301

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 05, 2021, 05:07:01 PM »

Do these Eddy currents exist?  We certainly don't have the ability to mathematically model them.

302

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 05, 2021, 04:58:13 PM »

If it can't be done based on a full simulation of gravity with the underlying laws then it can't be done.

That would be correct.  You seem to remain confused by the fact that it's mathematically impossible to create the full simulation of gravity because, well, math.  You're welcome to keep presenting the n-body problem as if it means something, though.

303

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 05, 2021, 04:35:10 PM »

a, b, c, d are real numbers

3a+     5c       =9
 a+2b+    12d =2
     7b+2c+3d=19

Tom:  It can't be solved.  a,b,c,and d don't exist.

304

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 05, 2021, 01:54:26 PM »

The three body problem has no comparison with Parsifal's equation. The difference in effort and resources is substantial. The greatest mathematicians in history have been unable to get the RE astronomy system to work. It is quite an embarrassing failure.

From another thread. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17884.msg234879#msg234879

In the next section, it will be shown that two additional integrals can be obtained when N = 2 from the considerations of relative motion of the two bodies. Hence, a two-body problem is analytically solvable. However, with N > 2, the number of unknown motion variables exceeds the total number of integrals; thus, no analytical solution exists for the N-body problem when N > 2. Due to this reason, we cannot mathematically prove certain observed facts (such as the stability of the solar system) concerning N-body motion. The best we can do is to approximate the solution to the N-body problem either by a set of two-body solutions or by numerical solutions.

You do understand what "no analytical soultions exists" means, correct?  It means the math doesn't fit the problem.  It doesn't mean what your trying to analyze doesn't exist.  Your continued use of the n-body problem as some giant 'gotcha' is hysterical.  It means zero to the shape of the earth, but you go ahead.

305

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 02, 2021, 03:25:10 PM »

Bingo. There it is - I knew there was some issue with your understanding of this but it took a while to figure it out. That statement is fundamentally wrong. The vomit comet never changes its acceleration throughout the weightless phase - it is constant throughout.

Acceleration, in physics / maths, is the rate of change of a component of velocity, in this case the vertical velocity of the aircraft. So from the moment the pilot pushes forward on the controls to achieve 0g on the g-meter, the aircraft is accelerating at 9.81ms2 vertically down. It is ballistic, just like a ball thrown at 45 degrees up into the air. Yes, in the first half of the parabola you might call this deceleration if you want, as it slows the aircraft down, but mathematically it’s just one acceleration throughout. Importantly, at the top of the curve, the aircraft will have zero vertical velocity but will still be accelerating - it’s rate of change of velocity hasn’t changed sign or magnitude.

Thank you for that. I get what you're saying. It's still irrelevant.

The sensation of weightlessness is nothing more than the removal of the forces against the body which cause you to detect weight.  It's as simple as that.  If the conditions can be created, weightlessness can be felt at any acceleration, at zero acceleration under motion, or at zero motion entirely.  Hence, orbiting astronauts under acceleration, astronauts to the moon at zero acceleration immense speed and me floating in my sensory deprivation chamber (though admittedly not perfect) all sense weightlessness. A body's motion has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to feel weightless.  A parachutists feels weight.  An astronaut does not.  It's has zero to do with their motion. It's because one is travelling in air molecules. The other is not.  THAT is what causes the sensation of weightlessness.

Let's take one last look at the vomit comet.  The plane, just like the parachutist, feels weight. It takes addtional force to keep it falling faster than terminal velocity. The passenger does not.  Both under the exact same motion. 

Honestly, this is my last.  I really can't beat this dead horse any longer.

306

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 01, 2021, 09:19:33 PM »

And I thought we almost had it.

If you'd said this:

I’m not saying you need to be accelerating to feel weightless

rather than this:

you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

We likely could have avoided, as delightful as it was, this whole discussion.

Those two sentences aren’t actually mutually exclusive, if you think about it.

Wow.  Right back where we started.  Mutually exclusive, no.  Your second statement is abjectly false.  Acceleration has nothing to do with whether one feels weightlessness or not.  It's all right there in the vomit comet.  You have weightlessness during deceleration, 0 acceleration, and acceleration all in the same pass.

It has everything to do with speed (or rather velocity, to be pedantic) because at orbital velocity you can be at 0g forever. Faster than this, and 0g will take you away from the planet. Slower and, like the vomit comet, your flight path will very quickly see you meeting the surface of the planet. You can experience 0g in an aircraft/spacecraft flying at any speed, but the faster you are travelling, the longer you can do it for.

This is a beauty.  In the same paragraph you say it has everything to do with speed then give two different speeds in space as well as saying any speed in an aircraft.  What's the common denominator?  Zero normal force on the body during all three instances of differing speeds, accelerations, and directional vectors.  How long one can maintain weightlessness is an entirely separate subject.

