[QED]

Sup FEers!

Purpose
To begin detailing how we can describe the motion of the Sun and Moon over the FE.

Assumptions

• Vanishing Perspective Theory holds
• No constraint is made upon the reason for the motions - this is a purely kinematic study. Dynamics require FET to define the time derivative of momentum for their purposes

Audience
Hopefully this drags some FEers out of the lower fora  . Their insight is critical to the positive development of their movement.

First Thoughts
So, from Vanishing Perspective Theory (VPT), light rays may not propagate through atmospheric densities indefinitely. This is NOT due to limitations of our sensory organs (Not THOSE organs, Pete! Grow up!  ), but due to refractive scattering which decollamates coherent phase from a line of sight. That is, atmosphere scatters it away and we lose all optical information.

FET defines this point of VP convergence as the horizon.

The first issue that arises right away is how we can see the Moon at all. Please follow:

1. At night, the Sun is beyond our VP horizon, hence we experience night time.

2. We see the Moon at night.

3. The rays from the Sun scatter off the Moon, and hit our eyes.

4. The rays from the Sun at night must hence travel farther than the VP to reach the Moon, and then scatter to our eye.

NOTE: a scattering event cannot RESET the VP, since this would negate a VP from existing at all! That is, it is created by scattering in the first place.

Therefore, the Sun cannot illuminate the Moon.

Also, since eclipses are not viewable everywhere on Earth, zetetic deduction demands that the Moon is not an emitter.

So what illuminates the Moon? And why do we not see it?

[Tom Bishop]

It may be that the Sun and Moon are high enough bodies that the vanishing point, or atmolayer buildup, or whatever is limiting light and visual propagation on the surface, has less effect between bodies of higher altitudes. Would you say that we see further from the top of a mountain than we do at sea level?

[AATW]

Would you say that we see further from the top of a mountain than we do at sea level?

Obviously. Because you can see further over the curve of the earth. The horizon distance increases with altitude so yes, you can see further.

In the FE model the sun and moon would have to be above the atmolayer so the light from the sun to the moon would be going through a vacuum. That, and the fact the sun is very bright, is why the moon would be visible.

But as I’ve said in another thread if the sun is roughly the same height as the moon there is no way a full moon would be possible. Even if you hypothesise that the moon and/or sun change altitude I can’t see how the angles could work out to create a full moon.

[QED]

It may be that the Sun and Moon are high enough bodies that the vanishing point, or atmolayer buildup, or whatever is limiting light and visual propagation on the surface, has less effect between bodies of higher altitudes. Would you say that we see further from the top of a mountain than we do at sea level?

I find that to be an excellent observation.

What prevents this hypothesis from being a solution is the nature of scattering events. Light scatters off of atmosphere and bodies via the same mechanism. Hence, if light could trace a non-vanishing ray to the Moon, scatter, and find our eye, then that same ray would scatter off atmolayer nearby the Moon, and likewise find our eye.

What we would observe is a smooth gradient of daylight into night time as we traced an angular path from the moon to where the Sun resides. That is, the moon would always be in daylight.

Does this make sense what I am saying?

What I appreciate about your hypothesis is that it constrains the location of the Moon and Sun to both be entirely beyond the atmolayer.

This is a step forward, and one that is zetetically flush.

[QED]

Would you say that we see further from the top of a mountain than we do at sea level?

Obviously. Because you can see further over the curve of the earth. The horizon distance increases with altitude so yes, you can see further.

In the FE model the sun and moon would have to be above the atmolayer so the light from the sun to the moon would be going through a vacuum. That, and the fact the sun is very bright, is why the moon would be visible.

But as I’ve said in another thread if the sun is roughly the same height as the moon there is no way a full moon would be possible. Even if you hypothesise that the moon and/or sun change altitude I can’t see how the angles could work out to create a full moon.

I appreciate this input, but please slow down - you are getting too far ahead of the matter. We need to establish proper constraints so that identifying trajectories only needs to happen once.

If both moon and sun are above atmolayer, then a full moon must be possible (see discussion above).

[AATW]

If both moon and sun are above atmolayer, then a full moon must be possible (see discussion above).

