2541

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 12, 2019, 01:50:37 AM »

Actually, FE has a selective gravity called celestial gravitation which covers orbits and stuff like that.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation

About the shadows of the moons, with the sun circling over the Flat earth, I think it would be something like a geocentric model and work about the same I think. The only weird part would be that the sun would be over on the other side of the earth when it's night at your side, so if you look at Jupiter through a telescope, and see moon shadows, then where's the light causing the shadow coming from? If it's the sun, then how is sunlight traveling across the flat earth to Jupiter? If the Sun was a sphere that shone in all directions, then shouldn't sunlight be able to illuminate your night? But with a spotlight sun, the light has to coming from elsewhere, but I've never heard FErs say there was a second star in our solar system. What do I have wrong here?

This is the conundrum:

How does a spotlight sun point up to cast moon shadows on Jupiter?

V

How is a sphere sun, illuminating in all directions, not seen, given enough elevation and perhaps a telescope from an observer in darkness?

2542

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 12, 2019, 01:39:28 AM »

Richard Proctor is a famous astronomer. Why is he whining about any of that when he could just prove FET wrong?

I have no idea what Proctor was on about, nor the context. I just searched on Wolfson's name and this came up. Thought it was interesting, to Pete's point: Were Parallax, Rowbotham, Birley all the same guy?

The fact that he is concerned about credibility shows that Rowbotham proved his position.

I don't think this has anything to do with anything, proof or otherwise.

2543

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly

« on: January 12, 2019, 01:15:14 AM »

No one is seeing any curvature because it doesn't exist. Lets present the History Channel facts when building the Suez Canal. 120 miles long connecting to different seas with no difference in elevation at opposing ends. In a fake curved earth there should be a 9,600 ft. drop at one sea entrance. That's OVER 1.8 miles of curve. Not there folks, wasn't built for curvature and as History Channel explains "The surveyors’ faulty calculations were enough to scare Napoleon away from the project, and plans for a canal stalled until 1847, when a team of researchers finally confirmed that there was no serious difference in altitude between the Mediterranean and Red Seas."

So please stop the madness, you've been programmed.

https://www.history.com/news/9-fascinating-facts-about-the-suez-canal

Seemingly, you don't know enough about globe earth theory to properly attempt to refute it. You might want to find some other 'evidence' rather than two points 120 miles apart are at the same elevation with a trench inbetween.

2544

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 12, 2019, 12:25:15 AM »

Interesting read. Maybe to Pete's point. Murky still.

https://books.google.com/books?id=PRIoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=Ossipoff+Wolfson&source=bl&ots=8vNVPsQNAn&sig=PiVSwbQCJ0Azv3vQeeFkdMOlHbk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin-83t7ObfAhWFAXwKHdFpCRQQ6AEwCXoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=Ossipoff%20Wolfson&f=false

2545

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly

« on: January 11, 2019, 10:41:59 PM »

The earth is observably flat by default. The possibility of it being a big ball, or whatever you imagine it to be, needs to be proven. It simply doesn't matter if you scream "you can't see it because it's an illusion!!1"

I wasn't aware that math is an 'illusion'.

2546

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon size and distance

« on: January 11, 2019, 09:31:08 AM »

The fact remains that I am still not clear about exactly what evidence flat Earth people use to base their contention about the Moon and Sun size and distance.  If the answer is simpy what Rowbotham stated back in the 19th century, then set against modern methods which have been repeated many, many times over several years with equipment designed to do the job then its a bit of a no brainer.

For FE it's a no brainer, but in the opposite direction. To accept modern late 20th early 21st century methods for measuring the size and distance of celestial bodies means accepting that they are large and far away, not hovering over the plane. Therefore, these methods must be rejected. To do so, they must be discredited. To do so, a conspiracy must be enacted. And all full force and energy must be poured into said conspiracy theory. The conundrum is that it's not a truth seeking endeavor, but an effort to preserve a world view, whether true or not.

2547

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly

« on: January 11, 2019, 08:03:26 AM »

Earth is big. Our eyeballs are very small in comparison. I always liked this simple demonstration for the "Well, it looks flat," remark:

2548

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flight Paths

« on: January 11, 2019, 07:52:30 AM »

Of course Mark Sargent gives and explanation of flight paths for the flat earth and the very accepted map.

Unfortunately for Mark Sargent all he proves here is that he's terrible at searching for non-stop flights and the "very accepted map" he uses, ironically, is an AE globe projection. Meaning it is derived from a globe.

