The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: badge on October 07, 2019, 12:27:54 AM
-
From what i've read the accepted theory that many flat-earthers believe is that the earth is illuminated by a spot light sun moving around the plane of the earth lighting up each part to make a day/night cycle. However, with the physics behind such a star aside, how has there been no other observations of them in our galaxy? Exoplanets have only been discovered pretty recently relatively speaking, but the suns that those planets orbit are quite blatantly orbiting at a very substantial distance. An example of this would be how space agencies can measure the size of planets by collecting the data from the dimming of the light coming from that sun. Im sure that quite a lot of people can use their common sense to figure out that a source of light so observably large can't create such a spotlight effect.
Secondly, how do other planets like Venus and Mercury get their day and night? Do they orbit the same spotlight? Or are there seperate spotlights for different planets?
-
how has there been no other observations of them in our galaxy?
How is it that there have been no other observations of intelligent life in our galaxy? Clearly, if life existed, we'd have seen it elsewhere by now.
This question is silly. It's also unanswerable. It could well be that other suns exist and we simply have yet to find one, or it could be that it's unique. Why would it matter either way, other than to feed your personal feelings of (in)credulity?
-
Other suns do exist. We see lots of them at night in the form of other stars. Many of them have planets orbitting them. The Sun only looks unique because it is so much nearer to us. That is basic astronomy.
You cannot say that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere in the Universe just because we haven't 'seen' it yet. We hadn't seen any exoplanets until as recently as the 1990s. Now we know they are common. The question itself is reasonable. The aspect of FE theory that it addresses is perhaps less so. Unless of course you have evidence to support it?
-
From what I understand the "spotlight sun" idea is not that the sun is a literal spotlight but that the area of light it casts on the earth is a spotlight. I think EA can be used to explain this or I think Tom goes with some perspective effect. Obviously that's not how perspective works at all but that's an explanation I have seen him advocate. And equally obviously the angular size of the sun would change throughout the day if it was close and thus the distance to it changed dramatically from sunrise to midday. Other effects have to be invented to explain that. Although strange that the sun is the only object which does that, other celestial bodies like planets do change angular size as the distance to them changes.
-
No one has ever seen planets orbiting other stars . We are told they exist .
The "spotlight sun" is evident by the 100 mile shadow cast during solar eclipse . Sunlight propagates according to the inverse square law yet casts a shadow that small - it must be near and much smaller .
-
No one has ever seen planets orbiting other stars . We are told they exist
Incorrect. Well, if you mean seen in the sense of someone physically being there then obviously. But some exoplanets can now be directly imaged
http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/exoplanets/direct-imaging.html
The "spotlight sun" is evident by the 100 mile shadow cast during solar eclipse . Sunlight propagates according to the inverse square law yet casts a shadow that small - it must be near and much smaller.
The first part of that is you just not understanding how shadows and eclipses work, but if the sun is near then there must be a big difference in distance between you and the sun at sunset and noon.
Why does the sun remain the same size?
-
I have never seen a polar bear with my own eyes but I don't believe that all the photos and videos of them I've seen of them are all faked.
We have detected planets orbitting other stars. Not me personally no but I've seen plenty of data from the Kepler satellite which is finding new exoplanets all the time.
No one has ever seen for sure that the Earth is flat but that doesn't seem to stop you from believing it is.
-
We've all seen the crappy not to scale cartoons showing how the solar eclipse is supposed to work - never a mention of how electromagnetic radiation propagates though .They always miss out the lens needed to focus the shadow to a dot on earth too
We have not detected any exoplanets . How did Keplers satellite , in it's earth trailing orbit , manage to keep up with earths alleged angular velocity of at 66,660 mph . I've never seen a Keplers satellite either . You saw some data
It's quite easy to deduce from scientific observation/survey and measurement that our known earth is not a globe or exhibits anything consistent with the heliocentric model .
-
I will do the Google search for you then shall I..
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/
The Earths orbital velocity has nothing to do with how satellites stay locked onto a stellar target.
Have you ever heard of autoguiding? Very simply Kepler or the Hubble Space Telescope locks onto a star with one of its cameras and then a guidance system makes sure the satellite remains aimed precisely at its target for however long is necessary.