I asked in another thread for a diagram showing how that could happen. I can’t picture it. Predictably, no one responded.
If you have some idea of how that could work then I’d love to see it.

[QED]

If both moon and sun are above atmolayer, then a full moon must be possible (see discussion above).

I asked in another thread for a diagram showing how that could happen. I can’t picture it. Predictably, no one responded.
If you have some idea of how that could work then I’d love to see it.

It’s trivial. Example:

Moon is east of you. Sun is west. Sun is too far away for you to see it. Hence nighttime. Since both are above atmolayer, Sun’s Rays can make it to moon, illuminating all of it. We see that illumination.

The reason (probably) that you find it impossible is because you are implicitly using too many assumptions.

You’re probably assuming “conservation of reality.”

Lol.

Suspend that a moment. Let the sun and moon do whatever they want. Allow the details to fall out later.

What we need is to find a trajectory that explains lunar phases across the FE. If we can do that - that is, find a solution that permits the phases to agree with observations while SIMULTANEOUSLY having the correct parts of the Earth night and day, then FET can actually move forward.

*Spoiler Alert*

It won’t work. It requires either the Sun to occupy two distinct locations at once (multiple times) or it requires light to bend drastically for no reason.

But they need to recognize this for themselves, so that they can focus on parts of their effort that COULD make sense.

Too many folks have bullied them - they won’t buy into any progress unless they make it.

So let’s help them out!

[AATW]

If both moon and sun are above atmolayer, then a full moon must be possible (see discussion above).

I asked in another thread for a diagram showing how that could happen. I can’t picture it. Predictably, no one responded.
If you have some idea of how that could work then I’d love to see it.

It’s trivial. Example:

Moon is east of you. Sun is west. Sun is too far away for you to see it. Hence nighttime. Since both are above atmolayer, Sun’s Rays can make it to moon, illuminating all of it. We see that illumination.

The reason (probably) that you find it impossible is because you are implicitly using too many assumptions.

You’re probably assuming “conservation of reality.”

Lol.

Heh. Nice. Maybe a diagram would be helpful to explain the issue I see. So looking sideways at the disc:



I've made the moon and sun the same size, I think in the FE model this is probably how it is. That might be wrong although I don't think that help the problem.
I've put the sun more over the southern "hemisphere", that would be the southern summer, the northern winter.
At this distance the northern pole never "sees" the sun because of perspective. This picture shows how silly an idea that is, but I digress.
I've no idea where they think the moon is although it must be visible from the night side of the disc so I've put it there roughly above the equator.
And I've put the moon higher than the sun as this is how FE explains moon phases. The sun and moon change altitude because of reasons and with no change in angular size.
That explanation works up to a point but the line I've drawn shows the furthest point round the moon the light of the sun can reach.
So how is the dude in the southern "hemisphere" on the night side of the disc seeing a full moon?
You could make the sun illuminate more of the moon by increasing the altitude further but it would have to be a lot higher than the sun to illuminate the whole of the bottom of the moon so the dude sees a full moon. Does the altitude of it really vary that much without any change in angular size?

I have probably got some things wrong here and made some wrong assumptions, that's why I was hoping someone on the FE side would make a diagram.
As the Wiki says "If you don't know something, and cannot demonstrate it by first principles, then you shouldn't believe it."

EDIT: Just noticed another issue - with this diagram someone in the northern "hemisphere" is nearer the side of the moon the sun is illuminating - given where I've put the moon.
So someone in the north would see close to a full moon, someone in the south would not. But I'm pretty sure that's now how moon phases work in real life.

[QED]

Yes you are already honing I’m on the issue. Someone in the northern hemisphere can see a full moon but someone in the Southern Hemisphere cannot.

It does not take long to see that this cannot work - it is such an easy test to do.

The next obvious question you’d ask (as I did) is: there’s no way FEers have not realized this.

And here begins a logical chain at ends at a particular conclusion.

[Curious Squirrel]

How married are you to pushing perspective for the core of all of this. Because imo dusting off the Electromagnetic Accelerator is a much better way to explain observations regarding the celestial bodies. It comes with its own set of problems in certain areas, but I feel it explains pretty much everything to do with how the sun and moon appear far better than perspective allows. At least without having to rewrite a number of rather common things about how we view the world.

