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.

Messages - QED

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Code for earth moon orbits
« on: May 07, 2019, 03:17:10 PM »

Adding corrections until the model matches observations makes the matter moot. Any model can be defined as the ideal state.

This is a claim which requires evidence. Until you can present evidence which demonstrates that any model can be defined as the ideal state, your claim remains unfounded.

In fact, I can disprove your claim using a proof by contradiction. All I need to do is find a model which cannot be defined as the ideal state. That model exists. It is the FE model. It cannot explain the terminus.

It would be a wonderful demonstration of your position is you could define the FE model to describe a 24 hour cycle :)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Theory/Model Request
« on: May 07, 2019, 01:29:33 PM »
I know it’s bad form to bump myself. My apologies.

Please provide input for solving the terminus issue. Brainstorming is welcome.

RE has a viable mechanism for explaining day and night on Earth. FE has no model for this.

Until this basic problem is addressed, no amount of RE disproof efforts matter.

I invite all FE thinkers and leaders to build a quorum and summit this issue to a resolution.

This one is a bit long, but interesting. Jeran presents a marathon of quotes from various physcists and astronomers who make statements along the lines that Heliocentrism and diunral motion are untenable or unverified, and that rejection of evidence or the invocation of illusions are used to explain failings. Runtime 3h:

I think what would be much more convincing of FE ideas is if FES could actually build a model for their FE claim.

Presently, FEers cannot survive a single day on earth, and until the terminus can be described on a flat earth — it doesn’t matter how much anyone thinks REers are wrong.

Proving RE wrong and FE correct are two separate pursuits. Progress in one does nothing for the other.

There is no FE model. At all.

Flat Earth Media / Re: Jeranism - Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
« on: May 07, 2019, 01:17:26 PM »
Thanks Tom!

I found the video disappointing. Rather than a mature and professional depiction of cosmological challenges, the author quickly devolves his address into the standard conspiracy theory rhetoric we have grown used to here. It is quite uncompelling and sophomoric.

Here is a much better summary of cosmological challenges:

A possible solution exists which is over 30 years old, called inflation.


I find your analysis to be thoughtful, accurate and compelling.

The multiverse is an odd example to use. It does not meet the standard of a scientific theory, and is a possibility suggested by physicists. Perhaps future accomplishments will permit multiverse falsifiability. Until then, it’s utility mirrors anthropic arguments, in my opinion, and really serve as a philosophical comment rather than a scientific inquiry.

You mention Carol uses too blunt an instrument to dissect and discard religion, and suggest value exists it. I am interested to hear more of your thoughts on this matter.

I am an atheist. I believe religion offers communal and society benefits, but also produces much harm. Presently, I cannot identify any benefit of religion that can be found elsewhere which justifies tolerating the harm.

Nevertheless, I am open to challenging my view, and would like to hear your input.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Code for earth moon orbits
« on: May 07, 2019, 02:09:22 AM »
Sorry QED, the simulation uses Kepler's laws along with the periodic perturbations between the gas giants. It is, literally, the exact problem that Tom was talking about.

I might make my own simulation later.

The issue is that Perturbation Theory is used to gradually add corrections to make data fit the formula of choice:

This general procedure is a widely used mathematical tool in advanced sciences and engineering: start with a simplified problem and gradually add corrections that make the formula that the corrected problem becomes a closer and closer match to the original formula.


Perturbation theory was first devised to solve otherwise intractable problems in the calculation of the motions of planets in the solar system. For instance, Newton's law of universal gravitation explained the gravitation between two astronomical bodies, but when a third body is added, the problem was, "How does each body pull on each?" Newton's equation only allowed the mass of two bodies to be analyzed. The gradually increasing accuracy of astronomical observations led to incremental demands in the accuracy of solutions to Newton's gravitational equations, which led several notable 18th and 19th century mathematicians, such as Lagrange and Laplace, to extend and generalize the methods of perturbation theory. These well-developed perturbation methods were adopted and adapted to solve new problems arising during the development of quantum mechanics in 20th century atomic and subatomic physics. Paul Dirac developed perturbation theory in 1927 to evaluate when a particle would be emitted in radioactive elements.

