cycle, but not a word about how they are really predicting the eclipse.
-
Back to Cavendish:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/
Gravity, one of the constants of life, not to mention physics, is less than constant when it comes to being measured. Various experiments over the years have come up with perplexingly different values for the strength of the force of gravity, and the latest calculation just adds to the confusion.
The results of a painstaking 10-year experiment to calculate the value of “big G,” the universal gravitational constant, were published this month—and they’re incompatible with the official value of G, which itself comes from a weighted average of various other measurements that are mostly mutually incompatible and diverge by more than 10 times their estimated uncertainties.
The gravitational constant “is one of these things we should know,” says Terry Quinn at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, who led the team behind the latest calculation. “It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is.”
In fact, the discrepancy is such a problem that Quinn is organizing a meeting in February at the Royal Society in London to come up with a game plan for resolving the impasse. The meeting’s title—“The Newtonian constant of gravitation, a constant too difficult to measure?”—reveals the general consternation.
Although gravity seems like one of the most salient of nature’s forces in our daily lives, it’s actually by far the weakest, making attempts to calculate its strength an uphill battle. “Two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with a force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells,” says University of Washington physicist Jens Gundlach, who worked on a separate 2000 measurement of big G. “Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy. There are a many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects, and all of these have to be properly understood and taken into account.”
This inherent difficulty has caused big G to become the only fundamental constant of physics for which the uncertainty of the standard value has risen over time as more and more measurements are made. “Though the measurements are very tough, because G is so much weaker than other laboratory forces, we still, as a community, ought to do better,” says University of Colorado at Boulder physicist James Faller, who conducted a 2010 experiment to calculate big G using pendulums.
...
“Either something is wrong with the experiments, or there is a flaw in our understanding of gravity,” says Mark Kasevich, a Stanford University physicist who conducted an unrelated measurement of big G in 2007 using atom interferometry. “Further work is required to clarify the situation.”
If the true value of big G turns out to be closer to the Quinn team’s measurement than the CODATA value, then calculations that depend on G will have to be revised. For example, the estimated masses of the solar system’s planets, including Earth, would change slightly. Such a revision, however, wouldn’t alter any fundamental laws of physics, and would have very little practical effect on anyone’s life, Quinn says. But getting to the bottom of the issue is more a matter of principle to the scientists. “It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved,” he adds. “We should be able to measure gravity.”
The last sentence implies that they cannot measure gravity or are having a lot of trouble doing so.
-
Furthermore, the article never says that the saros is what is used by NASA. In fact, when you look at their catalog of eclipse predictions you see that it uses VSOP87 for the sun’s coordinates and ELP2000/82 theory for the Moon’s coordinates. One might wonder why this is needed if they were using The Saros and not a computational model?
The Saros Cycle just tells you when the Lunar or Solar eclipse will occur. That is not to say that the sun or the moon will actually be in the sky for you at that time. There is a 50/50 chance.
In order to know when the sun and moon will be visible for whom, you would need to use another model.
So the Saros cycle is insufficient to predict an eclipse with anything approaching the accuracy we see. God we agree.
During a Lunar Eclipse anyone who can see the moon in their sky will see the eclipse. During the Solar Eclipse, the eclipse is only visible from a smaller strip of land around the sun, and it would be important to know where the sun over the earth is in order to attempt a map of the strip.
We’ve already seen that you have misrepresented the information on that site. Indeed I’ve demonstrated (not asserted) that they use a computational model to carry out their predictions. The theories are cited in the catalog whereas Saros cycles are not. Unfortunately for you, Astronomy is incredibly substantial and not regurgitation of ancient knowledge.
There are no such similar messages on that eclipse predicting website. See the main page (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html) and resources page (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/resource.html). It only ever talks about the Saros Cycle as the method.
If the Three Body Problem were solved, and this the method that was being used, is it not more reasonable that NASA would be talking about how they solved the famous Three Body Problem rather than going on on that website about an ancient method that is not in use?
What you are proposing seems a bit absurd. Numerous pages about the Saros Cycle, but not a word about how they are really predicting the eclipse.
I literally showed you a site where NASA said they were using Newtonian Mechanics to make predictions. I also pointed out that predictions were made using two separate computational theories in their catalogues. It is cited in their catalogues. You can keep denying but you look sillier every time.
-
Furthermore, the article never says that the saros is what is used by NASA. In fact, when you look at their catalog of eclipse predictions you see that it uses VSOP87 for the sun’s coordinates and ELP2000/82 theory for the Moon’s coordinates. One might wonder why this is needed if they were using The Saros and not a computational model?
The Saros Cycle just tells you when the Lunar or Solar Eclipse will occur. That is not to say that the sun or the moon will actually be in the sky for you at that time. There is more or less a 50/50 chance.
In order to know if the sun or moon would be visible at that time, you would need to use another model.
