1

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.

https://www.colorado.edu/ccar/sites/default/files/attached-files/numerical_algorithms_for_preci.pdf

http://www.maia.ub.edu/dsg/wsem/documents/validated01.pdf

2

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!

3

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.

https://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/tutorial.html

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.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Gravity: Supplemental

« on: May 02, 2019, 02:41:55 PM »

This seemed a bit off-topic for the gravity thread here, by relevant enough to link the threads by name.

The cavendish experiment is a long-hailed successful demonstration of the gravitational attraction between two massive objects.

Even though the gravitational force is by far the weakest force, careful setups can still produce definitive results.

The first link below is an identical setup to one I have built in the past. The second is a YouTube video demonstrating just how easy basic cavendish setups can be. Enjoy!

https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/video/vid_byunit.html?unit=3&vidNum=1

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Supplemental Offering: Expertise vs Intelligence

« on: April 27, 2019, 06:38:43 PM »

This is in supplement to a discussion with Sandokhan in EMS trajectory. The purpose is to provide context for my claim:

Intelligence is insufficient to deduce correct conclusions in fields beyond one’s expertise.

In no way is this an insult against Sandokhan. Quite the contrary, I have become rather impressed with his devotion and obvious talent.

Below is a debate between Sean Carroll (physicist) and William Lane Craig (theologian and philosopher). The topic is God and Cosmology. What Craig attempts to do is use physics to establish an argument for god.

Now Craig is an incredibly bright scholar, and veteran debater. But he doesn’t know his physics.

Carroll just kicks his ass, and this is because Craig believes that his intelligence is sufficient to interpret physics he is not qualified to interpret. As a result, he makes continual mistakes which Carroll corrects. Enjoy.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: April 25, 2019, 03:08:27 AM »

This update is in regards to a prior thread about the 3 body problem.

Summary
Prior discussion ended with a call for direct evidence of solutions to the 3 body problem, specifically to describe the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system under the central force model. Multiple references were provided, but a request was made for a synopsis which contained distilled results easily identified - rather than committing to several hundred pages of technical manuscript.

This Offering
I have procured a link to a concise summary that is intended for an upper division undergraduate physics student audience. The benefit of this approach is that it presents the nominal equations without additional theoretical applications often found in publications or research. Hence, it is my hope that this resource will prove useful for FEers who seek direct evidence that the 3 body trajectories are not only known, but reasonably simple and accessible to a scientific but not necessarily professional physicist audience.

As always, it is my pleasure to offer my time in fielding any questions you may have about this resource.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestialhtml/node100.html

7

Flat Earth Theory / FE Theory: Formal Development (Part III)

« on: April 23, 2019, 12:03:07 PM »

Greetings, FEers!

After another volley of fruitful discussions, I am brining the next instalment of the formalism to present FET as a legitimate theory. As always, you comments, thoughts, criticisms, corrections, and other input are most welcome (and requested  )

Sun/Moon Trajectories
Unfortunately I have not been able to make much progress here. The present impasse is reconciling Vanishing Perspective Theory (VPT) with sunsets/sunrises. I am tabling this pursuit until I get a new bright idea or read one from others.

Universal Acceleration
In order to accord with the results of parts I and II of this series, the surrounding environment must be accelerating with the plane of the Earth. The issue is then why do we return to the ground if we jump into the air?

Possible paths forward:

• Decoupling. Humans are not coupled to the motion of the plane and the surrounding environment. This may be due to a symmetry breaking at some point in the Universe’s past. While an exotic option, it is not without precedence.
• Inertial dampening. The plane is moving through an aether field, which could be composed of dark energy, dark matter, or a third unspecified option. Humans interact with this field, which damps our motion and returns us to the ground. Think of it like a wind that pushes us back down.

Geography
The present status on FE maps and ice wall existence is still a matter of active debate. One possible path forward may be to investigate the distribution of magnetic field lines in the Earth. Mapping those may inform geography mapping, as certain configurations of magnetic fields result from ferrous material deposits.

That is all for now. I hope the community finds these synopses useful, and I look forward to future discussions on these topics 

8

Science & Alternative Science / Epistemological Implications of Zetecism

« on: April 21, 2019, 04:50:10 PM »

This post is an effort to learn more about the operative foundations of zeteticism.

Assumptions

• zetetics believe objective truth exists
• zetetics want to believe that which is true
• absolute truth is unverifiable, but truth to a reasonable standard is attainable - though perhaps evolving

The epistemological nuance of this post is: by what objective standard is evidence assessed?

In previous discussions, it was stated that zetetic inquiry does not insist on a display of the process by which evidence, information, experiment, or conclusion was attained. Apparently this is to avoid bias in future independent efforts to acquire personal truth.

As we know, the most reliable (presently known) method for removing bias is the scientific method, which operates under the stress of transparency.

