Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Tides are due to the Geodesic deviation by the moon and sun. Think of it this way, you got aether (a fabric of space-time), the moon (and sun) warps it (because of its energy content), any object or fluid it moves by will be affected, it will follow that warp. The water will remain at it's level but when the aether it is in becomes more non-homogeneous (distorted, not equal across like flat undistorted aether), it's going to follow that aether warp as straight.
'Celestial Gravitation" is not the correct term for it since it's not forcing water away from its level, but rather, the aether it is in is non-homogeneous, so therefore the straightest path of water is non-homogeneous (equating to what we perceive as a rise or a bulge in water).
Two tides a day are because the water is warped away from a particular part of Earth and other water is left behind, having two high tides.
I've heard of other explanations for tides in the context of Flat Earth models that may not include the moon and sun, but I feel there is good evidence that the moon contributes greatly to tides.
Tom Bishop is right.About what? The moon being 11 degrees above the horizon being impossible with the RE moon's 5 degree inclination?
Tom - the problem with your diagram is that you're still thinking like a flat earther. In RET, the horizon isn't a horizontal line like you've drawn it. It depends (critically) on the height of the eyepoint above the ground. I know you claim that the "horizon rises to the eye" - but that's not what RET says.
In a flat Earth, the difference between 5-minute altitudes will not remain consistent. Make a graph of records if you need to. If there was no degree of roundness in the Earth, there would be abrupt changes in the altitude. But as long as the rate of change of the altitude meter remains relatively consistent, the Earth must be round, with no sudden, jagged edge. Consider my experiment very carefully. Do not miss any piece of logic.
Here's another case in point: the Earth is so huge, that the human could not directly see how much the shape of its terrain changes on average. If we were to walk from one point of a circle, or oval, and cover the smallest imaginable distance, that is very akin to walking about a mile around the Earth. The difference could hardly be found. For people who have studied basic Calculus techniques: When you zoom in enough on the curve of a graph, you see a tangent line appear. The tangent line, by definition, is a line, which is flat. But you know that this flatness is a simplification derived from a curve. It appears flat, but it is already known to be a constituent, an infinitesimal section, of the curve. Likewise, the human eye, with such a small distance observed, sees flat land where it is truly a super small section of a round planet. If I made a mistake with my reasoning, inform me.
Here's another case in point: the Earth, flat or round, does not have smooth terrain regardless of its overall shape. It has mountains, gorges, crevices, like a sharp, confusing, disproportionate graph. But I am using averages, nevertheless, to determine whether or not the Earth is flat. How do I get these averages? With the experiment I suggested already.
If you guys would like me to conduct a deeper analysis on the topic, with or without the notion of experimentation (i.e., common sense, logic), reply.
If anyone spots a flaw in my current analysis, again, reply, and make sure to criticize me at your leisure. I don't give a damn about my "feelings." I am not being sarcastic, I promise that my emotions are never affected by insult.