During a Lunar Eclipse anyone who can see the moon in their sky will see the eclipse. During the Solar Eclipse, the eclipse is only visible from a smaller strip of land around the sun, and it would also be important to know where the sun is directly over the earth is in order to attempt a map of the strip.
We’ve already seen that you have misrepresented the information on that site. Indeed I’ve demonstrated (not asserted) that they use a computational model to carry out their predictions. The theories are cited in the catalog whereas Saros cycles are not. Unfortunately for you, Astronomy is incredibly substantial and not regurgitation of ancient knowledge.
There are no such similar messages on that eclipse predicting website. See the main page (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html) and resources page (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/resource.html). It only ever talks about the Saros Cycle as the method.
If the Three Body Problem were solved, and if this were the method that was being used, is it not more reasonable that NASA would be talking about how they solved the famous Three Body Problem rather than going on and on on that website about an ancient method that is not in use?
What you are proposing seems a bit absurd. Numerous pages about the Saros Cycle, but not a word about how they are really predicting the eclipse.
Do you just forget the bottom of the page every time? How can I point this out to you literally every time you try and bring this nonsense in, yet you persist in peddling it? Both of those pages have this at the bottom:
"All eclipse calculations are by Fred Espenak, and he assumes full responsibility for their accuracy. Some of the information presented on this web site is based on data originally published in Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035, Fifty Year Canon of Lunar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035, Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 , Five Millennium Catalog of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000, Five Millennium Canon of Lunar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 , and Five Millennium Catalog of Lunar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000.
Permission is freely granted to reproduce this data when accompanied by an acknowledgment:
"Eclipse Predictions by Fred Espenak, NASA/GSFC Emeritus"
For more information, see: NASA Copyright Information."
If we go to the page for Five Millenium Catalog of Solar Eclipses (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SEcatalog.html) we see a bunch of stuff talking about Saros Cycles, followed by the header "Predictions" whereupon it is plainly stated the following:
"The coordinates of the Sun used in these predictions are based on the VSOP87 theory [Bretagnon and Francou, 1988]. The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002).
The largest uncertainty in the eclipse predictions is caused by fluctuations in Earth's rotation due primarily to tidal friction of the Moon. The resultant drift in apparent clock time is expressed as ΔT and is determined as follows:
pre-1950's: ΔT calculated from empirical fits to historical records derived by Morrison and Stephenson (2004)
1955-present: ΔT obtained from published observations
future: ΔT is extrapolated from current values weighted by the long term trend from tidal effects
A series of polynomial expressions have been derived to simplify the evaluation of ΔT for any time from -1999 to +3000. The uncertainty in ΔT over this period can be estimated from scatter in the measurements."
NASA's eclipse predictions are not based upon the Saros cycle. It is simply a handy tool to know approximately when to 'dial in' to look for the next eclipse if you must. Or a neat thing for the layman to know about, as it's more easily understood than the physics and math behind the two primary calculations for where things are.
-
Fred Espenak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Espenak
He was employed at Goddard Space Flight Center, where he used infrared spectrometers to measure the atmosphere of planets in the Solar System.[3] He provided NASA's eclipse bulletins since 1978. He is the author of several canonical works on eclipse predictions, such as the Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986–2035 and Fifty Year Canon of Lunar Eclipses: 1986–2035,[1] both of which are standard references on eclipses.[
His wiki page says that he provided NASA's eclipse bulletins since 1978. The page also says that he is known as "Mr. Eclipse."
http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality3/TotalityApG.html
NASA astronomer Fred Espenak and Canadian meteorologist Jay Anderson publish special NASA bulletins for each major eclipse of the Sun. Produced through NASA's Reference Publication (RP) series, the eclipse bulletins are prepared in cooperation with the Working Group on Eclipses of the International Astronomical Union and are provided as a public service to both the professional and lay communities, including educators and the media. Each eclipse bulletin is a complete reference for a specific eclipse and contains detailed predictions, tables, maps, and weather prospects.
He is providing NASA's eclipse bulletins with his Saros Cycle stuff. It's not coming from some other source.
-
"The coordinates of the Sun used in these predictions are based on the VSOP87 theory [Bretagnon and Francou, 1988]. The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002).
The largest uncertainty in the eclipse predictions is caused by fluctuations in Earth's rotation due primarily to tidal friction of the Moon. The resultant drift in apparent clock time is expressed as ΔT and is determined as follows:
pre-1950's: ΔT calculated from empirical fits to historical records derived by Morrison and Stephenson (2004)
1955-present: ΔT obtained from published observations
future: ΔT is extrapolated from current values weighted by the long term trend from tidal effects
A series of polynomial expressions have been derived to simplify the evaluation of ΔT for any time from -1999 to +3000. The uncertainty in ΔT over this period can be estimated from scatter in the measurements."
NASA's eclipse predictions are not based upon the Saros cycle. It is simply a handy tool to know approximately when to 'dial in' to look for the next eclipse if you must. Or a neat thing for the layman to know about, as it's more easily understood than the physics and math behind the two primary calculations for where things are.
