381

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Earth get between the Moon & Sun in FET?

« on: November 18, 2018, 05:56:06 AM »

There's another huge problem with FET according to the FAQ section in the Wiki.  The sun changes it's orbital diameter in the different seasons.  You can see that on the nice diagram.  When you go from a smaller diameter circle to a larger diameter circle you have to speed up the sun in order to keep the same orbital time (length of day).  This would require some kind of a retro-rocket.  The opposite would be true when going from a larger diameter orbit to a smaller one.  The retro-rocket would have to fire in the opposite direction to slow the sun down.  I'm assuming that the sun has some mass.  However I haven't been able to find a figure for the mass of the sun under the FET model.  Since the sun has to have some mass it would take a specific amount of time to change the orbital diameter.  More thrust means a shorter time to change orbits.  All of this would have to be accounted for in any kind of diagram showing the timing of an eclipse.  Additionally since the sun has some kind of mass it would require a force to keep it in an orbital path.  Could this be some kind of gravitational attraction between the sun and another body?  Maybe the shadow body is somehow involved.  Again I am going on very little information and having to make some educated guesses.  It sure would help to have some kind of reading on the speculated mass of the sun under this FET model so some accurate predictions could be arrived at for an eclipse.

382

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Earth get between the Moon & Sun in FET?

« on: November 18, 2018, 02:53:08 AM »

From the Wiki-----
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

A typical lunar eclipse
The Lunar Eclipse is red because the light of the sun is shining through the edges of the Shadow Object which passes between the sun and moon during a Lunar Eclipse. The red tint occurs because the outer layers of the Shadow Object are not sufficiently dense. The Sun's light is powerful enough to shine through the outer layers of the Shadow Object, just as a flashlight is powerful enough to shine through your hand when you put it right up against your palm
--------

I take this to mean that the heavenly bodies are endowed with some sort of property that allows for gravitational attraction between them and objects on earth, but other objects on earth aren't attracted to the earth itself.  That way the heavenly bodies can cause the tides but I'm not exactly sure what the exact definition of 'heavenly bodies' happens to be.  It seem to me that I had read in another part of the Wiki that the moon and the stars could do some gravitational attraction, but the sun could not.  I did ask if there were any equations that could describe this property (like the equation of universal gravitation in RET) but I haven't seen an answer to that. 

It looks to me like the shadow object has some interesting properties as quoted above from the Wiki.  It looks like it might be semi-transparent.  The 'official' line in FET seems to be that you can never see the shadow object because the sun is just too bright during the day to see anything in the sky other than the sun itself and maybe the moon.  Of course the observed facts are different.  I personally saw the moon and sun in the sky at the same time just yesterday.  That's very common and is probably part of the FET paradigm.  Additionally I have personally seen the planet Venus in the sky along with the sun so I know that's possible.  I believe you can also sometimes see Mars, but I can't remember seeing that planet recently myself. 

I've brought up another problem with FET countless times in the past that has never been explained.  The sun must change orbits to account for the seasons in FET and that's shown on the Wiki.  In order to change an orbital path there must be a force applied on a scheduled basis to move the sun in the path prescribed by the FET model.  As far as that goes, the same kind of force is also needed for the moon and the shadow object as well.  So many questions and so far no cogent answers.

383

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Earth get between the Moon & Sun in FET?

« on: November 18, 2018, 01:11:01 AM »

Maybe there is another job for the shadow object besides just accounting for the lunar eclipse.  The sun and moon must also line up in such a way as to cause the variations in the regular tides you see.  In the heliocentric model the moon can be on the same side of the earth as the sun and then both bodies can exert a gravitational pull on the earths water and cause a variable strength tide.  The sun is much more massive but is much further away from the earth than the moon, so the gravitational effects of the sun and moon are different.  The moons gravitational pull on the earth’s water is about 2.5 times stronger than the sun.   With the FET model the sun and moon are opposite of each other and are of variable distances in different seasons.  I also don’t see in the wiki where the sun exerts any gravitation pull on the earth’s water, just the moon and stars.  If the FET model were true, I would then expect to see tides that were different in different seasons of the year on a regular basis.  Maybe the FET model will have to be adjusted so that the shadow object will have some tidal effects as well.  If the shadow object did that then, by definition, it would have to have some mass.  You then should be able to detect and measure it. You can easily see other objects when the sun is in the sky.  I have personally seen the planet Venus and even used it as a navigational body during the daylight hours.