Why is that a problem?

That is a fair response to the debate, and I appreciate your comments.

Given a debate topic: “God and Cosmology” it is understandable that both debaters must take certain chances reaching into their opponent’s respective fields in order to establish a proper argument. In my view, Craig reaches into physics to make physical claims he is not qualified to do, and Carrol reaches into theism yet does not make theistic claims. Indeed, theism cannot supplant science despite Craig’s desire to posit so. Carrol makes no genuine error of category, because he is rebuking Craig’s attempt to use science to prove theistic claims. Carrol responds by re-delineating the boundary, and underlining the incompatibility when attempting to cross it.

Indeed Carrol discusses ideas which are not a consensus, but those are the theories raised during the debate by both debaters, and Carrol ensures they are discussed properly.

It is not clear the multiverse theory has no predictive power. Tuning parameters of an idea that is barely understood is not really used by physicists to explain whatever they want. As a physicist, you do understand that we do not simply tune parameters to our fancy in a reverse-engineeering anthropic fashion.

And certainly, as a physicist, you are aware of the difference between a multiverse and a God.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Numerical method for satellite orbits
« on: May 06, 2019, 11:07:22 AM »
The manner in which you formulate your own sentences about these matters betrays your lack of expertise. It may be convincing to the uninitiated, but to a trained physicist it becomes immediately obvious that you are not really understanding what you write.

You have just presented two papers which describe UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL orbital mechanics: the application of the Runge-Kutta method and ephemeris calculations.

Is this your current level of understanding of the orbital equations of motion of a satellite?

This piece serves as illustration that Newtonian dynamics are not only solvable for explaining and modeling orbits, but also used to position artificial satellites around objects in our solar system.

You really need to update your knowledge on the subject.

Here is the equation of motion describing the librational motion of an arbitrarily shaped satellite in a planar, elliptical orbit:

(1 + εμcosθ)ψ" - 2εμsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3Kisinψcosψ = 0

ψ' = δψ/δθ

Ki = (Ixx - Izz)/Iyy

εμ = eccentricity of the orbit

For small ε, and using 1/(1 + εμcosθ) = 1 - εμcosθ + O(ε2), we obtain

ψ" + 3Kisinψcosψ = ε[2μsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3μKisinψcosψcosθ] + O(ε2)

This is a fully nonlinear ordinary differential equation (initial conditions). For weakly nonlinear ODE, we can use methods such as multiple scaling and averaging.

For a fully nonlinear ODE, we need very advanced perturbation techniques: the Melnikov method.

Even for a simpler version of this fully nonlinear differential equation, the orbit of a tethered satellite system, we will get chaotical motions for realistic/real flight parameters:

In theory, time delay feedback control methods are used to try to minimize the chaotical motion; however, in real time flight, parameters values can and will exceed the data used in the theorized version.

The undergraduate papers you presented amount to nothing at all: they ASSUME that the orbital equations motion can be integrated without having to take into consideration the THEORETICAL aspects of a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations.

You are quite mistaken, my friend. Integratability has not been assumed. I recommend you read these a bit more carefully. One does not obtain a tethered satellite as a result of an approximation. Rather, the ODEs are APPLIED to a certain case, and that is the reference you have cited (but not understood).

Also, the last time you blasted equations at me you didn’t even know what they were - recall our maxwell equation conversation? Would you like to take one more look at the equations you posted here before I reply?

I find it hilarious that you refer to a thesis as an undergraduate paper.

To answer your question, I deliberately found more simple treatments to appease Tom, who gets confused when the analysis becomes advanced.

Flat Earth Theory / Numerical method for satellite orbits
« on: May 06, 2019, 05:39:08 AM »
Below is a link to a dissertation which describes a numerical integration technique used for propagating the orbits of satellites.

Below that is a description of a numerical package along with embedded links for initial conditions for describing orbits and trajectories. The model is displayed for view.

This piece serves as illustration that Newtonian dynamics are not only solvable for explaining and modeling orbits, but also used to position artificial satellites around objects in our solar system.