We just read that NASA's Eclipse Bulletins are coming/came from Fred Espenak.
We need another calculator to know the coordinates of the sun and moon in order to know if they will be in the sky at the time of the eclipse.
-
He is providing NASA's eclipse bulletins with his Saros Cycle stuff. It's not coming from some other source.
Apparently your statement is false.
From the link you posted, I looked up Espenak’s earliest NASA eclipse bulletin: Annular Solar Eclipse of 1994 May 10 (NASA RP 1301)
In it, it states the methodology used, specifically "The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200"
ALGORITHMS, EPHEMERIDES AND PARAMETERS
Algorithms for the eclipse predictions were developed Espenak primarily from the Explanatory Supplement [1974] with additional algorithms from Meeus, Grosjean and Vanderleen [1966]. The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200, respectively. All eclipse calculations were made using a value for the Moon's radius of k=0.2722810 for umbral contacts, and k=0.2725076 [adopted IAU value] for penumbral contacts. Center of mass coordinates were used except where noted. An extrapolated value for Delta_T of 59.5 seconds was used to convert the predictions from Terrestrial Dynamical Time to Universal Time.
The primary source for geographic coordinates used in the local circumstances tables is The New International Atlas (Rand McNally, 1991). Elevations for major cites were taken from Climates of the World (U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972).
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/19940510/text/ephemerides.html
-
You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?
If you can identify the pattern, you can predict anything.
What's the pattern, then, to two eclipses proceeding NW to SE, one going SW to NE, and others following opposite semi-circular patterns to the North? And bear in mind these are only the eclipses passing over North America, there's more variation in those hitting other parts of the world.
How would this apply to a flat earth as opposed to a globe? What would cause the eclipse to describe these varying shapes, other than the motion of the moon's shadow across a curved surface, and the increase in angle the further North having more influence on the movement of the shadow?
(http://en.es-static.us/upl/2017/08/total-solar-eclipses-2001-2050.jpg)
-
For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2a/c1/da/2ac1da488daebcb8e638715d6ae075ee.jpg)
-
"The coordinates of the Sun used in these predictions are based on the VSOP87 theory [Bretagnon and Francou, 1988]. The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002).
The largest uncertainty in the eclipse predictions is caused by fluctuations in Earth's rotation due primarily to tidal friction of the Moon. The resultant drift in apparent clock time is expressed as ΔT and is determined as follows:
pre-1950's: ΔT calculated from empirical fits to historical records derived by Morrison and Stephenson (2004)
1955-present: ΔT obtained from published observations
future: ΔT is extrapolated from current values weighted by the long term trend from tidal effects
A series of polynomial expressions have been derived to simplify the evaluation of ΔT for any time from -1999 to +3000. The uncertainty in ΔT over this period can be estimated from scatter in the measurements."
NASA's eclipse predictions are not based upon the Saros cycle. It is simply a handy tool to know approximately when to 'dial in' to look for the next eclipse if you must. Or a neat thing for the layman to know about, as it's more easily understood than the physics and math behind the two primary calculations for where things are.
We just read that NASA's Eclipse Bulletins are coming/came from Fred Espenak.
We need another calculator to know the coordinates of the sun and moon in order to know if they will be in the sky at the time of the eclipse.
I have no idea what you're attempting to say here, other than seeming to dodge the point that we've just shown you NASA's future eclipse predictions are NOT based upon simply the Saros cycle as you've claimed repeatedly. Will you finally admit you are wrong on this? Or do we have to run around in circles for a few more pages and not get anywhere like every other time?
-
Reading this thread on eclipse prediction I think there is agreement on these two things:
1. The day of an eclipse *can* be predicted using Saros cycles.
2. Saros cycles do not predict the exact locations on earth where an eclipse will be seen, this requires complicated calculations.
Am I correct? Is there agreement on these two items?
-
Where have you proven him wrong on anything he has ever said? You have not shown or demonstrated anything.
You're right. I can't prove that Stephen Hawking wasn't really replaced by an impostor years ago.
Because I can't prove a negative.
I'd suggest however that it's a pretty extraordinary claim which requires some pretty extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof is very much on him and all he's come up with is a load of supposition and allegation.
And sure, it could be that all the other crazy shit he believes is wrong (John Lennon faked his own death was a good one) and he just happens to be right about the Cavendish experiment.
But has his paper about that been published in a serious scientific journal? Has it been peer reviewed?
If not and, as I suspect, is only on his own website then he's just another crazy person who before the internet would have been shouting crazy things on a street corner. Now he's shouting them across the internet but that doesn't give him any credibility. Anyone can set up a website and use it to pontificate.
What are his credentials which mean he should be taken seriously on this subject?
Has his paper about this been peer reviewed and published in any serious scientific forum?
