5481

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Open the wiki to additional contributors

« on: July 24, 2018, 11:04:12 AM »

Maybe it just needs to be more clear for them:

Much of the model in the Wiki is basically my interpretation of Rowbotham. I am the one who wrote most of those pages, based on my own ideas, Rowbotham, and the loose community consensus from the other forum over previous years. I don't care at all if your ideas accompany or supersede my own. In fact, I encourage it. It's not hard to pick out areas where there may be more evidence for a different interpretation of things. If you put in your evidence and interpretation for something, even at the very top of one of the pages, there will likely be zero disagreement. No one is going to delete your content.

For the FAQ we present to the public, we just need some basic community consensus first. We can't have a mish-mash of monopole, bi-polar, and dual earth models in that one. Right? We can certainly link to the other models in there to start, strengthen our current pages for the general model elsewhere, and create new pages as need be. Evidence will be collected and winds will shift.

Documenting is the first step.

5482

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Open the wiki to additional contributors

« on: July 24, 2018, 10:44:01 AM »

My response to Sandokhan and JRowe is that we do want to replace the FAQ with many of their elements. We just need good pages to link to.  We want their models described in clear and comprehensive terms. The Wiki is a base to collect the information. The FAQ can easily inform that there are different models and ideas, with links, and eventually morph into wherever truth follows. The model in the FAQ is merely a starting point.

When Sandokhan puts in his contents about Sagnac and the Michelson–Morley experiments, and whatnot, I'm going to link it everywhere I can.

Sandokhan has some different ideas on the distance to the sun, and this is a place to organize those ideas and the collected evidence. We're not going to let something sit if it is a more reasonable explanation with better evidence.

5483

Flat Earth Projects / Open the wiki to additional contributors

« on: July 24, 2018, 10:05:57 AM »

I would like to discuss the possibility of opening the Wiki to other contributors. There are many good investigations going on. We need to document the models fully, lest this information be lost, and the Wiki is the place to do it.

I have been reading the works of sandokhan, and I think he generally has many things right and has some good, interesting information. The Dual Earth, sure. I wouldn't mind if he uses the Wiki to promote his materials.

I certainly do want all of their works in the wiki. While some may have drastically different ideas on the nature of the earth, for the most part I think we can all agree that the general "top level" goal will be to support the general model. I support the bi-polar model, as does sandokhan, but I'm not going to just replace it in the FAQ without wider agreement. It also needs to first be more fully documented, which it is not.

We should probably set some loose rules:

- If you are editing content of a page you did not create yourself, leave a comment in the comment field under the edit box

- You are welcome to add on your own theories to the pages in the wiki, or make your own page

- For fundamentally different models, you should create your own sections and sub pages

- People may generally frown if you drastically change around the FAQ without some community agreement.

- Not a rule necessarily, but making a post in the forums about new content will help you refine your ideas and show where people get lost in understanding of your explanation

Does this sound agreeable?

5484

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Detailed flight times and distances

« on: July 23, 2018, 10:08:17 PM »

It's telling that Tom's argument was:

If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.

When it's the result which demonstrates the model is correct. Or, more accurately, it gives confidence in that model.

It's geometrically a spherical coordinate system. Any distance recorded is done under the assumption of a sphere. Many of the youtube arguments are trying to show that a spherical coordinate system can make a sphere. It's circular reasoning.

5485

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Query: Age and formation of the Flat Earth

« on: July 22, 2018, 07:14:31 PM »

Why are you expecting a complete model of nature?

The effort to provide a complete model of nature beyond all else was the main issue which plauged  the history of science. Read Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared.

5486

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Google maps accurate?

« on: July 22, 2018, 06:56:08 PM »

The distances in the video are based on the Latitude/Longitude coordinate system, which is a spherical coordinate system. Of course you will get a sphere.

