21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Any flaw and any ignorance of Academic Science is the fuel for Flat Earth Model

« on: May 09, 2018, 07:23:26 PM »

.........
Congratulations on identifying one of the biggest open questions in science! There are many ideas that physicists have, and our lack of understanding of the history of the universe is in no way related to our knowledge of the Earth's shape.

Would Dr. M.Kaku say in public, that the Reality can be described by the Flat Earth Model? No, he will fly like a bird out of Proud and Ignorant Scientific Community: no access to journal Nature again! So, the Dr. Kaku always will say: "Earth is round", and "the Universe should not exists."  So, I have hope for those, who dare to say: "Earth is flat, and God has created it."

22

Flat Earth Theory / Any flaw and any ignorance of Academic Science is the fuel for Flat Earth Model

« on: May 09, 2018, 06:01:42 PM »

Recently is found special Galaxy without Dark Matter, and so is concluded, what there is Dark Matter in cosmos. There is action of Dark Matter, but Dark Matter itself is not detected: it has no material interactions (no strong, no weak, no electromagnetic). A matter without matter interactions is not matter. If a matter curves space-time (and produces gravity then), why then Dark Matter curves the space-time? It is miracle! It is divine miracle! Bound before your God!

The Gravity is not material interaction, because it is not a force-field in General Relativity: the free falling body feels no-force but the weightlessness.

The Academic Science is built on the conservation Laws (latter are defined as divine-free [it means natural] mechanisms to control the Nature). Showing the violation of latter, one opens door to any models of the Reality, including the Flat Earth. But indeed, the action of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is without source: no Dark Matter was observed practically or theoretically.  There are two kind of models: Flat Earth model (it uses God's Grace to bent the lights and motions, to make objects appear to any observer as being far away), and the Round Earth. The latter kind of Science came to conclusion, that "the Universe should not exist." The people, who said ``Earth is round" have said also ``There is no Earth, because the Universe should not exist".
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325022362_Violation_of_energy-momentum_conservation_Laws

One video is longer, than other. But the Academic Science destroys itself:
“The collapse of physics as we know it”
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ac_1372191290
“Science v s God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it”
www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x

The Academic Science came to conclusion, that round Earth (and flat, no matter) does not exist. What is better: existing Flat Earth Model with God, or non-existing Spherical Earth without God?
"Michio Kaku - The Universe Shouldn't Exist"

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 06, 2018, 10:51:00 AM »

Friends, I have greatly improved file in researchgate, please click on the link in the thread.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 06, 2018, 04:05:07 AM »

........
But, if you insist on a full General Relativity treatment, how about this?
See section 2.2 for the specific bits you're looking for (I think.)

http://www.raa-journal.org/docs/RAA_papers/Published_finalvesion_2015_04/000_1504/ms1851_tangkai/03ms1851.pdf

Thank You, but it is useful only for list of links in it. Because paper itself is just technical calculation using formula, which is derived elsewhere. I would like to check validity of theoretical derivation.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 05, 2018, 11:19:58 AM »

I did read your research. Skimmed the religious and the mathematical sections. No one can accept or reject your idea if they don't understand it. Again, draw some force vectors or at least explain WHY the earth would rotate other than "because a rocket or a bullet does".... If you were right, it would be a simple fundamental aspect of physics, much simpler than general relativity. It would be a fundamental change to Newton's law of gravity. I doubt the large amount of maths you've used is really necessary to describe the force you're proposing, it seems to just be maths for the sake of maths. If you can draw a diagram or at least describe something that gives people a reason to analyse your maths, that would help. Start simple.

Thank You, Sir. Yes, I am improving the style of the paper.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 05, 2018, 07:08:59 AM »

........
Because the only difference in density in the sphere is in relation to distance to the centre, then there is no "special" force applied that would cause a differential. i.e. if it rotates due the orbit as you say, then it would need an area of increased density offset from the centre in order for the centrifugal and gravity forces to be different at that point, and thus rotate the sphere.

Now, we know the earth DOES have variations in density... but we also know that it spins on it's axis 365.15 faster than it orbits, so any orbital forces acting on different areas of density would surely be balanced as it rotates. Probably contributes to a slight "wobble"? I guess that's further homework!