It is telling that I have posted a video about the Cavendish experiment several times and this is the first attempt I've seen from any FE person at a refutation and it comes from a person whose jam seems to be to claim that most of mainstream science is incorrect and whose ideas have not been accepted by any serious scientist as far as I know. It is either confirmation bias writ large or just trolling that you try and use this as a serious refutation of it.
Why are you more credible than he is?
Because I don't believe all this crazy shit
https://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/conspiracy-theories/
-
Back to Cavendish:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/
Gravity, one of the constants of life, not to mention physics, is less than constant when it comes to being measured. Various experiments over the years have come up with perplexingly different values for the strength of the force of gravity, and the latest calculation just adds to the confusion.
The results of a painstaking 10-year experiment to calculate the value of “big G,” the universal gravitational constant, were published this month—and they’re incompatible with the official value of G, which itself comes from a weighted average of various other measurements that are mostly mutually incompatible and diverge by more than 10 times their estimated uncertainties.
The gravitational constant “is one of these things we should know,” says Terry Quinn at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, who led the team behind the latest calculation. “It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is.”
In fact, the discrepancy is such a problem that Quinn is organizing a meeting in February at the Royal Society in London to come up with a game plan for resolving the impasse. The meeting’s title—“The Newtonian constant of gravitation, a constant too difficult to measure?”—reveals the general consternation.
Although gravity seems like one of the most salient of nature’s forces in our daily lives, it’s actually by far the weakest, making attempts to calculate its strength an uphill battle. “Two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with a force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells,” says University of Washington physicist Jens Gundlach, who worked on a separate 2000 measurement of big G. “Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy. There are a many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects, and all of these have to be properly understood and taken into account.”
This inherent difficulty has caused big G to become the only fundamental constant of physics for which the uncertainty of the standard value has risen over time as more and more measurements are made. “Though the measurements are very tough, because G is so much weaker than other laboratory forces, we still, as a community, ought to do better,” says University of Colorado at Boulder physicist James Faller, who conducted a 2010 experiment to calculate big G using pendulums.
...
“Either something is wrong with the experiments, or there is a flaw in our understanding of gravity,” says Mark Kasevich, a Stanford University physicist who conducted an unrelated measurement of big G in 2007 using atom interferometry. “Further work is required to clarify the situation.”
If the true value of big G turns out to be closer to the Quinn team’s measurement than the CODATA value, then calculations that depend on G will have to be revised. For example, the estimated masses of the solar system’s planets, including Earth, would change slightly. Such a revision, however, wouldn’t alter any fundamental laws of physics, and would have very little practical effect on anyone’s life, Quinn says. But getting to the bottom of the issue is more a matter of principle to the scientists. “It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved,” he adds. “We should be able to measure gravity.”
The last sentence implies that they cannot measure gravity or are having a lot of trouble doing so.
And here is some of what you cut from that quote:-
Through these dual experiments, Quinn’s team arrived at a value of 6.67545 X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. That’s 241 parts per million above the standard value of 6.67384(80) X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, which was arrived at by a special task force of the International Council for Science’s Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) (pdf) in 2010 by calculating a weighted average of all the various experimental values. These values differ from one another by as much as 450 ppm of the constant, even though most of them have estimated uncertainties of only about 40 ppm. “Clearly, many of them or most of them are subject either to serious significant errors or grossly underestimated uncertainties,” Quinn says. Making matters even more complex is the fact that the new measurement is strikingly close to a calculation of big G made by Quinn and his colleagues more than 10 years ago, published in 2001, that used similar methods but a completely separate laboratory setup.
Whilst 450 ppm is not insignificant it also doesn't "imply that they cannot measure gravity" , only that they cannot measure gravity to better than 450 ppm.
-
He is providing NASA's eclipse bulletins with his Saros Cycle stuff. It's not coming from some other source.
Apparently your statement is false.
From the link you posted, I looked up Espenak’s earliest NASA eclipse bulletin: Annular Solar Eclipse of 1994 May 10 (NASA RP 1301)
In it, it states the methodology used, specifically "The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200"
ALGORITHMS, EPHEMERIDES AND PARAMETERS
Algorithms for the eclipse predictions were developed Espenak primarily from the Explanatory Supplement [1974] with additional algorithms from Meeus, Grosjean and Vanderleen [1966]. The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200, respectively. All eclipse calculations were made using a value for the Moon's radius of k=0.2722810 for umbral contacts, and k=0.2725076 [adopted IAU value] for penumbral contacts. Center of mass coordinates were used except where noted. An extrapolated value for Delta_T of 59.5 seconds was used to convert the predictions from Terrestrial Dynamical Time to Universal Time.
The primary source for geographic coordinates used in the local circumstances tables is The New International Atlas (Rand McNally, 1991). Elevations for major cites were taken from Climates of the World (U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972).
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/19940510/text/ephemerides.html
The Saros Cycle just tells you when the next eclipse will occur. If you want to know when the sun and moon will be so that you can see it, you need another way of determining that.