2549

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon size and distance

« on: January 11, 2019, 04:32:34 AM »

Or maybe they said nothing of the sort. You don't know, you're just making an assertion.

There was one satellite launch by NASA that failed a month or so after Sputnik prior to the first successful one.

That sounds like even more pressure and motivation to decide to just lie about it.

Or to not lie about it and just do it. Perhaps speeding along at near the same pace of technological orbital vehicle advancement as others. I have no idea. But to simply assert a claim about a timeline that you find fits your conspiratorial proclivities based upon no evidence is just an assertion nonetheless. So I don't really see your point until you back it up.

All that aside, I don't see your assertion as an argument against non-NASA radar ranging. So again, who is right, Rowbotham or Voliva or radar ranging?

I don't know. Do you have any evidence of them faking their content with the use of wire support or anything of that sort like evidence exists against NASA?

That kind of seems like the long way around. What does NASA, according to unproven fakery debunks with wires and such, have to do with non-NASA radar ranging determining size and distance of the moon and planets?

2550

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon size and distance

« on: January 11, 2019, 01:54:36 AM »

Sure. But not around the time of the bay of pigs when Pluton did it's Venus radar ranging.

The space race started with them one-upping each other with claims. One side would claim to do one thing, and the other would quickly follow up with the same claim.

That's why the US claimed to put their first satellite into orbit within three months after the USSR claimed to put up Sputnick. The US had been trying to get into orbit since the end of WWII, with one spectacular rocket failure after the next. Yet was able to succeed immediately after Sputnick.

Who knew that the managers just had to tell their rocket scientists to "work harder!" and the right engineering and equations would manifest into existence to be immediately implemented?

Ok, you're first argument was that the efforts were NASA funded. Other similar efforts were to be shown that weren't NASA funded. Now your argument seems to be not a NASA funding issue anymore, but the space race itself. And your claim is that NASA managers told the rocket scientists to just "work harder" is evidenced by what?

Maybe they didn't say "work harder!" exactly. They might have said "hurry up, the USSR is beating us in the space race!", and poof, just like that, the right engineering and equations became available to be immediately implemented to give America a satellite in space within three months of Sputnick and after many years of failure.

Or maybe they said nothing of the sort. You don't know, you're just making an assertion.

There was one satellite launch by NASA that failed a month or so after Sputnik prior to the first successful one. As well as many years of failures in rocketry in general. The USSR had many rocket failures prior to Sputnik as well.

All that aside, I don't see your assertion as an argument against non-NASA radar ranging. So again, who is right, Rowbotham or Voliva or radar ranging?

2551

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 11, 2019, 01:31:02 AM »

Please show us your model.

If you want to have the “selenelion” conversation, we can. There’s refraction, orbits/rotation, viewer’s location, etc. But the OP is:

- "From the FE perspective, do you believe it's possible to make such a prediction with this accuracy when the cause of such an event is a mysterious black sun?"
- "How is this possible on a flat earth for all of these places to observe this event at the same time in its entirety?”

So the OP is asking, please show us your model.

You claim RE’s is just patterns. But it’s clearly not. We can predict through patterns AND computation (lot’s of computations) exactly where, when and for how long totality will occur.

Here’s a long but really thorough explanation from Wolfram as to the 1000’s of years of observations, patterns and computations that have gone into to the modern ephemerides we rely on for these extremely precise predictions that we have today. All of which have culminated into a globe earth model of eclipse predictions for any point on the planet.

https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2017/08/when-exactly-will-the-eclipse-happen-a-multimillenium-tale-of-computation/

So the question remains, since Globe earth uses patterns and computations for it’s precise predictions, if FE just uses patterns only, can FE predict exactly where, when and for how long totality will occur for any point on the flat earth? If so, please demonstrate - Show us your model.

2552

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon size and distance

« on: January 10, 2019, 11:39:40 PM »

Sure. But not around the time of the bay of pigs when Pluton did it's Venus radar ranging.

The space race started with them one-upping each other with claims. One side would claim to do one thing, and the other would quickly follow up with the same claim.

That's why the US claimed to put their first satellite into orbit within three months after the USSR claimed to put up Sputnick. The US had been trying to get into orbit since the end of WWII, with one spectacular rocket failure after the next. Yet was able to succeed immediately after Sputnick.

Who knew that the managers just had to tell their rocket scientists to "work harder!" and the right engineering and equations would manifest into existence to be immediately implemented?