I can conclude, that no theoretical derivation of the observable slow precession is made yet (in exception of mine) within the General Relativity formalism. My arguments are in the Researchgate link. You can accept or reject. But I am right. I saw nowhere the derivation of observable 26000 years precession within General Relativity formalism.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 05, 2018, 01:43:12 AM »

I like the subject matter, but the commentary can be a bit off putting. For your next version I would recommend rewriting/rearranging the paper to just show the problem, very dryly and matter-of-fact. If there is a problem, and the paper clearly lays out the facts, then no commentary is necessary. Think about it.

Thank You, Council. Please, do not loose the interest solely because of poor style of the manuscript.

Yet, we have the perfect understanding. Ask if something is unclear. I am adding improved file.

Hi Astrophysics, great post, can I please ask 2 questions?
1) What do you mean "legal" science?
2) Are you coming from a religious stance?

Much obliged

The legal Science is the ordinary Science, but is conducted by a sincere human: no fake news here.
I have several proofs of Creator, including my current one: the Light Force Operator.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 04, 2018, 06:57:18 PM »

Your bullet or rocket analogy might make some sense, in that if you think of the front and the back of the bullet as orbiting and they keep the same distance, then yeah the bullet rotates and stays perpendicular as it orbits... This is essentially what you took 20 pages to say right?

I'm not entirely sure that's correct to start with... But assuming it is, when you apply that same logic to a sphere, it's a big jump to say it makes the sphere rotate... Even though I guess effectively certain spots (I.e. front of the axis vs back of the axis) are moving inside and outside from the orbit they would naturally take if they were single points, as a whole spherical object, gravity doesn't give a crap if the sphere is spinning or not: it's just a sphere. It's acting on the entire sphere. If it rotates or doesn't rotate there's no force pulling one side greater than the other in order to make it turn as it orbits.

I suggest you draw some force vectors to prove your point

Yes, I see my friends start to accept my talk. Please reread the link in the thread: using our helpful discussion I have modified the manuscript. SiDawg, it makes no special sense to draw some force vectors, because all the vectors from gravity are the tidal forces, which are minimized by taking a small test-body.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 04, 2018, 11:30:56 AM »

Your last regular paper is from 2006, the others are from 2001-2003. Everything after that is going more and more into the direction of complete nonsense. I'm not rude, whatever reputation you once had, you destroyed it by yourself...

Because in General Relativity the Universe is 4 dimensional, one can not destroy anything inside the Universe. My top academic activity (the glorious activity!) is in the 2006, 2001-2003.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 04, 2018, 10:44:17 AM »

Believe me, I know some real Russian scientists. Also they would never let your pseudoscience go through a peer review...  And I really admire the great physicist from Russia or the former Soviet Union. In almost all of our projects we make use of the work of great people like Landau (one of the brightest physicist of the last century), Lifschitz, Ginsburg, Dzyaloshinskii, Astrov, and so on and so on. But what you are "publishing" is just nonsense, Russian or not...

Do not be rude. I am a respectful one with papers in Physical Review E, European Journal of Physics B, etc.
Opponent: ``if you make a claim how about putting something up that can be tested?''. So, you argue now suddenly, that observational astronomy is not in fact the Scientific Method??? How come? Astronomers are seeing the Celestial Pole practically not moving during one year cycle. I am asking to back it up with formulas of General Relativity.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 04, 2018, 10:03:39 AM »

I looked through your ResearcheGate profile. Nothing of the stuff you and your friends uploaded there has any chance to be published in a regular journal. Go back to university a try again to understand the stuff they tried to teach you the first time.

No problem yet! Russians never surrender:

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 04, 2018, 08:40:48 AM »

Looks like some failed scientist are trying to misuse ResearchGate to spread their weird ideas...

I would fail only, if I will arrive at hell. Russians never surrender. Without extensive support of Flat Earth Community (I would turn for support to the Creation Science Society and the UFO--Alien Research Society with my Light Force as well, I would never stop) I can not make the paper fairly peer-reviewed. Without such review it fails the Scientific Method.
Opponent: ``So basically what you are trying to say is it’s all just pie in the sky wishful thinking, or nonsense, take your pick.''
It is if you prefer negativism. I prefer positivism, thus I am saying: it is output of my brain, and my conscience is in piece with it. I think, that on this dirty world the results will not be (fairly) peer-reviewed. But I hope for the investigation in afterlife.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 04, 2018, 08:11:13 AM »

Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.