If the Saros Cycle says that a Solar Eclipse will occur at 12pm Noon, then you can use a Solar Clock (which is no different than a regular clock) to tell you whether the sun will be visible in the sky or not. You can also use a "solar ephemerides" model like the NOAA Solar Calculator.
There are also Lunar clocks and models. If you want to know whether you will be able to see the moon on a Lunar Eclipse then you need to consult a Lunar clock or model. That's all it is.
I literally showed you a site where NASA said they were using Newtonian Mechanics to make predictions. I also pointed out that predictions were made using two separate computational theories in their catalogues. It is cited in their catalogues. You can keep denying but you look sillier every time.
That website should be filled with sections about how they solved the Three Body Problem, not about with sections about an ancient method that is no longer in use.
-
For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2a/c1/da/2ac1da488daebcb8e638715d6ae075ee.jpg)
The sun and moon are (in general respects) over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.
How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?
Reading this thread on eclipse prediction I think there is agreement on these two things:
1. The day of an eclipse *can* be predicted using Saros cycles.
2. Saros cycles do not predict the exact locations on earth where an eclipse will be seen, this requires complicated calculations.
Am I correct? Is there agreement on these two items?
The day and time of the eclipse can be predicted with the Saros Cycle.
At the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham shows that similar pattern-based methods can predict the time, magnitude and duration of the Lunar Eclipse (scroll to the bottom) (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm).
If you want to know whether the sun or moon will be seen in the sky at that time, so that you may be able to see it, you need another way of determining that; such as a solar or lunar clock or model.
With knowledge of the the Saros Cycle patterns, and the patterns of the sun and moon, it is possible to create such maps on where the Solar Eclipse may be seen. In the case of the Lunar Eclipse, the challenge is more trivial and applies to anyone who can see the moon.
-
For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2a/c1/da/2ac1da488daebcb8e638715d6ae075ee.jpg)
The sun and moon are over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.
How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?
How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?
It shows that the round earth model can predict astronomic events with to the second timing and geographic accuracy.
The flat earth model can't do this. It can't even accurately portray the actual distance from Brisbane to Lima.
I've seen some flat earth models make brave attempts. Is there a flat earth model that can predict eclipses, solstices and such with the accuracy of a globe model?
-
How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?
It shows that the round earth model can predict astronomic events with to the second timing and geographic accuracy.
The flat earth model can't do this. It can't even accurately portray the actual distance from Brisbane to Lima.
I've seen some flat earth models make brave attempts. Is there a flat earth model that can predict eclipses, solstices and such with the accuracy of a globe model?
The globe cannot predict the eclipse. NASA is using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle that was developed by a civilization who believed that the earth is flat.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LEcatalog.html
This is the homepage of NASA's Lunar Eclipse predictions and the catalog of Lunar Eclipses that will occur in the future. Notice the words "Saros" all over those pages. Then go to the "Eclipses and the Saros" page that is either at the bottom of the page or accessible through the "Resources" button at the bottom of the page.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html
It specifically describes that "The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."
Some on this thread are arguing that this means nothing, and, although that website is littered with pages and pages describing the Soros Cycle, and mentions of Saros, that NASA put that in there for meaningless reasons rather than describing how they solved the famous Three Body Problem.
-
I hadn't mentioned NASA, they aren't the only ones who publish astronomic calendars. I was referring to the round earth model more generally.
Even a simple orrery can make accurate predictions of eclipse timing. We have not seen this in a flat earth model.
The globe model predictions agree with the Saros cycle (and the Saros cycle agrees with the globe model.)
(correct me if I'm wrong but,) I don't think we've yet seen a flat earth model that accurately predicts eclipses, solstices and midnight sun.
-
Whilst 450 ppm is not insignificant it also doesn't "imply that they cannot measure gravity" , only that they cannot measure gravity to better than 450 ppm.
The article provides a good comparison (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/):
"Two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with a force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells,” says University of Washington physicist Jens Gundlach, who worked on a separate 2000 measurement of big G. “Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy. There are a many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects, and all of these have to be properly understood and taken into account.
It's an incredibly sensitive venture. Per the article, two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with the force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells. Gundlach says that there are many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects.
Air viscosity, air particles, static drag, other forces, et cetera.
They may be measuring something, but that is far from saying that they know what it is, and based on the article, they are having a hard time measuring it.
In fact, based on all of the crazyness, some are now calling gravity "dark energy":
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24180-strength-of-gravity-shifts-and-this-time-its-serious/
An oscillating G could be evidence for a particular theory that relates dark energy to a fifth, hypothetical fundamental force, in addition to the four we know – gravity, electromagnetism, and the two nuclear forces. This force might also cause the strength of gravity to oscillate, says Padilla. “This result is indeed very intriguing."
Come on, now "gravity" oscillates? They don't even know what they are measuring or what it is.
-
He is providing NASA's eclipse bulletins with his Saros Cycle stuff. It's not coming from some other source.
Apparently your statement is false.