I'm going to leave this now unless Pete wants to throw it all in CN then we can continue.  No need to clog the upper with more of this.

307

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 01, 2021, 07:22:51 PM »

If you'd said this:

I’m not saying you need to be accelerating to feel weightless

rather than this:

you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

We likely could have avoided, as delightful as it was, this whole discussion.


But then you had to throw this in...

The reason for feeling weightless has nothing to do with space per se, but rather everything to do with speed.

The FEELING of weightlessness has nothing to do with either acceleration or velocity.  The feeling exists because the normal force against your body doesn't.  It's that simple no matter your velocity or acceleration.

308

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 01, 2021, 06:12:58 PM »

Sorry WTF, but Bob is spot on. 

Your analogy with floating in the water is different; you, and the water you displace, have identical mass so are accelerated by gravity at the same rate.  Neither can move vertically, of course, because the body of water is supported by the seabed, bottom of the pool, or whatever. 

When the parachutist leaves contact with the aircraft, he is instantaneously weightless, but immediately begins accelerating vertically.  As his vertical speed increases, he becomes subject to the upward force of aerodynamic drag, which is related to his size, his drag-coefficient (his shape), air density, and his velocity-squared.  He continues accelerating, and his weight continues increasing, until the aerodynamic drag equals the force of gravity; terminal velocity. 

Float in a pool and you perceive no force acting on you.  Compare this with sticking your arm out the window of a moving car.  Feel the difference?

Didn't realize this was such a difficult concept.  Here:

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/free-falling-the-science-of-weightlessness/#:~:text=Astronauts%20feel%20weightless%20when%20there%20is%20nothing%20opposing%20the%20force%20of%20gravity.&text=(B)%20An%20astronaut%20orbiting%20the,Thus%2C%20the%20astronaut%20is%20falling.

The feeling of weightlessness has nothing to do with acceleration.  Weightlessness is the lack of feeling a normal force against your body.  You actually stated the concept while refuting the concept.  Well done.

If you could eliminate the tactile sensations of water, you would feel no difference in weightlessness floating perfectly still in water, with zero acceleration, as you do in space.  Motion in water ruins the effect because water has density unlike space.

309

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: April 01, 2021, 05:15:46 PM »

Holy shit, are we going to have 4 years of this BDS?

Nope.  Trump's back in in August.  Mike Lindell says so.

310

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 01, 2021, 03:54:32 PM »

At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.

This is also untrue.  Their mass will be the same but not their weight.  If a parachutist were to take a scale with them and put it under their feet while they are at terminal velocity the scale would not measure the same weight as it does on the ground.  It's no different than a scale in water.  Wind resistance acts the same way as water's buoyant force.

311

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 01, 2021, 03:29:26 PM »

you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

This is false.

No, it's bang on, although I think we're actually in broad agreement. You are correct about being effectively in freefall when in orbit - but that is an acceleration, as your velocity is changing, even if your speed isn't - remember velocity is a vector, meaning the magnitude is important. We have to use words like 'freefall' carefully - a parachutist, when jumping out of a plane, will initially accelerate - during which time they will initially feel 'weightless' - but this will reduce as they eventually stabilise at a steady speed. At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.

By definition, weight is a measure of force (most commonly referenced to gravity) acting upon a body .  You don't have to have acceleration to have a force acting upon a body.  Do you feel weightless when you are standing still? No.  Weightlessness is simply a sensation.  Acceleration causes you to feel more weight not less.  That's why they call it "feeling G's" when you accelerate.  A parachutists feels weight at terminal velocity because of the wind resistance exerted on his body not because of the fact that his velocity has stabilised.

312

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 01, 2021, 02:20:52 PM »

The same way anyone else perceives weightlessness, even when they are not truly in space.

That would violate the equivalence principle.  According to it, if you are accelerating upwards at a rate equal to gravity, away from any gravitational force, then it would feel like you are under the influence of gravity.

This is a quite interesting concept.  With regards to folks in orbit I believe this would be correct. Folks in orbit are maintaining the same elevation.  As I mentioned, they are actually falling but their tangential velocity causes them fall past the earth in the RE model.  In the FE model, in order for their elevation to remain constant, there would have to be some force being exerted on them which is holding them up.  Basically, identical to being in an airplane only the force is not a physical barrier.  Still, that force would certainly be felt.