5487

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 21, 2018, 08:13:26 PM »

He's sourcing the millions of years stability analysis:

5488

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 21, 2018, 08:06:53 PM »

Rama, look at the quotes Sandokan gave in response to edby about the millions of years stability stuff.



Where did he get his data on "eccentricity" and "orbital shape," one may ask? From the place all astronomers get it from under in their fantasy conjecture: The sky!

Smooth out over "long term trends." This clearly indicates a statistical analysis.

5489

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 21, 2018, 07:28:19 PM »

Henri Poincare won a big prize for showing that the the basic orbits made by bodies are unstable, fragile, and are easily turned chaotic at a whiff.

This is not merely about trying to find an analytic or numeric solution. The basic orbits of the bodies is fragile, unstable, and unable to be modeled.

The author of the video admits as much, and transitions into them now following the paths (in the sky) and looking at chaos. The Solar System can't be modeled with orbital elements.

The above quote I gave shows that the astronomical almanacs are using special perturbations, which do not use orbital elements, and this is what the person in the video is talking about. None of it is based on the heliocentric model of orbits and gravity.

5490

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 21, 2018, 07:14:44 PM »

That’s actually not what was said in the video Edby posted at all. It was stated quite clearly that our model of the solar system is accurate and runs how we have modeled it until you get 100,000,000s of years in to the future when something like the butterfly effect starts to be relevant. As such the model can only be expressed in statistical terms and that the solar system is 99% likely to be stable.

I watched the video. Where does he say that the n-body problem was solved?

After a history of the utter failure of science he does use the word perturbations at some point and starts saying they switched over to "following the paths" (let me help you: IN THE SKY) to see that the solar system is stable, and are using various methods to determine if there is chaotic activity that will tear the system apart.

Total fantasy. If you disbelieve, where is the flipping Nobel Prize for solving the greatest unsolved issue in science?

5491

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 21, 2018, 06:55:35 PM »

Words to the effect of they are now merely looking at perturbations are given in the video.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_(astronomy)

Special Perturbations

In methods of special perturbations, numerical datasets, representing values for the positions, velocities and accelerative forces on the bodies of interest, are made the basis of numerical integration of the differential equations of motion.[6] In effect, the positions and velocities are perturbed directly, and no attempt is made to calculate the curves of the orbits or the orbital elements.[2] Special perturbations can be applied to any problem in celestial mechanics, as it is not limited to cases where the perturbing forces are small.[4] Once applied only to comets and minor planets, special perturbation methods are now the basis of the most accurate machine-generated planetary ephemerides of the great astronomical almanacs.[2][7] Special perturbations are also used for modeling an orbit with computers.

5492

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 21, 2018, 06:43:22 PM »

No one solved the n-body problem

Where is the Nobel Prize?

Just as the author of that video above says, the attempt to simulate the solar system, or predict it, was an utter failure in the history of science, so they gave up and instead are looking at the special perturbations of the bodies in the heavens (which the heliocentric fantasy is now calling "due to gravity").

This is the method of prediction that the Ancient Babylonians used: Patterns in the Sky.

Statistics... interpolation.. curve fitting.. "of chaos," etc.

They are inferring things about the patterns of the planets in the sky to determine whether they are stable or unstable, and to predict where they will go. They entirely gave up on the n-body problem. They admitted defeat!

5493

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 21, 2018, 05:21:57 PM »

This has nothing to do with the analytical solution in specific.

The analytical solution is the ability to predict where bodies will be based on starting parameters, which is admitted to be impossible.

The numerical solution is essentially the ability to model or simulate where bodies will be, by accounting for the gravitational influences of the bodies at small incremental time steps.

In such simulations the orbits of three bodies with unequal masses will fly apart, and  the available solutions to the numerical three body problem assume unrealistic scenarios-- such as the Restricted Three Body Problem, which assumes that one of the bodies is mass-less.

From a Celestial Mechanics university course we read the following at http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestial/node79.html

Three Body Problem

What about a system containing three gravitationally interacting point masses? Despite hundreds of years of research, no useful general solution of this famous problem--which is usually called the three-body problem--has ever been found. It is, however, possible to make some progress by severely restricting the problem's scope.