Let me know if you have any questions as these numerical techniques would prove useful for FET pursuits.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Code for earth moon orbits
« on: May 06, 2019, 05:31:29 AM »
You think that these perturbations are different than the perturbation method of prediction described by the sources in the Wiki link? Interesting. However, and unfortunately, "I think that..." isn't very strong evidence. You should support your opinions. I encourage you to demonstrate yourself to be correct through references, sources or citations.

You also think that these predicted positions are the result of, or match with, an n-body simulation? Interesting again. If true, that is quite extraordinary. I can only encourage you once again to provide reference, source, or citation to strengthen your ideas and opinions.

What purpose does it serve to provide references that you will not understand (intentionally or otherwise)?

Once again I have provided proof, and once again you claim it is not there. Interesting.

Do whatever you want, Tom. I shall continue:

1. Requesting that FET justify its claims

2. Requesting that FEers present a model

3. Refuting fraudulent criticisms of science with evidence.

What you do is rather irrelevant, because it involves no action.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 11:45:41 PM »

1. The Shadow Moon is transparent.

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."

The existence of the shadow moon was discussed/predicted by the most eminent astronomers of the 19th century:

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."

The subquarks constantly being supplied to form the telluric currents come in two flavors, as already discussed:

One of the dark bodies which orbit above the Earth emits the laevorotatory subquarks, the antigravitational subquarks, as proven by the Allais effect.

Logically, the invisible moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks; in fact read this extraordinary work:

In fact, cosmic waves have far greater penetrating power than the man-made gamma radiation, and can even pass through a thickness of two metres of lead. The highest frequency possible, that is, the shortest wavelength limit is equal to the dimension of the unit element making up space-time itself, equal to Planck length, radiating at a frequency of 7.4E42Hz.

As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect, since such radiation would penetrate ANY matter and act all over its constituent particles, not just its surface. The radiation can be visualised as a shower of high energy EM waves imparting impulses of momentum to all bodies in space. It also explains the great difficulty we have to shield anything from such force. The energy of each individual photon is a crucial component of the momentum necessary to create pressure for gravity to be possible. The shadow of incoming high energy EM wave packets can be pictured as the carriers of the gravitational force, the normal role assigned to the theoretical graviton. Hence, gravitons have been theorised due to the lack of knowledge of radiation pressure and radiation shadowing, and that's why they will never be detected. If photons represent the luminance of electromagnetic radiation, then, gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes.

This radiation shadowing is being emitted by the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse: read the phrase - that is why they will never be detected.

"Gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes".

The Shadow Moon, the source of the dextrorotatory subquarks causes the lunar eclipse.

We know for sure that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, here is the Allais effect:

Identifying small anomalies during lunar eclipses does not constitute evidence for a shadow moon.

Referencing some person 200 years ago who said there is a shadow moon does not constitute evidence for a shadow moon.

You need to demonstrate that there is a shadow moon. Until then, no such thing exists.

Also, you cannot discuss properties of it by appealing to other claims you have made which also have not been demonstrated.

Telluric currents do not exist, because no evidence has been presented.

Subquarka do not exist, because no evidence has been presented.

You cannot use Planck length radiation to help you because there is not evidence that this radiation exists.

In fact, no where in your quoted reply can I find any argumentation that is based on things which have been shown to exist.

I recommend taking a deep breath, and trying to explain the terminus during a 24 hr period. Until FEers can survive a single day on Earth, so to speak, it really doesn’t matter what other exotic wild ideas you invent to circumlocute the many obstacles which exist for you.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Code for earth moon orbits
« on: May 05, 2019, 11:35:22 PM »
You don’t want an n-body simulation, remember?

I do want an n-body simulation. We were talking about the three body problem and the n-body problems and whether the heliocentric orbits work with Newtonian physics. This addresses none of that. This is not an n-body simulation. This is based on Perturbation Theory, and is totally invalid for demonstrating the possibility of the sun-earth-moon system or 3+ body orbits.

You are wrong, and do not understand what you are reading. Again. This plots the equations you wanted, which are solutions for the the orbits.

It also handles perturbations from those orbits, which is a bonus, but not really relevant for our purposes. In other words, it provides more than you need.