Ok, you're first argument was that the efforts were NASA funded. Other similar efforts were to be shown that weren't NASA funded. Now your argument seems to be not a NASA funding issue anymore, but the space race itself. And your claim is that NASA managers told the rocket scientists to just "work harder" is evidenced by what?

So I guess it comes down to either all NASA and non-NASA radar ranging is wrong or Voliva & Rowbotham (both with different numbers from each other) were wrong.

2553

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon size and distance

« on: January 10, 2019, 09:23:47 AM »

Thanks for that. Interesting that measurements made by staff at the McDonald Observatory in Texas carried out over many years by reflecting a laser beam off the surface of the Moon provided a rather different value for the distance of the Moon. A round trip of just 2.5 seconds.


Similarly the distance of Venus was measured in the 1960s using radar ranging. That combined with the maximum angular elongation between Venus and the Sun (about 46 degrees) also provided a much different distance to the Sun as well compared to the one FET gives.  Once distances are known and angular size on the sky it is a simple matter to calculate true size.

Both of those projects were NASA funded.

Other folks have done astronomical radar ranging besides NASA funded ones. For example, the USSR used the "Pluton" site which is a "system of deep space communications and planetary radar in Crimea" for ranging of Venus around the same time the above studies were performed.

I can cite several Russia-NASA joint projects.

Sure. But not around the time of the bay of pigs when Pluton did it's Venus radar ranging.

2554

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon size and distance

« on: January 10, 2019, 06:18:37 AM »

Thanks for that. Interesting that measurements made by staff at the McDonald Observatory in Texas carried out over many years by reflecting a laser beam off the surface of the Moon provided a rather different value for the distance of the Moon. A round trip of just 2.5 seconds.


Similarly the distance of Venus was measured in the 1960s using radar ranging. That combined with the maximum angular elongation between Venus and the Sun (about 46 degrees) also provided a much different distance to the Sun as well compared to the one FET gives.  Once distances are known and angular size on the sky it is a simple matter to calculate true size.

Both of those projects were NASA funded.

Other folks have done astronomical radar ranging besides NASA funded ones. For example, the USSR used the "Pluton" site which is a "system of deep space communications and planetary radar in Crimea" for ranging of Venus around the same time the above studies were performed.

2555

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Apparent size of the sun

« on: January 10, 2019, 01:07:16 AM »

Sunglasses are a form of solar filter in that they reduce the intensity of light entering the eye.  What else would they be used for? They also serve to prevent dangerous levels of UV light entering the eye where sunlight is particularly strong.

I agree re the eclipse glasses.  I have several sets myself.  They are essentially the same as 'white light' filters that we attach to the front end of telescopes for direct solar observation.

True. What I meant by 'solar filters' is what you call 'white light' filters and how they are different than the sunglasses Tom apparently wears at the movies.

2556

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 10, 2019, 12:02:22 AM »

Mathematical solution to the restricted 3 body problem of the Saros period.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-11172009000100003

To summarize, this is the mathematical solution to the pattern of Saros cycle, using the measured values of inclination to the ecliptic, sidereal year & month, synodic, draconic & anomalistic month (Table 1) and Astronomical constants (Table 2) with a result within .02% accuracy.

This is both a solution to the pattern of the Saros cycle which it self is a visual representation of a 3 body problem. So yes there is a pattern and yes there is a restricted 3 body problem solution to describe it.

There is not a Three Body Problem solution for the Sun-Earth-Moon system. Feel free to point out the figures for the mass of the earth, the mass of the moon, the mass of the sun, the distance from the earth to the sun, or the distance from the earth to the moon in that article. The Three Body Problem solutions only work if the masses of the objects are the same.

That paper is using dimensional analysis of some abstraction of circles going around circles to find the "synodic, the draconic, and the anomalistic months," not even the timing of the saros cycle.

Further, feel free to point out those types of equations on NASA's eclipse website: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html

Not sure about Three Body equations and I'm not sure why we always get hung up on that when talking about eclipses. But referencing the link you provided, if you dig deeper, they explain how the data are derived. Via Fred Espenak 'Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035’

"The Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035 is composed of four major sections and two appendices. Section 1 is a catalog which lists the general characteristics of every solar eclipse from 1901 through 2100. Section 2 presents a detailed set of cylindrical projection world maps which show the umbral paths of every solar eclipse from 1901 through 2100. Section 3 gives geodetic path coordinates and local circumstances on the center line for every central eclipse from 1986 through 2035. Finally, section 4 consists of a series of orthographic projection maps which show the regions of visibility of both partial and central phases for every solar eclipse from 1986 through 2035. Appendix A provides some general background on solar eclipses and covers eclipse geometry, eclipse frequency and recurrence, modern eclipse prediction, geometry of the umbral shadow and time determination. Appendix B is a listing of a very simple Fortran program which can be used to predict the occurrence and general characteristics of solar eclipses. It makes use of many approximations while maintaining a reasonable level of accuracy and reliability. The program is based on algorithms devised by Meeus [1982] and the ample comments should make the program self- explanatory.”