384

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 17, 2018, 06:20:55 PM »

The readings above pretty much matches the Somigliana formula.  I put a sampling of the numbers into my MathCad program and everything matches up closely.  Of course there are gravitational survey results from all over the globe conducted by countless countries each conducting independent investigations.  Results are available for a lot of them and will show a correlation between measured gravitation and latitude.  Anything that matches the Somigliana formula would indicate that the earth is rotating and is not a perfect spheroid.  The acceleration due to rotation, height, and the earth not being a perfect sphere are all accounted for.  You can be sure that the vast majority of the gravimeters used were well calibrated and used by trained people.  My opinion is that in order to believe FET they will have to come up with a viable story that will account for a huge amount of actual measurements made by observers from all over the world. 

385

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Earth get between the Moon & Sun in FET?

« on: November 17, 2018, 05:08:25 AM »

I do believe that the 3 body problem is mostly under control.  Euler, Lagrange, and Jacobi have found some general solutions to the problem.  A general (explicit) solution isn't really necessary these days anyway. You can calculate the orbital paths to as much precision as you have processing power and time available.  The numerical power of modern computers are very remarkable and you can use numerical series incorporating hundred or thousand of parameters to obtain any level of accuracy you need.  In the near future quantum computers will make the 3 body problem even more viable to solve in detail.  Don't be afraid. The heliocentric model does indeed work under Newtonian laws and the solar system won't be flying apart anytime soon.   

386

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence for a Round Sun?

« on: November 17, 2018, 03:46:27 AM »

I suppose that the sun could not be round or flat but somehow shaped like a focused spot light.  You kind of see that effect in the flat earth diagrams in the wiki. That might go a ways toward explaining why you couldn't see the sun at night over a flat plane.  The perspective card could also be played. The Sun's biggest problems are a lot worse than it's shape in the FET paradigm.  Somehow the sun and moon must keep circling around above the earth.  They must also be accelerating upwards at the exact same speed as the earth otherwise the relative distances will increase or decrease.  Additionally the sun must change orbits for the different seasons.  I can find nothing in the wiki pertaining to the mechanism for any of these required properties for the FET model to work.  All the requirements will require some kind of 'smart' energy that will automatically be applied to the sun and moon to keep everything working in the observed manner. There also must be some kind of 'shadowing' body that appears when an eclipse is needed and then hidden from view at other times and remains undetectable at all other times.  All that is a really tall order and hasn't really been outlined in much detail anywhere I could find.

387

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sunset Ship Sighting

« on: November 16, 2018, 07:05:43 PM »

I've seen a ship like that when I was on a military ship going back into Norfolk Naval Yard several yeas ago.  Your video was typical of what you would see when a ship is starting to go over the curvature of the earth.  Don't believe all the nonsense you hear about mirage and other stuff like that.  That's from a landlubber.  I used to see the effects of curvature all day, every day when I was working on cargo ships.  Sometimes we would be in a huge anchorage off the coast of China waiting to go into Shanghai.  It wouldn't be unusual to see vessels at anchor half hidden by curvature.  They were anchored because their beacon was showing that and they had zero relative speed on our radars when we were anchored as well. You could take a look at the same ship the next day and see the same thing. 

388

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 16, 2018, 01:01:06 AM »

Since according to the Wiki a property of Celestial Gravitation that allows an attraction of things on the earth to the unspecified Heavenly body (moon and the stars I see in another part of the wiki), can I use the standard universal gravitation equation to measure that attractive force?  Do you believe in the Davis Model?  If that is an invalid equation for Celestial Gravitation is there a specified equation for this force?  If there’s no gravitational attraction between any two objects on earth, then the Clairaut experiment is invalid and either the measuring equipment is malfunctioning, or the Heavenly bodies are the cause of the difference in force measured.  Since there are hundreds of absolute gravimeters in service and they have all been checked and compared extensively I am going to hypothesize that not all of them are defective and most of them are providing valid readings of some kind of force. 

Since Universal Acceleration provides for a constant acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared, you can just subtract that from any reading you get on a gravimeter because that is the part measured due exclusively to UA.  If you do that you will find some negative numbers.  Readings are a bit higher at the poles and a bit lower at the equator.  Since the earth is flat and non-rotating there can’t be a factor due to centrifugal force.  Is maybe the wiki figure for UA of 9.8 a bit too high?  Is there some kind of Celestial Repulsive force at work?  Is dark energy causing the anomalous readings?  All I’m trying to do is answer some basic questions abut the earth and the heavenly bodies.  I can see how you could use the variations of the gravimeter readings along with their position to get a reading on at least the center of mass of the Heavenly bodies causing the reading anomalies.   