From the link you posted, I looked up Espenak’s earliest NASA eclipse bulletin: Annular Solar Eclipse of 1994 May 10 (NASA RP 1301)
In it, it states the methodology used, specifically "The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200"
ALGORITHMS, EPHEMERIDES AND PARAMETERS
Algorithms for the eclipse predictions were developed Espenak primarily from the Explanatory Supplement [1974] with additional algorithms from Meeus, Grosjean and Vanderleen [1966]. The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200, respectively. All eclipse calculations were made using a value for the Moon's radius of k=0.2722810 for umbral contacts, and k=0.2725076 [adopted IAU value] for penumbral contacts. Center of mass coordinates were used except where noted. An extrapolated value for Delta_T of 59.5 seconds was used to convert the predictions from Terrestrial Dynamical Time to Universal Time.
The primary source for geographic coordinates used in the local circumstances tables is The New International Atlas (Rand McNally, 1991). Elevations for major cites were taken from Climates of the World (U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972).
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/19940510/text/ephemerides.html
The Saros Cycle just tells you when the next eclipse will occur. If you want to know when the sun and moon will be so that you can see it, you need another way of determining that.
Correct. That calculation undoubtedly requires the Earth to be round.
If the Saros Cycle says that a Solar Eclipse will occur at 12pm Noon, then you can use a Solar Clock (which is no different than a regular clock) to tell you whether the sun will be visible in the sky or not. You can also use a "solar ephemerides" model like the NOAA Solar Calculator.
There are also Lunar clocks and models. If you want to know whether you will be able to see the moon on a Lunar Eclipse then you need to consult a Lunar clock or model. That's all it is.
Or you can use the theories that NASA cites, which give the sun and moon coordinates in 3D
I literally showed you a site where NASA said they were using Newtonian Mechanics to make predictions. I also pointed out that predictions were made using two separate computational theories in their catalogues. It is cited in their catalogues. You can keep denying but you look sillier every time.
That website should be filled with sections about how they solved the Three Body Problem, not about with sections about an ancient method that is no longer in use.
Should be? Says who? What qualifies an armchair critic to say what should and should not appear on that site. They cite many things that are far more complicated and technical than Saros cycles so perhaps they understand that the vast majority of the site’s visitors, like you or I, would not get a ton of value from something like VSOP87. Regardless, you trying to impose some sort of imperative on NASA does not change the fact that they use math requiring the Earth to be round and orbiting the sun.
-
The globe cannot predict the eclipse. NASA is using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle that was developed by a civilization who believed that the earth is flat.
As they say, “Location, location, location.”
Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?
-
Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?
Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.
-
Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?
Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.
?
The Saros cycle was determined by observation. It's behavior is perfectly predicted and explained by a round earth model.
How is its behavior predicted by a flat earth model?
-
How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?
It shows that the round earth model can predict astronomic events with to the second timing and geographic accuracy.
The flat earth model can't do this. It can't even accurately portray the actual distance from Brisbane to Lima.
I've seen some flat earth models make brave attempts. Is there a flat earth model that can predict eclipses, solstices and such with the accuracy of a globe model?
The globe cannot predict the eclipse. NASA is using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle that was developed by a civilization who believed that the earth is flat.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LEcatalog.html
This is the homepage of NASA's Lunar Eclipse predictions and the catalog of Lunar Eclipses that will occur in the future. Notice the words "Saros" all over those pages. Then go to the "Eclipses and the Saros" page that is either at the bottom of the page or accessible through the "Resources" button at the bottom of the page.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html
It specifically describes that "The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."
Some on this thread are arguing that this means nothing, and, although that website is littered with pages and pages describing the Soros Cycle, and mentions of Saros, that NASA put that in there for meaningless reasons rather than describing how they solved the famous Three Body Problem.
So A) I'm not gonna get into it again, but as I mention nearly every time, there is some evidence that those who actually developed the Saros Cycle actually held to a round Earth belief (that is the astronomers of the Second Babylonian Era) and B) I'm not attempting whatsoever to argue that they have created a solution to the three body problem. I know others are, but I'm here strictly showing you the evidence that they do NOT rely solely upon the Saros Cycle for their predictions. I've now shown you in multiple locations where this is stated, no less than 4 times over the year I've been here. At this point I have to conclude you're deliberately ignoring the facts for some reason.
Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?
Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.
This might be a topic for another thread, but I would LOVE to see FE predict the location of the next major eclipse to the accuracy of NASA's predictions (I'll give you an error margin of a mile or two) without using anything beyond the Saros Cycle. Show your work, no utilization of anything but the information that can be gathered out of the Saros Cycle. Any FE proponent that might be up for this challenge? Prove your claim.