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/RP1178.html

If you look at Meeus’ ‘Astronomical Algorithms’, Espenak's reference, it’s chock full of calculations, not patterns, per se.

2557

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Apparent size of the sun

« on: January 09, 2019, 10:53:52 PM »

A solar filter only reduces the glare in your eyes, for eye protection, it wouldn't eliminate an external projection on the atmosphere.

Does wearing sunglasses in a movie theatre shrink or eliminate the projection of the movie on the screen?

What does, "external projection on the atmosphere." mean?

Sunglasses are not to be confused with solar filters:

"The only safe way to look directly at the uneclipsed or partially eclipsed Sun is through special-purpose solar filters, such as “eclipse glasses”... or handheld solar viewers. Homemade filters or ordinary sunglasses, even very dark ones, are not safe for looking at the Sun; they transmit thousands of times too much sunlight."

https://eclipse.aas.org/eye-safety

2558

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 09, 2019, 09:31:50 AM »

I mean, can you present the equation that can be used? You're the claimant here that this is all based on simple patterns. I've done the best I can with the resources I have. I cannot figure out how to work out the durations from what I would call first principles, and you've offered nothing to assist. I'll revise to say I find it improbable it's entirely based on simply repeating patterns, but I'm not gonna spend more time on it unless I can locate CSV files for the Saros Cycles, and preferably some useful information on integrating them.

Can you show us the solution to the Three Body Problem that this is based on?

How does this have any relevance to whether you or I can work out an equation based on the information provided by the Saros Cycles?

Just look at what NASA provides.

Image from https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html



Direct link to larger image: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-big.JPG

Do you see any patterns here? The patterns in the above image are graphical and apparent. To continue the pattern one only needs to perform the same two right and four down pattern, or whatever it might be. No equations are necessary.

I'm not sure what this has to do with showing the solution to the Three Body Problem you keep asking about. Maybe nothing. I don't know.

Yeah, I see 'patterns'-ish, but not something as seemingly simple, anecdotally, that you can just keep going X over and Y down. Seems way more complicated than that.

From the same source there seem to be calculations involved here, not just 'patterns'. You can look at Luca Quaglia's CSV file here: http://eclipsewise.com/solar/SEhelp/SEpanorama.html

"Saros-Inex panorama has been produced by Luca Quaglia and John Tilley in the form of a Microsoft Excel file. It shows 61775 solar eclipses from -11000 to +15000 organised by Saros and Inex Series. The Saros go down the columns and the Inex across the rows. This panorama is based on that of Prof G. van den Bergh in his classic work Periodicity and Variation of Solar (and Lunar) Eclipses.

The calculation of eclipse dates and Besselian elements was done by Luca Quaglia, using the core of the numerical integrator Solex, which was kindly supplied by Professor Aldo Vitagliano, and was used as the basis of Luca's own integrator."
 
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEpanorama.html

2559

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar spotlight

« on: January 06, 2019, 10:34:51 PM »

Please point out the area in the image where "no lights [are] involved".

I'm talking about Bobby's image. Candles (unlit) and skewers. No lights. The skewers are parallel yet, due to perspective, don't look so. Just like your image with the shadows. And what does this have to do with a spotlight sun and why it can't be seen when in darkness?

2560

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar spotlight

« on: January 06, 2019, 10:21:30 PM »

Wise's photos are valid. Some of those shadows are pointing in different relation to the street or sidewalk. It doesn't matter if the picture is a wide-angle lense or not. A wide-angle lense isn't going to make a shadow that's pointing towards the street to run along the sidewalk or vice versa.

This is caused by a fisheye lens?

Unfortunately that looks nothing like the image.

How 'bout this? Candles and skewers:



No fisheye. No panorama. Are those skewers parallel?

Kitchen lights around the kitchen aren't 93 million miles distant sun's with parallel light sources.

Seems to me no lights involved, just candles and skewers and one of your favorite topics, perspective.