389

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 15, 2018, 10:36:44 PM »

From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

I am surprised that Celestial Gravitation wasn’t cited as a cause for some of the gravimetric anomalies that were measured by the absolute gravimeters.  The citation also implies that there is no gravitational attraction between two masses on the earth.  Any gravitational attraction will only be between an earthly mass, like water, and an unspecified heavenly body at an unspecified distance.  This would mean that the ‘heavenly body’ would have to be endowed with a property of gravitational attraction between itself and a mass on the earth.  Is this hypothesis correct?

It would then be logical to assume that these ‘heavenly bodies’ are in motion since there is a variable attraction causing the variation of tides on the earth.  Since the tide are on a regular schedule that means the heavenly body must be on a regular schedule as well.  Given all that you should then be able to put a gravimeter in a fixed location on the earth as see a regular and significant reading change that would coincide roughly with the change in tides.  Of course, this isn’t what is being observed here on earth.    Where did my thesis go wrong?

390

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 15, 2018, 07:16:45 PM »

I could see that a single measurement point of one of the gravimeters could get some kind of an anomalous reading that couldn't be accounted for.  With all the measurement labs out there (worldwide) making frequent measurements, any variations in readings would be seen and any small disturbances in the earths gravity due to transient events would be seen.  No it's just not possible to dismiss the theory of gravity for such a minor reason.  Besides, the differences in the readings between spaced out gravimeters are NOT slight for an instrument that can measure the force down to a millionth of a millionth.   If you hit me with a grain of rice, I might not even feel it.  I believe that if a gnat got hit with that same grain of rice the it would be knocked silly or killed.  You have to keep everything in perspective.

I believe that the idea to avoid gravity in the FET paradigm is to avoid another problem.  If the earth were flat and you had gravity then a plum bob wouldn't be at right angles to the earth anywhere except at the North Pole.  The further out you got, the more the bob would be out of level.  All the other problems are flowing from the first flat earth assumption.  Like the old saying 'what a tangled web we weave when we first try to deceive'. 

391

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 15, 2018, 06:45:27 PM »

Ok, I went off the deep end and answered too quickly.  Let's try this;  Forget gravity altogether. FET doesn't allow gravitational effects of the earth itself anyway.  The measurements made were of the actual acceleration due to UA, not gravity.  Of course all the variables have been accounted for and everything was done in a laboratory setting. The problem is that these laboratories are located all over the world and not just at the poles.  Under the UA theory you can't tolerate too much of any variance in acceleration world wide or the earth would fold in on itself.  Of course that isn't what has been measured.  If you want to play the 'dark matter' card then that can be measured as well.  Anything that has the power to accelerate a mass can be measured.  I don't think anyone has seen any anomalous effects in this regard.

392

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 15, 2018, 06:24:11 PM »

No one said that all the variables were accounted for in gnome experiment.  It was just a promotional thing for Kern.  What isn't a promotional thing is all the measurements (world wide) made in a laboratory by scientists with all the variables accounted for down to a gnat's ass.  The absolute gravimeters used have been constructed in various ways by engineers and scientists from countless countries.  Many of those instruments were brought to a common location and their readings compared.  Differences were in the category of a few millionths of a millionth.  How much closer do you want to get?  If you don't believe these facts please tell us all the variables you need accounting for, the standards and the desired accuracy you need.  My guess is that the existing gravimeters already meet those specifications and the data is available.  Would it help if you could personally witness an actual measurement.  If that wouldn't help please tell us what would.

393

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 15, 2018, 05:32:46 PM »

A relative or absolute gravimeter really doesn't matter.  In the worst case the measurements obtained are down in the millionths category of whatever measurement units you happen to be talking about.  There are gravimeters used on ships and on aircraft.  All this equipment has been designed and used by scientists and engineers and all the possible corrections have been accounted for.  The oil companies use this equipment in their prospecting efforts along with the mining companies.  If the technology didn't work they wouldn't be buying this equipment.  Now with the new MEMS technology I would expect to see some useful equipment available in you iPhone sometime in the future.  I don't know what it would be used for, however.  A story I saw was that a company had a absolute gravimeter so sensitive that they could tell when the snow was removed off the roof of the building they were in.  The bottom line is everything is down to a 'gnats ass' and all you are arguing about is how many pimples are on that ass.  The Kern scale experiment was a promotional thing and not a real scientific experiment.  That doesn't mean that the results are not valid.  The results are just are not anywhere as accurate as they could be if the proper equipment was brought to the scene. Many absolute gravimeters (from many countries) were brought together at a single location and the results compared.  The arguments were down to a millionth of a millionth.  These gravimeters are spread out all over the world and are producing readings on a regular basis.  No matter what UA, is not a viable argument unless it can be reworked to explain all the well documented results from scientists from countless countries that have measured a variation in the earth's gravity and can be explained by the rotating round earth paradigm. 