[AATW]

EA does solve some problems although I’m not sure if this is one of them.
Would like to see a FE response to how they think this works.

[QED]

I don’t know much about this EA. Can you give me the quick and dirty on it so I don’t have to wade through the awful wikis? What’s your technical assessment of it?

[Curious Squirrel]

I don’t know much about this EA. Can you give me the quick and dirty on it so I don’t have to wade through the awful wikis? What’s your technical assessment of it?

Essentially light slowly bends towards the perpendicular (and maybe horizontal). This allows the light from the sun to appear to be hitting you along a horizontal when setting (as seen everyday) AND it sets up everyone seeing the same face of the moon no matter where you are. Plus it sets up why the moon is full when it's away from the sun, and new when it's closer. I'll see if I can find a visual or two that I've seen around when I've got a bit more time later.

[QED]

Oh no. That sounds like a terrible idea. If we make light do that, then it will change its energy. Basically, it will act as an emitter when bending, creating all sorts of optical effects that we don’t observe.

Well, I’ll just sit on it for a while until I learn more about it. But my initial reaction to EA is that it doomed from the beginning.

[Bastian Baasch]

I don’t know much about this EA. Can you give me the quick and dirty on it so I don’t have to wade through the awful wikis? What’s your technical assessment of it?

Essentially light slowly bends towards the perpendicular (and maybe horizontal). This allows the light from the sun to appear to be hitting you along a horizontal when setting (as seen everyday) AND it sets up everyone seeing the same face of the moon no matter where you are. Plus it sets up why the moon is full when it's away from the sun, and new when it's closer. I'll see if I can find a visual or two that I've seen around when I've got a bit more time later.

So basically, it applies the curvature of the earth to light to match RE observations better while keeping the earth flat?

[AATW]

There's a Wiki page about EA here

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

But there are no details about how the equation was derived or what experiments have been done to test it. I'm not really convinced it helps here although it does help with some things like sunsets.

[Tom Bishop]

I like where Curious Squirrel is going with his line of thinking.

In the past there has been a lack of interest in EA theories, since there was no evidence that light was bending upwards. However, in the last year there has been some evidence that light is bending at large scales. JTolan has some interesting videos on his channel where a camera with an infrared filter is taken up on a plane and he is able to see much further than the Round Earth Theory should allow.

In his videos he performs analysis showing that, although he can see various bodies much further than should be seen in his videos, the horizon is never where it should be on either a Flat Earth or a Round Earth prediction.

Infrared Flight over Gulf of Mexico HD1080 (16:00 mark)



"Globe Horizon" is the prediction for the globe. "Globe Horizon (4/3R)" is the globe earth + standard refraction theory.

If the above analysis is accurate it would suggest that either:

- The earth is round and massive downwards bending of light is occurring
- The earth is flat and massive upwards bending of light is occurring
- Light is traveling in straight lines and the earth is something else (ie. a globe much larger than claimed, other)

If the earth is flat, JTolan's work might suggest that light is bending upwards on a large scale.

Previous Thread: IR Video from FL310 -> 500 mile visibility?

[AATW]

I'll admit I haven't watched all that video but his camerawork looks handheld so I'm not sure how well calibrated that all is.
I'm not clear how he's worked out the angles in the freezeframe and the dot on the horizon is not clearly identifiable so I'm not clear how he knows how far he can see.
It is an interesting line of enquiry but that doesn't seem to be a well calibrated experiment.

[QED]

Well, this is a home video from which nothing really can be reliably deduced. There is no way to verify any part of this video as genuine, was taken under controlled conditions, or is free from doctoring.

Actually, there is no mechanism by which I could conclude that is not a faked video, just as some folks believe NASA has done - though clearly a more amateur job if so.

I hold my data to high standards, and at best, the only thing I can conclude from this data is that someone might have taken a home video.

[Tom Bishop]

The scale is not based on a leveling experiment, and so there is nothing to calibrate. The scales JTolan creates in his videos are based on the knowledge of his position, the distance to bodies in the distance, and the concept of radians and angular sizes.

I'll invite JTolan to come back to the forum and break down his process step-by-step, for our knowledge, and inclusion in the Wiki. If the scale is accurate, it has some important consequences.