The Hubble Ultra Deep Field for example is an 11 day exposure. Since the sky ìs always dark in space any satellite will see the stars continuously. The Hubble uses a database of over 20 million stars (Hubble Guidestar Catalog) which is used to make sure the HST remains precisely locked onto its target. The fact that the HST is orbiting the Earth and the Earth orbitting the Sun is irrelevant. It doesn't even 'know' it is moving.
-
We've all seen the crappy not to scale cartoons showing how the solar eclipse is supposed to work
There's a video here where explains it well. Not just diagrams, he's got some software which models it and you can see why the umbra is smaller than the moon and why there's a penumbra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SogwFoT7f68
never a mention of how electromagnetic radiation propagates though
Why would there be? Not really relevant.
They always miss out the lens needed to focus the shadow to a dot on earth too
It's interesting that you think shadows need to be focused but, again, watch the video.
We have not detected any exoplanets. How did Keplers satellite , in it's earth trailing orbit , manage to keep up with earths alleged angular velocity of at 66,660 mph
You not understanding stuff is not evidence. I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, I think it's to do with the assertion that the earth and sun are moving around the galactic centre and the galaxy itself is moving? If that's your question then you need to understand about relative motion. If you jump on a plane why don't you zoom to the back of the plane? The plane is moving at a hundreds of miles an hour. The reason you don't is because so are you. The speed of the plane is also the speed you're going so when you jump that forward speed stays the same and you land back where you jumped from, assuming you jumped vertically and the plane didn't change speed. If you jumped while the plane was accelerating then you would move backwards, relative to the plane.
So, for satellites they are already rotating round the sun and moving with the sun when they launch. The only thing they need to do is orbit the earth, all the other motion is irrelevant.
It's quite easy to deduce from scientific observation/survey and measurement that our known earth is not a globe or exhibits anything consistent with the heliocentric model .
If that's quite easy then why is a heliocentric model with a spherical earth the prevailing view in science?
And I note you have failed to answer my question about the sun. If it's close then it must be much closer to you at midday when it's directly overhead than at sunrise or sunset.
Why does it stay the same size? This observation alone tells you that the sun is not close.
-
It's quite easy to deduce from scientific observation
...that our known earth is not a globe or exhibits anything consistent with the heliocentric model .
OK then give us an example of such a scientific observation that gives us such a deduction.
They always miss out the lens needed to focus the shadow to a dot on earth too
I have never heard of a situation where you would use a lens to focus a shadow. Lenses are used to refract light aren't they? If you put it into the context of cause and effect, the cause of a shadow is blocking of direct incident light and the effect is a localised darkening relative to the surroundings. so why would you use a lens to focus a lack of light. Absurd idea.
-
I will do the Google search for you then shall I..
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/
The Earths orbital velocity has nothing to do with how satellites stay locked onto a stellar target.
Have you ever heard of autoguiding? Very simply Kepler or the Hubble Space Telescope locks onto a star with one of its cameras and then a guidance system makes sure the satellite remains aimed precisely at its target for however long is necessary.
The Hubble Ultra Deep Field for example is an 11 day exposure. Since the sky ìs always dark in space any satellite will see the stars continuously. The Hubble uses a database of over 20 million stars (Hubble Guidestar Catalog) which is used to make sure the HST remains precisely locked onto its target. The fact that the HST is orbiting the Earth and the Earth orbitting the Sun is irrelevant. It doesn't even 'know' it is moving.
Here is the earth trailing orbit of the exoplanet discovering Kepler satellite - 66,600 mph . How ?https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/keplers-unusual-orbit-54411507/
-
I don't see what difference that makes... Kepler is not measuring anything to do with Earth. It is focusing on other stars and then it sending the data back via a radio link. So what difference does it make what sort of orbit Kepler is in? Or indeed where abouts it is in relation to Earth? It takes 8 minutes for light to get to Earth from the Sun (OK 8.2 minutes) so even if Kepler was on the opposite side of the Sun to Earth it would still only take 16 minutes for signals to get back to Earth from the satellite. Given the type of data Kepler is collecting, that is not important.
Do you happen to understand why such an orbit was chosen for Kepler? It was quite deliberate and if you know the reason why it makes complete sense. What doesn't make sense it why you seem to be so dismissive of the mission or indeed of its achievements.