-
I took from NASA’s website the data for all 19th, 20th, and 21st century eclipses and isolated the data for the Saros cycle of the August 2017 eclipse. Here is that data:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Rk94NrEtUfQjXrqZYepQq3gOr8uXrSIfDqGd2PGNAmCvY46p7OvKe8h8ER8oNF_VVShl1O45arrG5GT3JTgXHOviSRGTNB9QUF20gzHJ965-YqnzhAWViIAViPgJcreyAv4BDVrMq8Uk37QjxycAsXNPQ-MxG1Xq5feWKiuXYbPIza0JVU0E4mf0IkLGILHU0-4AlqqUjEHscXb01kLew9GQd4KddQN3mBZgTTpy9pOOHNt1dUbaryRknFpdxsFgJeuywoZaAKJ2CLuNQg-sX0DiU7ZKUGQU6Pnc-jFyB5bx3NMb4Bw6JHrWgNgqo_ZW8qcuK4QxG-3hTeXqnJ9vk4ceiTUb_sjINM9-kwKd_DG5JyTDE-dhxxJCZNBrp9rmq5uWz56lnZHVMMVyvmO2o0sE9XxyjpDtXC3jRzy0cxav95r4-zTwYLKn2WvbP94KR5MT0MbyR2gYliECxURRTrH98OAKpIFA_z-AnK5dK5gRLBoSgCU_Kzm1AcrjXIXy8AmbvmBimDjV8r1Ej3nHoXzEtLZkV4vJhiTsBSGlLo_YX8cQHylW6EvRGUPXHDxjfmO9DIuqmShOvkiFZva1A8uAFR13UG3Ztyu_UOZdzk5-XH9JgP4qeNXflBdnSibunfgXSISFjmVWnhTJlX5_WrRy-TD6WqtONy73VHTCRTc=w796-h397-no)
Notice the 4th column, which gives the difference between consecutive eclipses in this Saros cycle. If NASA were truly “using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle” then they would be calculating it by simply adding 8 years, 11 days, and 8 hours, and that column would all have the same number in it. The reason it does not: the Saros cycle is a convenient way to CATEGORIZE eclipses and to ESTIMATE their timing. To get timing accurate to the second, and a corresponding geographic accuracy, one must calculate by understanding the orbital ephemeris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris) of the bodies involved.
-
For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2a/c1/da/2ac1da488daebcb8e638715d6ae075ee.jpg)
The sun and moon are (in general respects) over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.
How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?
Farther away from the equator on the globe earth the shadow will be wider because it is striking the earth at an angle instead of straight on. This is just part of the differences. Additionally, the orbit of the moon is not perfectly regular. Sometimes it's closer to the earth, this narrows shadows, see 2017, Aug 21. Sometimes it's farther from the earth, increasing shadows, see 2009, June 22. At similar latitudes the shadow size is different.
I understand your FE claim about casting larger shadows when farther from the equator, but I can't resolve how the moon and sun would work for eclipses if they are close. If the sun and moon are about the same size and the sun is 3000 miles above the earth, how high is the moon to cast a narrow shadow?
-
For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2a/c1/da/2ac1da488daebcb8e638715d6ae075ee.jpg)
The sun and moon are (in general respects) over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.
How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?
Farther away from the equator on the globe earth the shadow will be wider because it is striking the earth at an angle instead of straight on. This is just part of the differences. Additionally, the orbit of the moon is not perfectly regular. Sometimes it's closer to the earth, this narrows shadows, see 2017, Aug 21. Sometimes it's farther from the earth, increasing shadows, see 2009, June 22. At similar latitudes the shadow size is different.
I understand your FE claim about casting larger shadows when farther from the equator, but I can't resolve how the moon and sun would work for eclipses if they are close. If the sun and moon are about the same size and the sun is 3000 miles above the earth, how high is the moon to cast a narrow shadow?
Hold on there, MCToon. If the shadow gets larger due to "striking the earth at an angle," because the earth is curving away, then should we not expect to see the shadow get larger East - West as well?
-
For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2a/c1/da/2ac1da488daebcb8e638715d6ae075ee.jpg)
The sun and moon are (in general respects) over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.
How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?
Farther away from the equator on the globe earth the shadow will be wider because it is striking the earth at an angle instead of straight on. This is just part of the differences. Additionally, the orbit of the moon is not perfectly regular. Sometimes it's closer to the earth, this narrows shadows, see 2017, Aug 21. Sometimes it's farther from the earth, increasing shadows, see 2009, June 22. At similar latitudes the shadow size is different.
I understand your FE claim about casting larger shadows when farther from the equator, but I can't resolve how the moon and sun would work for eclipses if they are close. If the sun and moon are about the same size and the sun is 3000 miles above the earth, how high is the moon to cast a narrow shadow?
Hold on there, MCToon. If the shadow gets larger due to "striking the earth at an angle," because the earth is curving away, then should we not expect to see the shadow widen East - West as well?
It would 'widen' in the East-West direction rather than the North-South direction. So you would need an image to compare the size of the shadow on the Earth at various times of the eclipse rather than the one here that only shows the path it takes. It should be stretched somewhat 'wider' on either end of the path compared to the middle, as opposed to the path shown here stretching 'taller' as you move North or South from the equator.