I've noticed that a lot of flat Earth "research" involves poor English from people who clearly don't have English as their first language. One tends to be sympathetic to this - if I were to write a scientific paper in a foreign language, it would read terribly. One tends to assume that the ideas are sound, but the way that they are expressed is affected by having to express them with words that aren't familiar.

So if this terrible, confused "academic article" were written in clear, unambiguous English, it would be a lot easier to see what a mess it is. It's all over the place, with discussions of angular momentum scattered among religious references and claims that a bunch of flat Earth researchers were murdered.

Yet, we have the perfect understanding. Ask if something is unclear. I am adding improved file.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 04, 2018, 07:05:10 AM »

.........
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.

Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?

Do you believe in Church Grace? The Grace is the Force-Field, which is banned from text-books due to war against Priesthood.

I don't follow. What is this force field? How does it cause the Earth's rotation to precess around the celestial pole?

My result is falsifiable: just show me credible mathematics, which shows why Earth axis (not the axis itself, but the Celestial Pole) is practically motionless during one year of orbiting the Sun.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 04, 2018, 06:27:02 AM »

...........
OK, so you're saying the earth's axis should precess around the north pole of the ecliptic in a 23 degree circle?

Because it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession

In my paper in case of zero Light Force the period of Earth axis precession (it means the full cycle of motion of the Celestial Pole on the Celestial Sphere) is not ~26000 years, but only one year.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 04, 2018, 05:07:38 AM »

From your paper:

The axis of the rotating bullet is constantly directedalong the flight of the bullet.

False. Bullets that are spin stabilized will not necessarily be aligned with their flight path.

From an article on bullet trajectories:

As soon as it exits the barrel, the bullet starts its descending trajectory. As we have seen before, only the center of mass follows the trajectory. The tip of the bullet doesn’t follow the trajectory. In other words, the bullet axis is not pointed in the same direction as the axis of movement. In fact, the bullet longitudinal axis tends to remain pointed in the direction of the line of departure. Therefore, because of the bullet shape, the projectile will always fly at an angle, called angle of attack, relative to the trajectory.

You draw some interesting conclusions from this incorrect assumption. Again, quoting your paper:

Therefore, the Earth’s axis in orbit aroundthe Sun should make a full circle (with an angular radius of about 23 degrees) for one year.

Why should the earth make a full circle, and what is an angular radius? I know what an angle is, I know what a radius is, but I don't know what an angular radius is.

1. Bullet flies inside the air, thus it can violate my math, because I have bullet in vacuum.
2. I should see the bullet test for myself. What ever they will do, to protect the atheism!
3. If the bullet-test in vacuum of space would show, that my math is violated, then I will say, that there is Light Force K{\nu}, which has rotated the axis of the bullet.

There is article "celestial sphere" in Wikipedia. The distances on this sphere are measured in angle degrees, not in meters. There one can draw circle with radius (radius is distance from the center to the circle perimeter) 23 degrees.

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 03, 2018, 09:04:15 PM »

.........
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.

Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?

Do you believe in Church Grace? The Grace is the Force-Field, which is banned from text-books due to war against Priesthood.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 03, 2018, 06:22:51 PM »

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?

The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......

O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?

If I give it angular momentum, then it doesn't work in your analogy. We can't easily give the Earth any angular momentum we want, although there have been hilarious proposals to try it.

I do not see your problem here. You are in ignorance.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 03, 2018, 05:56:09 PM »

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?

The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......

O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 03, 2018, 05:41:55 PM »

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct? Yes.

2. There is weightlessness inside rocket. Correct? Yes.

3. So, the laws of inertial systems apply. Including angular momentum (of the apple inside the rocket) conservation. Correct? Yes.

4. The Axis of apple rotation is always directed constantly in the rocket, thus, with the same angle to the orbit. Correct? Yes.