You will note that the British Astronomical Association (one of the most respected in the world) now also has an exoplanets section.
https://britastro.org/section_front/15474
So your earlier comment that no one has ever seen an exoplanet would appear to be somewhat inaccurate. They can even be detected by amateur astronomers now..
http://astronomyonline.org/Exoplanets/AmateurDetection.asp
-
I don't see what difference that makes... Kepler is not measuring anything to do with Earth. It is focusing on other stars and then it sending the data back via a radio link. So what difference does it make what sort of orbit Kepler is in? Or indeed where abouts it is in relation to Earth? It takes 8 minutes for light to get to Earth from the Sun (OK 8.2 minutes) so even if Kepler was on the opposite tide of the Sun to Earth it would still only take 16 minutes for signals to get back to Earth from the satellite. Given the type of data Kepler is collecting, that is not important.
Do you happen to understand why such an orbit was chosen for Kepler?
Have to say, I’ve not heard of an earth trailing orbit. Obviously my reaction to this is “I wonder how that works” rather than “I don’t understand how that works therefore it doesn’t”.
-
[/quote]
Have to say, I’ve not heard of an earth trailing orbit. Obviously my reaction to this is “I wonder how that works” rather than “I don’t understand how that works therefore it doesn’t”.
[/quote]
I do wonder how that works and am happy to see you do too .
These type of orbits have a typical period longer than that of earth , Kepler was 370 days I believe . I don't understand how that works too since we cannot accelerate anything to 66,000mph within the boundaries of known mechanics or keep it there - it would require constant acceleration . How is the solving of the n-body problem carried out , which would have to include a moving earth , sun , moon , asteroids -always narrowly missing earth aren't they .
As to the undeniable fact that no one has ever seen an exoplanet - the Kepler satellite , we are told , uses
the tiny differences of brightness of stars as measured by a photometer . These are then attributed to exoplanetary transits - a nice , but unproven theory . No one has ever seen an exoplanet . Scientists assumptions are not sciences facts .
-
You keep insisting that we have never actually imaged an exoplanet. We have.
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/resources/135/vlt-image-of-exoplanet-hd-95086-b/
I don't know whether your denial is down to the fact that you don't know about all the progress that has been made with exoplanet detection or whether you just don't want to believe it.
You seem to have a one track mind which prevents you from believing or accepting as real or true anything you haven't seen for yourself. Or indeed anything that presents evidence that the Universe is not actually the way you think it should be.
Several of the worlds largest telescopes have now imaged exoplanets directly and denying it is not going to change that.
As for satellite speeds I'm not an aerospace engineer so I don't know the full details of how you make a particular satellite travel at a particular speed.
-
These type of orbits have a typical period longer than that of earth , Kepler was 370 days I believe . I don't understand how that works too since we cannot accelerate anything to 66,000mph within the boundaries of known mechanics or keep it there - it would require constant acceleration
OK, once again you are failing to understand frames of reference. If the earth is orbiting the sun at 66,000 mph then you and the satellite and everything else are already going at that speed.
So it doesn't need to be accelerated to that speed. The bit that does make my head hurt a bit is how it keeps trailing the earth. I suspect that's a combination of the earth and the sun's gravity.
The 'n' body problem has analytical solutions, I suspect for this only the sun, earth and possibly moon have to be considered.
Asteroids are certainly not "always" missing the earth and are small enough that their gravity is almost certainly not a factor here. The other planets possibly have some impact but it's worth noting that it does have thrusters it can use to make corrections when needed.
And again, some exoplanets have been directly imaged.
-
These are then attributed to exoplanetary transits - a nice , but unproven theory . No one has ever seen an exoplanet . Scientists assumptions are not sciences facts .
…. really?
Given that there are several websites which show direct images taken of exoplanets, I'm curious to know why you still insist that no one has ever seen an exoplanet. Perhaps it makes you feel better to believe these images are somehow false or otherwise faked or whatever. If so then it shows an obvious ignorance on your part. I am not going to argue with you any more on this topic because there is no grounds for further debate. The reality of exoplanets has been demonstrated and so it up to you to face up to that reality.
Here is another link that describes the studies and imaging being done by the European Southern Observatory with regard to exoplanets.
https://www.eso.org/public/science/exoplanets/
-
You keep insisting that we have never actually imaged an exoplanet. We have.