313

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 01, 2021, 02:10:06 PM »

you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

This is false.  Standing completely still, you feel weight.  You feel weightless because there is nothing to create the sensation of the force acting upon your body.  People orbiting the earth are in a free fall.  They simply have the correct tangential velocity that they are constantly falling past the edge of the globe.  Get the tangential velocity correct and your constant free fall is a circular path.  In space, all your surroundings are traveling in the exact same manner so they exert no force on you.  You feel weight in a plane because the floor of the plane stops you from falling to the ground.  The body of the plane is resisting the force of gravity that the passenger feels.  Nosedive the plane to the same rate as freefall and, viola, the person experiences weightlessness as there's nothing to create the sensation of force upon them.

314

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: March 31, 2021, 03:15:40 PM »

Pete, are there any diagrams to demonstrate how EA would cause the earth to appear spherical to astronauts?

Not that I'm aware of. Might be a question for other FE groups.

Not that I think the concept would be particularly different. In short, a curved Earth with straight light rays is visually identical to a flat Earth with curved light rays. This concept does not change with the observer's position.

Yea, not a big deal. I have a much easier time picturing things in the 2D, cross-sectional view. I agree that the same principles would work to create a potential equivalence...just having a hard time developing the picture in my head as an observer looking down onto things in a more 3D scenario.

In a static sense, the EA vs. round view is an interesting scenario.  However, space travel is not static.  We aren't talking about folks who fly to a stationary object and then sit there viewing the earth.  We're talking about folks who've traveled over the surface and view how it's changed beneath them.  EA can't account for how craft circles the globe.

315

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities

« on: March 30, 2021, 05:37:41 PM »

Apologies.  Had to edit this.  Realized I had misread time off of suncalc with relation to UTC.  18:02 UTC is 10:02 UTC-8 which is how sunlcalc displays time. The original picture was incorrect and has been replaced and necessary edits made.

The Wiki includes this graphic, showing a number of curved and almost semi-circular paths for the eclipses, and paths which are wider at the poles.



They take these paths, and have differing path widths because the eclipse shadow is passing over a curved surface, i.e. the surface of a globe. The path is more semi-circular at the poles, less so in equatorial regions.

What possible reason is there for the path to be anything other than a straight line on a flat earth?

Actually, with the sun and moon traveling a circular orbit around the north pole, arcs would not be ruled out.  That really makes no difference as to FE geometry and realized eclipse paths not working.  My understanding of eclipses on FE is that they occur as the sun passes over the new moon.  That being said, if the alignment of sun and moon are such that a shadow is cast on FE, then the maximum eclipse would occur somewhere along the N-S longitude line of the position of sun and moon at the exact time of the new moon.  This would occur at a location on the disc where the sun and moon culmination times are equal and would occur at the time of culmination.

So let's look at the 2033 MAR. 30 path shown on your illustration.  Here's a picture from Suncalc with the addition of the eclipse details.



As you can see, the greatest eclipse occurs some 4 1/2 hours before culmination at the point of greatest eclipse.  The exact new moon occurs roughly the longitude of Chicago around 17:53.  At 18:02 the sun and moon are crossing somewhere the over the central US around 89.5 deg W yet casting a shadow some 60 deg. east.  Simply can't happen in the FE model.

316

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 29, 2021, 08:17:25 PM »

So Powell and her ilk get to keep pedling the claims without having to also prove it in a court of law.  And Trumpers just eat it up.

... and Vladimir Putin leans back in his comfy leather chair with a knowing smile.

Nah.  He's probably like "How the fuck did we lose the cold war to these morons?"

Never underestimate a moron's willingness and desire to blow up all things not whitely American at any expense..

317

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS livestreams

« on: March 23, 2021, 05:58:51 PM »

What about the fact that you can match ground observations to those from the satellite?

Doppler radar has existed for a long time.

Which is what makes Doppler radar an excellent, trusted device in authenticating satellite weather imagery.  Thanks for making Raza's point.

318

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why does the moon have impact craters?

« on: March 22, 2021, 10:05:42 PM »

I searched for "crater" in the wiki, but I couldn't find any threads about moon craters (maybe I just need a wiki lesson). If previous posters have already asked this, perhaps someone could direct me.

Anyway, the moon clearly has impact craters, which comports with the whole RE/the-universe-exists side of the argument. How does FET explain them?

Crap flying around in the sky and impacting other crap wouldn't necessarily be ruled out in a FE model.  It just flies around differently.

319

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why does the moon have impact craters?

« on: March 22, 2021, 09:59:48 PM »

It is presumed that the moon has impact craters, much the same as the craters we find on earth are presumed to be caused by impact events (there is almost no reason to suspect this).

Please enlighten us on how they were created.

320

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 22, 2021, 09:41:15 PM »

Professor Ashish Tewari said "we cannot mathematically prove certain observed facts (such as the stability of the solar system) concerning N-body motion"

Did you miss the little point I emphasized?  Funny how he didn't go on to say that this definitively proves the n-body system is false.  I wonder why.

You can't even give the equation of a single curved line.