In this sense, I perceive zeteticism as a rebuttal - a comment - which says: the very act of transparency seeds the independent inquirer with confirmation bias, and hence is faulty.

Thus, I seek to discuss and better understand the following:

1. What is zeteticism’s position on the double blind process, as it seems to atone for this rebuttal?

2. How does objective truth become verified? We know that personal investigation is necessarily flawed because our senses are biased. Hence, my zetetic truth need not align with yours, and presently I can identify no mechanism by which a resolution is attained.

As always, any misrepresentation of zetecism in this post is my own and unintentional. And correction to misrepresentation is highly desired and appreciated in advance. Zeteticism is interesting, and I seek to learn.

9

Flat Earth Community / Ice wall picture (I hope this is correct)

« on: April 21, 2019, 02:45:37 AM »

Below is the ice wall picture from the wiki. I am hoping to receive input on whether this is the evidence mentioned for an ice wall existing (from previous threads). I could not find another pic on the wiki for it.

If this is the photo, I would love to ask:

1. How did you acquire it?
2. It appears as those the ice wall borders Antarctica on the coast! Is my interpretation correct?
3. Of the above is true, then this is verifiable information. Ships and planes can verify it without crossing an unknown distance into the continent.

So that it is not misunderstood, I wish to indicate that my queries are genuine, and ones I could not find answers for on the wiki.

I mean in no way, shape, or form to be mocking or insulting with these queries. I do believe their answers to be of high scientific importance.

Although I do err on occasion, it is my intention to keep chicanery limited to AR/CN.

10

Science & Alternative Science / Scepticism vs denialism

« on: April 17, 2019, 03:02:41 AM »

Hope I’m not in danger of spamming. In the course of my evening reading I happened upon an interesting discussion contrasting scepticism and denialism, and how the two can be conflated. It also happens to feature a quote from one of my favorite books:

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.” -Pirsig

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201702/flat-earthers-belief-skepticism-and-denialism%3Famp

11

Science & Alternative Science / Geodesy

« on: April 17, 2019, 02:46:42 AM »

See below for a nice lecture on Geodesy, an applied mathematics for measuring the shape of the Earth.

It is not too technical to bore recreational enthusiasts, but not too basic to bore serious thinkers.

I hope you enjoy it!

12

Science & Alternative Science / Telescope images of moon

« on: April 16, 2019, 05:56:42 PM »

I found these recently online and found them interesting. Apparently one can observe evidence of the moon landing through telescopes.

http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2012/07/Flag-Apollo-17-1024x1024.jpg

Also, here is a picture of the recent Chinese moon landing on the far side. Very cool stuff.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qGef7ejH5A86trRLFDFg4J-320-80.jpg

13

Suggestions & Concerns / Inconsistent mod actions

« on: April 13, 2019, 06:42:11 PM »

Sup FEers,

I’ve recently received some attention from Pete, who seems to take issue with my posting activity.

As far as I can tell, my posting activities haven’t changed in the recent past. So what could be going on?

Well, recently I posted an AR joke at Pete, giving him a hard time. Oddly, just after this, I began receiving warnings in my inbox and moved replies (all from him).

Is it condoned and acceptable on the FE websites for mods to use their authority to air personal grievances?

I ask because this seems like pretty obvious retaliation. I have kept a record of all the relevant documentation, including dates, etc.

Who would I contact to review this evidence, and seek a third party to provide an objective assessment?

I’d just like to close by saying that I like Pete - I always enjoy what he writes (we have the same sarcastic humor), so its a bit unfortunate that this has happened.

14

Science & Alternative Science / Fauxcault pendulum

« on: April 11, 2019, 12:51:40 PM »

There is a reasonable reply to FP criticisms made in the link below. I have read it and it appears accurate.

This serves as a synopsis of rebuttals against those who claim FP are either fraudulent or incorrectly interpreted.

The synopsis is expository rather than syllogistic.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-flat-Earthers-explain-the-Foucault-pendulum

15

Flat Earth Theory / FE Sun and Moon Trajectories

« on: April 07, 2019, 05:51:00 PM »

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?

16

Flat Earth Theory / FE Theory Formal Development II

« on: March 30, 2019, 06:00:30 PM »

Sustained Assumptions

1. Definitions of mass, position, velocity, acceleration, and momentum of objects. (See part I)

2. Time derivative of momentum is yet to be interpreted.

Next Steps

1. The plane Earth accelerated upward at an acceleration that is known on the surface, g=9.8 m/s^2.

Consequences are as follows:

There must be an atmosphere that obeys this acceleration, otherwise a wind would be observed. I propose that a region above the Earth is contained and moves with it.

I request input for the following:

1. The size scale of this region.

2. Whether it is likely that the sun and moon lie above it or within it.

Obviously, both accelerate with the Earth, but are they beyond the atmosphere? This has important drag consequences.