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/resources/135/vlt-image-of-exoplanet-hd-95086-b/
I don't know whether your denial is down to the fact that you don't know about all the progress that has been made with exoplanet detection or whether you just don't want to believe it.
You seem to have a one track mind which prevents you from believing or accepting as real or true anything you haven't seen for yourself. Or indeed anything that presents evidence that the Universe is not actually the way you think it should be.
Several of the worlds largest telescopes have now imaged exoplanets directly and denying it is not going to change that.
As for satellite speeds I'm not an aerospace engineer so I don't know the full details of how you make a particular satellite travel at a particular speed.
Where did I ever say " we have never imaged an exoplanet " - you know what I said and you know I am correct . No one has ever seen an exoplanet . But pseudo science is is full of images produced from imagination .
Spectrometers and photometers do not take photos or image anything .
According to science , escape velocity from earths gravitational field is 11km/s but we can put a satellite into orbit it almost three times that . I've never come across any explanation for that .
The only reference used by nasa and in all mankinds' endeavors is the stationary geocentric one , because no scientist has ever found earth to be in motion . Any other reference frame is imaginary .
-
Let's make our minds up shall we. In your reply #7 you said we have never detected any exoplanets.
So what does 'detection' mean to you? You cannot physically look through the VLT or any of the other large telescopes of the world. Instead they use highly sensitive and highy advanced cameras.
So presumably you are now accepting that we have imaged exoplanets and so therefore conceding that we have by definition detected them. Thus your previous statement is wrong.
-
Other suns do exist. [proceeds to describe something that has nothing to do with the FE concept of a sun]
If you can't stay on topic, refrain from posting.
-
I'm not going off topic Pete, it was you that brought up the topic of other Suns
It could well be that other suns exist and we simply have yet to find one, or it could be that it's unique
I was simply answering your question/query/comment so how can it be off topic?
The Sun is star (a main sequence G2V type star to be precise - V meaning main sequence (core hydrogen burning)) just like all the others we see. Just a lot nearer so it looks bigger and brighter than the night time stars.
Am I only allowed to comment on posts providing I adhere to what FE thinks about the nature of the Sun and stars? That's not exactly inline with the 'free thinking' ethos of the FES is it. Thanks for the warning by the way...
-
I do wonder how that works and am happy to see you do too .
These type of orbits have a typical period longer than that of earth , Kepler was 370 days I believe . I don't understand how that works too since we cannot accelerate anything to 66,000mph within the boundaries of known mechanics or keep it there - it would require constant acceleration . How is the solving of the n-body problem carried out , which would have to include a moving earth , sun , moon , asteroids -always narrowly missing earth aren't they .
The vehicle already had the velocity just like you, me, this desk, the server this site is hosted on etc. You yourself have the same orbital velocity that the earth does around the sun. The vessel was not accelerated to 66k mph. It had to go fast enough to escape earth's SOI and then a correction burn or burns to set the solar orbit. Spaceflight does not work like you seem to think it does. It's mainly just adjusting orbits. Read up on orbital mechanics, it's fascinating.
-
I do wonder how that works and am happy to see you do too .
These type of orbits have a typical period longer than that of earth , Kepler was 370 days I believe . I don't understand how that works too since we cannot accelerate anything to 66,000mph within the boundaries of known mechanics or keep it there - it would require constant acceleration . How is the solving of the n-body problem carried out , which would have to include a moving earth , sun , moon , asteroids -always narrowly missing earth aren't they .
The vehicle already had the velocity just like you, me, this desk, the server this site is hosted on etc. You yourself have the same orbital velocity that the earth does around the sun. The vessel was not accelerated to 66k mph. It had to go fast enough to escape earth's SOI and then a correction burn or burns to set the solar orbit. Spaceflight does not work like you seem to think it does. It's mainly just adjusting orbits. Read up on orbital mechanics, it's fascinating.