The following pages show what is meant by "restricting the problem's scope." If we assume that bodies are massless, or that bodies have identical masses, then sure, a "stable orbit" can be created (a 'stable orbit' that look nothing like a heliocentric orbit, mind you). These are unrealistic scenarios in astronomy, but it is the best that can be done to study the matter of basic orbits.

As Poincare discovered, and as was communicated in Sandokan's quote, any slight inequality causes the entire thing to fall apart.

The field of Celestial Mechanics is not even in its infancy. The field of Celestial Maechanics has shown that the basic ideas are invalid and the heliocentric solar system does not even work at all.

Despite having it explained to him numerous times, he still does not understand, or refuses to admit, that this is not a failure of the model but rather an inherent limitation of the math used to solve such problems.

The "limitation of the math" means that they cannot predict where bodies will be in the solar system.

The "limitations of the math" also means that they cannot even simulate a stable system  without assuming unrealistic scenarios.

"Limitations of the math" is an admission of defeat! The system cannot be modeled or predicted.

5494

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 21, 2018, 04:06:57 AM »

The Heliocentric Theory is a very sensitive theory that simply does not work. See these quotes Sandokan provided:

As Poincare experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of
the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial
2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further
experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the
smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His
calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body
might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.

Here is Poincare describing his findings:

While Poincare did not succeed in giving a complete solution, his work was so impressive that he was awarded the prize anyway. The distinguished Weierstrass, who was one of the judges, said, 'this work cannot indeed be considered as furnishing the complete solution of the question proposed, but that it is nevertheless of such importance that its publication will inaugurate a new era in the history of celestial mechanics.' A lively account of this event is given in Newton's Clock: Chaos in the Solar System. To show how visionary Poincare was, it is perhaps best if he described the Hallmark of Chaos - sensitive dependence on initial conditions - in his own words:

'If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. but even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation approximately. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same approximation, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon.' - in a 1903 essay 'Science and Method'

You can test it out for yourself in the simulation I provided in my article. The slightest change causes the system to fall apart. You see it first hand for yourself.

The 'thousands of stable solutions' are scenarios where the bodies have the same mass or where one of the bodies is mass-less. All of these scenarios are incredibly sensitive, and none represent anything that looks like a heliocentric system. They are crazy loopy orbits, based on situations that would not happen in nature, and which fall apart with the slightest breeze.

Newton couldn't figure out how to make his system work. The greatest mathematicians couldn't figure out how to make it work. Supercomputers could not provide the solution. The problems are insoluble. The heliocentric systems of Copernicus, Newton, and Kepler do not work. The current state of affairs is that it doesn't work at all. It is a fantasy.

5495

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 20, 2018, 06:15:24 AM »

The heliocentric solar system cannot be modeled. That is the entire basis of the n-body problem. The greatest minds in human history have tried and tried and failed and failed.

The reason it cannot be modeled is because of Chaos Theory. I have a Three Body Problem Chaos Theory demo in the article.

Newton's answer of divine intervention for this is a very important point. Newton is credited for bringing the laws of physics to the solar system.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/ita/05_1.shtml

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who brought the laws of physics to the solar system. Isaac Newton explained why the planets move the way they do, by applying his laws of motion, and the force of gravitation between any two bodies, letting the force decrease with the square of the distance between the two bodies.

If this solar system of his does not work, and is, by his own words, based on divine intervention, then that is a fact that everyone should know.

Newton's physics of the solar system is "GOD DID IT!"

5496

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Navigating By Stars - How Is It Possible?

« on: July 20, 2018, 05:18:33 AM »

Hello,
Just wondering how navigating by stars works in a flat earth model. I'll give one example (as per attached image):

I can be in Auckland, New Zealand and someone else in Perth, Australia. When we both look at the Southern Cross (Crux), at the same time, and do the following we can both find south:

1) Draw a line from the top of the cross through the bottom and extend it out.