3. The boundary of this region. Is it a physical boundary, and how might it interact with space beyond it.

Subsequent technical definitions relie on these considerations.

17

Suggestions & Concerns / Spam in FE Theory

« on: March 25, 2019, 12:50:45 PM »

I believe a spambot has managed to litter up the Theory forum.

18

Flat Earth Theory / FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)

« on: March 09, 2019, 05:18:51 PM »

Hi FEers!

Motivation
The purpose of this post is to begin the formal development for a rigorous FE theory. Part I will lay the foundation for constructing the formalism. After some searching, it appears that there are presently no modern FE theorists, and this inhibits efforts to establish FE theory.

Organization
Part I will set the basic assumptions and concerns. I would politely ask that replies are limited to these items, simply to keep the information organized and usable. I ask for the help of other FEers in this development, as they have a greater understanding of the current status than I. TomFoolery is investigating experimental designs for testing these theories, and I hope data will soon be forthcoming.

Assumptions
1. The surface of the Earth is a plane on large scales.
2. The Earth accelerates upward at a constant 9.8 m/s^2. Additional sig figs to be found later.
3. The Sun is an object located above the Earth (at some yet to be determined distance). It must accelerate at the same rate as the planar Earth (on average), in order to match zetetic everyday observations.
4. The Moon is an object located above the Earth (at some yet to be determined distance). It must accelerate at the same rate as the planar Earth (on average), in order to match zetetic everyday observations.

Initial Definitions
1a. An object has the property of mass, which is measurable.
1b. An object has the property of speed, which is defined as displacement/time.

2a. Locations in space can be uniquely defined using three numbers only. For a given chosen origin, an object's position can be uniquely stated as a position vector (r): which points from the origin to its (x,y,z) location.
2b. If an object changes its position, we can trace the change in its position as a derivative of time: dr/dt, this rate of change can be defined as the velocity.
2c. If an object's velocity changes, we can trace the change in its velocity as a derivative of time: dv/dt, this rate of change can be defined as the acceleration.

3a. We are then allowed to define an object's momentum, using 1b and 2b, as: p:=mv, where v:=dr/dt.
3b. We are then allowed to define an object's change in momentum, using 3a and 2c, as dp/dt:=mdv/dt=md^2r/dt^2.

Help Needed
1. Descriptions of the Sun's motion across the sky needs to be mapped. Using the definitions above, it should be possible to describe its trajectory, for a given location (chosen origin) on Earth. Generalizing this to any location on Earth will require coordinate transformation equations which should be possible.
2. Same as 1 above, but for the moon.
3. An interpretation for dp/dt.
4. Any amendments to the assumptions or definitions above.

Thanks everyone for any help! This will likely be an involved process, but a worthwhile one 

19

Flat Earth Investigations / Zetetic Methods Are Good Methods!

« on: November 02, 2018, 01:24:50 AM »

Many REers (I have noticed) lambaste the zetetic method and FEers who use it. This is, in my opinion, an error. The zetetic method lays the groundwork for the method REers use anyway: the scientific method.

If one follows the zetetic method to its logical conclusion, then one will derive the scientific method eventually. This is how the scientific method was created; this is what we call history. Contemporary zetetics merely reverse the clock, and begin their thought-process a couple millennia divorced from the achievements that zetetic methods have thus far produced.

Let me state that again. The zetetic method is not novel. What FEers call the zetetic method, is what the rest of the planet calls the scientific method minus about 1-2 thousand years. There is absolutely no problem with individuals seeking to begin this process anew without the benefit of all the progress that has been made. Such an endeavor is, in reality, quite scientific. And honest! We should support such efforts.

And we should also seek honesty in that exploration.

True zetetic investigations are historic, Galileo being one of the greatest zetetics to have lived. He championed direct observation even when doing so threatened his life. We should strive to be equally ruthless. Even if the results contradict what feels safe, or familiar. This is true zetetic practice, and it is emotionally difficult. But worth it.

In true zetetic fashion, I have visited a Foucault pendulum in London. I have watched it precess, across the hour. In true zetetic fashion, I need to form an explanation (i.e., a model) to explain this behavior. In true zetetic fashion, my explanation should match other explanations made about my reality. They should meet -- they should support each other. Otherwise reality is divisive. I seek an explanation congruent with my reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Different Night Skies in Different Hemispheres

« on: October 30, 2018, 03:26:27 PM »

My apologies if this has already been covered, but this thought just occurred to me.

I have been to the southern hemisphere (Australia if you are wondering). I noticed that the night sky is remarkably different than what I see in the northern hemisphere. This makes sense in a RE model - since you are looking in opposite directions with the round Earth occluding your view.

But how can this be explained in a FE model? Shouldn't everyone on a FE see the same night sky? We are all looking in the same direction, after all: UP!