-
Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?
Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.
Wait, I’m confused. The JPL DE200 and LE200 solar and lunar ephemerides used as part of NASA’s eclipse prediction methodology are derived from FET?
-
For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2a/c1/da/2ac1da488daebcb8e638715d6ae075ee.jpg)
The sun and moon are (in general respects) over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.
How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?
Farther away from the equator on the globe earth the shadow will be wider because it is striking the earth at an angle instead of straight on. This is just part of the differences. Additionally, the orbit of the moon is not perfectly regular. Sometimes it's closer to the earth, this narrows shadows, see 2017, Aug 21. Sometimes it's farther from the earth, increasing shadows, see 2009, June 22. At similar latitudes the shadow size is different.
I understand your FE claim about casting larger shadows when farther from the equator, but I can't resolve how the moon and sun would work for eclipses if they are close. If the sun and moon are about the same size and the sun is 3000 miles above the earth, how high is the moon to cast a narrow shadow?
Hold on there, MCToon. If the shadow gets larger due to "striking the earth at an angle," because the earth is curving away, then should we not expect to see the shadow get larger East - West as well?
You are absolutely correct, the east-west angle of incidence would have an effect. This would depend on what exact time of day and the exact rotation of the earth when the shadow was cast. Unfortunately, this map doesn't provide exacting start/stop times for each eclipse. Could be an interesting thing to explore if someone were so inclined.
I'm still curious about the FE model for solar eclipses. What would be the moon's elevation to cast an eclipse shadow. If the sun and moon are the about same diameter I can't resolve where the moon would be in relation to the sun. If the moon is really close to the sun it could maybe work but a huge area of the flat earth would be in shadow. Am I thinking about this correctly?
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2a/c1/da/2ac1da488daebcb8e638715d6ae075ee.jpg)
For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...
Could be, but also
...the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a Mercator Projection of a Globe. Areas appear bigger as they are in reality near top and bottom of the map.
Have a look at Greenland on this map...
-
The globe cannot predict the eclipse. NASA is using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle that was developed by a civilization who believed that the earth is flat.
I don't think so Tom. The late Chaldeaen astronomers developed the Saros Cycle in and around 400-300 BC. At this time the Hellenization of that area of the world was well underway. The Chaldeaen academics would have been well aware of the spherical earth by then.
Besides, if you are actually on a spherical earth, but believe you are on a flat earth then your beliefs would have no bearing on the matter. Your observations would still be the result of your reality rather than your beliefs.
-
Tom. I seriously can’t believe you referenced this dude to refute the Cavendish Experiment
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
I see that that’s also where you got the pi = 4 nonsense from.
That's a humor website. What are the credentials of those people who call his work "comical attempts"?
Pi not equaling its traditional value is entirely valid. Pi is a concept that depends on the existence of perfect circles. If the circle is not perfect, and if space is "quantized" (divisible by discrete units) rather than continuous then the distance around all of the little pixelized elements is much longer. Who proved that mathematically perfect circles exist?
Are you going to prove the existence of perfect circles in this thread? I don't think that you will.
If you are not going to actually address arguments and instead resort to attempted attacks on character, then you should not bother to debate. Why should I address your arguments? What are your credentials to say that General Relativity and gravity as it exists in the mainstream is correct, in contradiction to the physicists and professors who say that it is not correct?
Had to revive this when I read Miles thinks the flat earth movement is part of the grand jew conspiracy. LOL. Still like this guy Tom?
http://mileswmathis.com/flat.pdf
-
Tom. I seriously can’t believe you referenced this dude to refute the Cavendish Experiment
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
I see that that’s also where you got the pi = 4 nonsense from.
That's a humor website. What are the credentials of those people who call his work "comical attempts"?
Pi not equaling its traditional value is entirely valid. Pi is a concept that depends on the existence of perfect circles. If the circle is not perfect, and if space is "quantized" (divisible by discrete units) rather than continuous then the distance around all of the little pixelized elements is much longer. Who proved that mathematically perfect circles exist?
Are you going to prove the existence of perfect circles in this thread? I don't think that you will.
If you are not going to actually address arguments and instead resort to attempted attacks on character, then you should not bother to debate. Why should I address your arguments? What are your credentials to say that General Relativity and gravity as it exists in the mainstream is correct, in contradiction to the physicists and professors who say that it is not correct?
Had to revive this when I read Miles thinks the flat earth movement is part of the grand jew conspiracy. LOL. Still like this guy Tom?
http://mileswmathis.com/flat.pdf
Wow. Read the whole thing. This guy is quite crazy. Plus a massive narcissist:
And why would Flat Earth reconvene in 2009? Was some new use for Flat Earth discovered in 2009? Or should I say, is it just a coincidence that 2009 is when my science site really lit up, gaining traction in the mainstream?
He actually thinks the flat earth movement is completely made up, they are all paid shills and it was done completely in response to his web site.