For fascinating read fantastic . WTF is an earth SOI . I'll assume that means "sphere of influence " . Escape velocity according to Newtons laws is 11km/s . Anything less and your pulled back to earth . Anything more and your free of earth and off to wander in "space" . Schoolboy stuff . Velocity is a vector quantity - magnitude and direction . Angular velocity requires a constant force . Feel free to direct me to an explanation of all said vectors contributing to orbital mechanics . The n-body scenario is a problem that requires all variables ( vectors ) of all bodies within that system to be known exactly at the instant when the orbit of moving bodies is calculated . Space flight does not work as we all are told . Science cannot find any rotation of earth , nasa uses geostationary flat earth co ordinate system for launches and flights - because it works . Because the earth is stationary .
So how , when the satellite escapes SOI does it then accelerate to 66,600mph ( about 30km/s ) to catch earth if it has escaped from SOI , in a vacuum?
-
Several unsubstantiated claims in your post Somerled. Care to back some of them up with some verifiable evidence? Lets start with your claim that the Earth is stationary for example... And saying that the Earth is stationary just because we (you) can't feel it moving is not conclusive evidence.
So how , when the satellite escapes SOI does it then accelerate to 66,600mph ( about 30km/s ) to catch earth if it has escaped from SOI , in a vacuum?
It is your own misunderstanding here that is causing your own problem. The satellite doesn't accelerate to 66,600mph because it is already travelling at that speed as it escapes the Earths SOI. As TIA has already said, once in orbit, adjustments are then applied so the required trajectory is established. Your own wrong belief/assertion that the Earth is 'stationary' is what is causing your problem with this. It is actually easier to accelerate to high velocities in the vacuum of space because it doesn't meet with any air resistance.
-
Angular velocity requires a constant force
Yes, and it's called gravity.
Escape velocity according to Newtons laws is 11km/s . Anything less and your pulled back to earth . Anything more and your free of earth and off to wander in "space"
Not quite. You are free to orbit the sun, but unless you accelerate to 42km/s, you will remain trapped in the solar system.
-
For fascinating read fantastic . WTF is an earth SOI . I'll assume that means "sphere of influence " .
So you can google, good boy.
Escape velocity according to Newtons laws is 11km/s . Anything less and your pulled back to earth . Anything more and your free of earth and off to wander in "space" .
Wrong, leaving Earth's SOI just keeps you in a solar orbit, not wandering around. Not reaching escape velocity does not assume you will fall back to earth unless you are on an extreme parabolic trajectory. In the case of a spacecraft, they are put into an Earth orbit and then the apogee is pushed out beyond the SOI.
Schoolboy stuff . Velocity is a vector quantity - magnitude and direction . Angular velocity requires a constant force . Feel free to direct me to an explanation of all said vectors contributing to orbital mechanics . The n-body scenario is a problem that requires all variables ( vectors ) of all bodies within that system to be known exactly at the instant when the orbit of moving bodies is calculated . Space flight does not work as we all are told . Science cannot find any rotation of earth , nasa uses geostationary flat earth co ordinate system for launches and flights - because it works . Because the earth is stationary .
No one is going to use a so-called flat-earth coordinate system since one does not exist. The Earth is far from stationary as it is orbiting the sun which orbits the galactic center which is moving away from the origin point. Prove it's not and we can continue.
So how , when the satellite escapes SOI does it then accelerate to 66,600mph ( about 30km/s ) to catch earth if it has escaped from SOI , in a vacuum?
Already covered in as you say, basic schoolboy science that you still have wrong. Why would one need to accelerate to escape velocity if it already escaped? It would already be moving at that velocity relative to the sun. It is matching the orbital speed of the earth that is moving around the sun. Simple stuff really.
-
Here is the earth trailing orbit of the exoplanet discovering Kepler satellite - 66,600 mph . How ?https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/keplers-unusual-orbit-54411507/
If you launch any satellite out of Earth's sphere of influence, it will go into basically this orbit. What do you expect that a satellite would do?
-
These type of orbits have a typical period longer than that of earth , Kepler was 370 days I believe . I don't understand how that works too since we cannot accelerate anything to 66,000mph within the boundaries of known mechanics or keep it there - it would require constant acceleration .
This has already been explained over and over. It is really a simple concept. Imagine throwing a ball out of a moving high-speed train going 200 mph. The ball would carry the same speed as the train plus the acceleration of the throw. To an observer on the ground, the ball would seem to be magic as no human can throw a ball at 200 mph.
The earth is already moving at the speeds you say are not possible.