2) Draw a line between the two pointers (Alpha and Beta Centauri) and extend a line from the centre straight out at right-angels.

3) Find the point where the two lines intersect and then drop a line down to the horizon.

Given that we are 5000km apart, how can this be possible that we both end up pointing south on a flat earth model?


Cheers

Mick

See the Bi-Polar Model.

5497

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 20, 2018, 02:32:19 AM »

I will come back to the VSOP program in a bit. I have added three new sections to the article:

- The Zeroth Step
- Very Sensitive Solutions
- Official Explanation: Divine Intervention

https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Mechanics_Cannot_Predict_The_Solar_System#The_Zeroth_Step

Your writing is either incompetently misinterpreting the material you cite or painfully dishonest, Tom. You write that they found over 16,000,000 solutions to the 3-body problem and cherry-pick that a few thousand are exotic. And why is Newton’s personal belief in divinity at all relevant other than to serve your editorial mission? Is your argument so weak that you can’t make it cohesive without fallacies and dishonesty?

The article says that they tested 16,000,000 orbits to find the stable ones. They did not find 15,998,777 stable heliocentric orbits. What happened to the other ones that were not the 1223 they found? They flew apart! There is no dishonesty about it. The article illustrates that Celestial Mechanics is on step zero. They can't model it. They can't even create a simple Sun-Earth-Moon system.

The model of astronomy is based on divine intervention, as stated by Newton himself. This is the only explanation that I have seen.

5498

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 20, 2018, 01:36:17 AM »

I will come back to the VSOP program in a bit. I have added three new sections to the article:

- The Zeroth Step
- Very Sensitive Solutions
- Official Explanation: Divine Intervention

https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Mechanics_Cannot_Predict_The_Solar_System#The_Zeroth_Step

5499

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 19, 2018, 10:32:26 PM »

I've watched the first 17 minutes so far before I had to stop. It seems to be a good job at illustrating what the paper is trying to describe. Please do not take my criticism the wrong way.

Movies starts off with examples that are clearly close range, and therefore subject to significant perspective effects.

Model from video:



I may be mistaken, and someone please correct me if I am to be wrong, but this seems to be a bit out of proportion.

Distance from earth to sun: 92,960,000 mi
Distance from earth to moon: 238,900 mi

If we imagine that line growing outwards from the earth to the sun growing and the distance to the moon shrinking, we can visualize that if the proportions changed in that manner the phase would point lower.

At the 15 minute mark the attempt of the project is now to "project the sun and the moon onto a view plane" at a distance close to the observer.

"Viewing Plane" theory from the paper:



The construct by this author of the paper in question just shows that she was unable to explain the event in any other way.

She is basically using the inexplicable "celestial sphere" idea where bodies are projected on a celestial sphere like a planetarium and straight lines become curved, which is also described in her work as appearing in astronomical literature.

Current thoughts: Her work seems to be mathematical fantasy to try and explain something that is not able to be explained.

I will continue watching when I get a chance.

5500

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Detailed flight times and distances

« on: July 19, 2018, 10:08:46 PM »

It is apparently not uncommon for a plane to fly faster than the speed of sound:

https://www.wired.com/story/norwegian-air-transatlantic-speed-record/

OK, about that "subsonic" bit. You might know that the speed of sound at an altitude of 30,000 to 40,000 feet is roughly 670 mph. But Norwegian’s planes didn't break the sound barrier. Those near-800-mph figures represent ground speed—how fast the aircraft is moving over land. Their air speed, which factors out the 200-mph wind boost, was closer to the 787's standard Mach 0.85. (The older Boeing 747 can cruise at Mach 0.86, but is less efficient than its younger stablemate.) When talking supersonic, and breaking sound barriers, it's all about the speed of the air passing over the wings, which in this case was more like 570 mph.