Accounting for perturbations is not the same as perturbation theory. You are using those words wrong because you do not understand them.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Code for earth moon orbits
« on: May 05, 2019, 06:36:49 PM »
That's not an n-body simulation. Newton's equations for gravity are expressed nowhere in that link.

That code is using the perturbation method of predicting the location of planets and celestial bodies, as described at Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns - Perturbations

You don’t want an n-body simulation, remember? You want the equations plotted. This will do that. Stop stalling. I predicted that you wouldn’t plot the equations and I was correct. Moreover, I predicted what diversion you would use, and was again correct.

I won’t respond to any more diversions you present regarding this topic. I have better things to do with my time.

This matter is closed until you decide to evaluate the evidence placed in front of you.

BTW, the longer you postpone doing so, the more foolish you will look. It is no problem for me to tolerate your refusal to plot them. At some later point which is advantageous to me, I will run the code, show you and everyone else the results, and use it to demonstrate that the evidence had been placed before you, and your intransigence against behaving zetetically cost time, resources, respect, and influence.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« on: May 05, 2019, 04:11:47 PM »
From the wiki ( "Firstly, we must understand that the stars in FE are small and a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth." But to my understanding the above critic does assume Polaris (it's weird to talk about myself in third person) to be much farther.

The author can assume whatever he wishes, but you still need to account for stars which should be visible but are not. At all.

Also, I can simply “assume” that the author is wrong, and I then have a result every bit as powerful as what you referenced. Which is very little. Citing assumptions is not evidence.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« on: May 05, 2019, 12:42:04 PM »
It can’t be due to vanishing perspective, because in the OP example the stars which are supposed to have vanished are closer than the stars that are visible.

The OP diagrams do not prove the earth is a globe, you have this all wrong. OP is asking a question about FE claims, using a FE map, and using stars known to be visible in certain locations.

The depicted diagram is misleading, how do we know that model to be right? And what FE model is that criticism addressing? Of course they don't prove earth is a globe, to date any single attempt to prove that has spectacularly failed.

You, however, are not offering a zetetic answer. You are offering a dogmatic answer: Rowbotham said it’s flat so something you did somewhere has to be wrong.

No sir, OP is using FE resources to ask a FE question. It behooves you to provide a FE response. If you cannot do so then (to date) no FE response exists, which means this is another basic zetetic observation that FET cannot answer.

Rowbotham proposed repeatable experiments that stood any close examination and prove beyond doubt the planarity of earth. That's not a dogma, it's real science. Anyway, the final answer is not up to me, each of us must do its own research and draw its own conclusions.

That’s right. Who’s to say that map IS correct? In fact, the OP has a good argument for it being wrong.

In fact, FE has no accurate map. That’s a big problem which should concern you.

Rowbotham did not propose experiments that proved beyond any doubt the earth is a plane. That is dogma and not real science. If he had, then we would all believe the earth is flat.

And what research have you done to arrive at your conclusions? Read some Rowbotham and believe it? That is not research. Have you reproduced his experiments? Because that is the zetetic way: do your own.

In fact, what direct zetetic experiments have you done to test the planarity of earth? I would love to hear of your zetetic investigations - in another thread. But this OP is about the FE map that is not accurate.

And so, if it cannot be answered, then we have demonstrated that this map is inaccurate and thus, in good faith, should be removed from the wiki.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« on: May 05, 2019, 10:36:19 AM »
Amusing that you don't realize that a star perfectly knows the shape of Earth, since I can see it from the sky (at least the Northern hemisphere). But can you see that whatever non-sense sounds like a FE "reasoning"?

Anyway, if you dig the forum you'll see that no "real" FE will discuss this topic, so I put a possible reply. From the wiki

"Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars"

And also Rowbotham used his famous Bedford Canal Experiment to prove that (since Atmospheric Refraction is just fiction) "deny the existence of rotundity, and to declare that, "to all intents and purposes," absolutely and logically, beyond doubt, THE EARTH IS A VAST IRREGULAR PLANE."