394

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 15, 2018, 03:28:31 AM »

I really believe that everything is well understood.  There are those who just need to stir the pot and generate more posts.  The underlying objective is to NOT understand and let the 'sheeple' do the explaining.  As the old saying goes:  'A lion never looses sleep over the opinions of a sheep'

395

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 15, 2018, 02:39:48 AM »

The force that holds back all the waters is gravity.  Of course you don't have to believe in gravity. You could start building an arc.  I really don't know how to explain it any better.  Buy yourself a nice globe and study it for a couple of hours and maybe you will understand.

396

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 15, 2018, 01:47:02 AM »

I agree the 191 mile bulge is confusing and the term should be banned.  Think of it this way.  Take a perfect sphere with nothing on it.  Then cut it in half.  Then the bulge would be 3959 miles.  If you cut off just the top 3 quarters, then the bulge would be 2969 miles.  You can see that you can keep cutting the sphere into small and smaller sections.   It still would be hard to see any physical curvature of the earth, but you could still measure it indirectly.  That's the real problem.  On land in rolling hills or in the desert the average terrain may actually be mostly flat with only a curvature, on average.  Even at sea a bubble level would always be centered because vertical is always towards the center of the earth.  Those vertical lines would not be parallel. It's all confusing because man is so small and the earth is so large.  When you start observing the sun, moon, and stars you can start getting an appreciation to the true spherical nature of the earth.  Those that just go to work, watch TV, then go to sleep will never have any reason to care, one way or another, about the shape of the earth.     

397

Flat Earth Community / Re: Euler Spiral Map

« on: November 14, 2018, 10:35:33 PM »

Now just take that map, apply it to the Flat Earth paradigm and get it so we can use it for celestial navigation.  That would be the 'acid test'.  Or maybe you could take a flat earth map and do a 'reverse Euler' spiral and make it into a globe map.  Kind of like a spherical cow.  Could that be a useful 'proof' of the FET paradigm?

398

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 14, 2018, 10:22:15 PM »

Let's say that it rained for 400 days and 400 nights.  Everyone had to leave their homes because the earth's dry land was totally underwater, everywhere.  We were all in a 'water-world' to the max.  Now, since the earth's surface is totally covered by water, how would you measure the distance to the center of the earth?  It would be from sea level to the center of the earth.  Since the water seeks the gravity at the center of the earth that distance would be constant everywhere, and would be measured to the water's surface.  Now, start taking all the water away.  First the highest parts of the earth's surface would appear out of the seas, like the tip of Mt Everest.  Slowly the rest of the land starts to rise out of the sea.  Australia would come back slowly.  Visualize that scenario and think about what would happen between point A and B on the diagram as the water very slowly drains off and the land slowly starts to appear out of the sea again.

399

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 14, 2018, 10:05:49 PM »

Let’s say you take a friendly Gnome to the South Pole and weigh him.  You get the reading of 309.82 grams.  Now you are a total skeptic and are worried about the air pressure altering the real reading, so you wave your magic wand and suck out all the air in the atmosphere.  Now the effects of buoyancy of the air go away and the friendly Gnome now only weighs 309.74 grams. You are not measuring the Gnome against a vacuum anyway, only against the earth’s gravity and a small variation in atmospheric pressure.   You can do all the ‘rope-a-doping’ you want, but the observed facts will remain the same.  The biggest effects on the weight of the Gnome will be the uneven force of gravity on the earth.  Atmospheric effects are negligible and is like the water level effects of ‘pissing in a pool’.   Of course if you don’t believe in the earth’s gravity the whole thing is moot and you have to come up with another explanation for the well documented and observed measurements. 

400

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 14, 2018, 07:51:16 PM »

Probably some consumer group got mad and thought that they were being screwed somewhere along the line so the government had to step in an establish a standard that could be enforced. That's one of the reasons the Somigliana Formula is important and is used by people to compensate their equipment for a change in latitude.   

All the 'confusion' perpetrated by an 'unknown' entity on here can really stir the pot and get the posts flying.  Do you suppose that is really an accident?