So it comes by necessity that if your diagrams prove Earth is a globe, than your diagrams must be wrong, or at least have a (albeit tiny) measurement error that casts an unacceptable doubt upon your conclusions, because "those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative"

Yeah? You find it amusing? Then why don’t you answer the question.

It can’t be due to vanishing perspective, because in the OP example the stars which are supposed to have vanished are closer than the stars that are visible.

The OP diagrams do not prove the earth is a globe, you have this all wrong. OP is asking a question about FE claims, using a FE map, and using stars known to be visible in certain locations.

In essence, OP is using a very zetetic approach to ask a question about FE.

You, however, are not offering a zetetic answer. You are offering a dogmatic answer: Rowbotham said it’s flat so something you did somewhere has to be wrong.

No sir, OP is using FE resources to ask a FE question. It behooves you to provide a FE response. If you cannot do so then (to date) no FE response exists, which means this is another basic zetetic observation that FET cannot answer.

I’m reality, there is only ONE zetetic observation that FET CAN answer: when I look outside, outside looks flat.


How about we build on that success and answer any other FE observation using zetetic methods.

Flat Earth Theory / Theory/Model Request
« on: May 05, 2019, 04:21:07 AM »
It is in my opinion of paramount importance that FEers unify together to answer a basic question:

How do you get day and night patterns on a flat earth.

Let me be clear. No FE model exists which can describe day and night on a flat earth. Not even for a single day.

Why am I making this request? Well, Tom demanded equations for orbital trajectories and then pictures that describe in exact detail these orbits.

That is a double standard.

Tom believes in FET, claims FE, yet has no equations and has no picture that works.

This is a huge problem for your movement. You have no model that describes a 24 hour day!

I am not trying to rant here, I am trying to pull you together. I want you to see the imminence of this issue. Please, unify and build this model. It is beyond an embarrassment that this does not exist among those who claim the earth is flat.

I will help you, but you must do it!

Flat Earth Theory / Code for earth moon orbits
« on: May 04, 2019, 11:32:27 PM »
Since my reply in the other thread carelessly left out the actual link for the code, I thought I’d present it fresh for those interested.

It is written in BASIC, and you just need to execute it.

Happy orbiting.

Tom - run the code and stop complaining please.

Also Tom - everyone knows that the orbits in this solar system are quasi-stable, and are degrading. Hence, your request for stable orbits is poisoning the well. Stability is not present, is not needed, and is irrelevant to this conversation. For discussion of bound orbits, stability is off-topic.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation
« on: May 04, 2019, 04:14:10 PM »
That is exactly what you said. It is right here:

You are describing a violation of the equivalence principle. A container filled with gas will behave the same under gravity or under upwards acceleration. Gradually increase the size of that container and it behaves the same. There isn't a point where it suddenly violates the equivalence principle.

I agree. But a RE is not a container like a spaceship. It is also rotating, and so one must account for the effects of rotational drag, which is precisely why we have weather!

What I am saying is that on a FE, we would not have this rotation, and so the equivalence principle would indeed be violated - because we do not feel increasing pressure like we would on a space ship.

Now again, please justify your absurdity. You are suggesting that if the earth were not rotating the weight of the atmosphere would continually increase.

Yes indeed. Go ahead and copypasta me previous replies as well. It isn’t all in there. We had an entire conversation, and you are referencing my last reply and saying it does not contain the information of the entire conversation.

Absurdly, and anecdotally, this is what AG Barr did during the congressional hearing: piecemealing the totality until any one section was not convincing on its own. Don’t do that!

Flat Earth Media / Re: Heliocentric Speed Change Problem
« on: May 04, 2019, 03:01:19 PM »
This is by a wide margin the most accurate and complete explanation for relative motion I have read on this forum.

You certainly must have taught physics or have equivalent training. This makes it even more strange to me your prior diatribe regarding gravitation. It was filled with imprecise language, poorly constructed arguments, and an apparent ignorance of the normal force - which one learns in physics I.

Can you help reconcile for me this difference? Are there two of you?

In any event, I redact my stipulation to leave the physics to me. You clearly have valuable (albeit inconsistent) input.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25  Next >