401

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 20, 2018, 04:21:54 AM »

All of the arguments above seem to be a divergence from the original answer I gave about the equation to predict eclipses.  I have to admit that I was somewhat complicit myself when answering some of the posts.  In an scientific investigation it's best to focus very tightly on a single issue at a time and either solve it, try something else, or abandon the attempt altogether and go back to 'square one'.  The original proposition, I believe, was that there wasn't any equation that could just apply Newtonian mechanics to predict an eclipse.  I supplied such information, and I believe that there is more out there.  If the equations don't actually work then it will be easy to show that the eclipse doesn't happen as calculated.  If the equations do work then you will have to examine the implications of what the equations say.  It looks like the discussion has diverged to answering the general case of the 3 body problem and all the examples that don't work.  Is it possible to get back to answering the question about the eclipse prediction equations that do seem to work? 

402

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 20, 2018, 03:08:04 AM »

I took a quick look at the link you gave.  It's interesting to note some of the sources for the data used in the equations.  One was the laser reflector placed upon the moon.  Of course this device is used by the astronomers use precisely measure this distance between the Moon and Earth.  This distance, of course, changes just a bit all the time because the Earth-Moon system is not static, it's dynamic with all the small changes that happen continuously with the Moon and Earth.  Of course with the equipment used the distance to the moon is known to the centimeter.  Again this is totally anathema to the premises of this site, but I am not responsible for the information.  It's just the best information available.  Probably everything is reduced to a computer program where all the numbers are 'crunched' on a continuous basis as new data comes in.   

As the saying goes:  "Never start a knife-fight with a man holding a gun"

403

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 20, 2018, 02:50:57 AM »

The diagram was probably one of the unsuccessful attempts of an astronomer made to describe a 3 body problem. Maybe he had better luck after a few more adjustments to the parameters.  It's a similar argument you made last week with an amateur radio operator not being able to bounce a signal off the moon.  Of course others can and do on a regular basis.  There are mathematicians who have solved the 3 body problem 100 years ago and I gave links to those names.  Just about all of them are known to me and I studied their works years ago in my engineering math classes.  I would like to give some of them a 'swift kick' because their equations are hard to understand, but when they are, they work as advertised.  It has been said that everyone is useful for something.  Some are useful as a bad example.  It's always best to pay attention to the ones who are good examples.

404

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 20, 2018, 02:34:11 AM »

Well, again, it looks like you are consulting with people who don't know how to solve a problem.  It's time you look at the people who actually can.  My link was to a person who had all the equations that described the motions of the Sun, Moon, and Earth.  These equations are able to predict when an eclipse will occur.  That should be a pretty good confirmation that everything is correct.  Of course everything is based upon the Earth orbiting the Sun and the Moon orbiting the Earth.  That totally anathema to the beliefs on this site.  There's really nothing I can do about that.  The best you can do is show that the results are invalid or the math is incorrect. Denial really isn't a river in Egypt.

405

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 20, 2018, 01:42:05 AM »

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

Maybe someone better do a little more homework before making statements.  There are folks that can use Newtonian mechanics to predict what the tables do.  Again, you could go back to Rowbotham and try to apply his statement at the end of Chapter 11.  However I feel that something has been learned this time.  Equations are just nothing more than relationships between things.   With modern computers you could use the Newtonian equations to describe the relationships between all the bodies.  If these equations accurately predict some observable event then it will give some credence to the relationships described in the equations.  Is there anyone who wants to bet that NASA already has either this set of equations or more likely something that they have independently developed themselves? It is never wise for an amateur to bet against a professional.

406

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

« on: November 19, 2018, 09:44:03 PM »

Of course that's all true.  I believe it was in 1946 there was a government project to bounce radio signals off the moon.  That project was successful and you could easily see that the distance was much farther than 3000 miles.  The idea wasn't to show the distance to the moon, that's been known for 100's of years, it was to see if the moon could be used for useful communications purposes. At that time, with the radio equipment available then, the moon wasn't all that practical  to use.  Today private individuals own radio equipment that is used to bounce signals off the moon and amateur radio operators do so on a regular basis as a hobby.  Yes, there are several laser reflectors left on the surface of the moon and there are observatories that measure the earth-moon distance down to the centimeter on a regular basis.  That goes against the 'morals' of this site because NASA didn't really 'send a man to the moon'.  If they did, it would bust things wide open and knock over the 'rice bowl'.   

407

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

« on: November 19, 2018, 04:18:37 PM »

Take a look at the Astronomers Without Borders website.  They seem to believe in the Zetetic methods.  Just ordinary people trying to use simple equipment to observe things with the human eye.  Unfortunately some of their observations don't seem to match the flat earth theory.  I believe that they did a measurement of the distance to the moon recently using simple parallax methods that showed a lot longer distance than 3000 miles.  Perhaps it would be a good idea for the Flat Earth Society to team up with the Astronomers Without Borders. 

408

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

« on: November 19, 2018, 03:33:02 PM »

Notice in case B that the vertical rods are not parallel.  That's the evidence of the global earth.  Unfortunately, actually measuring the difference is difficult with simple equipment.  It is possible to get accurate measurements using laser technology but it seems to be difficult to get some people to believe the data.  There's lots of information on the internet, but what can you actually believe?  You can make any claims you wish and then claim any evidence to the contrary is 'fake'.  In the end the core objective to foster controversy.  You can monetize that.   

409

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moons - How?

« on: November 19, 2018, 03:07:37 PM »

According to FET the earth is being constantly accelerated at 9.8 meters per second squared.  That acceleration is due to the force of 'dark energy' pushing on the bottom of the earth.  If the disk earth had gravity like any other object of mass then the only place that the gravity would be at 90 degrees to the earth's surface would be at the North Pole. Of course this whole scenario is very interesting.  What solid surface does the 'dark energy' push against? There is gravitational attraction between the water on the earth and the 'heavenly' bodies but other objects don't have gravitational attraction toward the earth.  The sun and moon circle the flat earth above but have to means of 'propulsion' to keep them in orbit.  I'm just scratching the surface of the impossible things going on under FET.  The earth is more like a space ship going at nearly the speed of light thru the universe.  Dark Energy flows around the edges to hold the atmosphere to the earth is another option of the theory.  If you wish to believe in some of Newton's laws of motion then many of the things under FET are impossible and unexplained.  At least under FET I wouldn't have to worry much about an alien invasion because any aliens would have to work hard to keep up with the earth and would have to break thru the 'dome' to get at any earthlings. 

410

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

« on: November 18, 2018, 06:07:57 PM »

The graph of all the data points are about what I would expect.  The works of Somigliana outlines the mathematical expected differences in gravity at different latitudes.  Corrections for the differences between the surface of the earth and the center of gravity in the oblate spheroid are accounted for.  Additionally there are also corrections for the expected differences in centrifugal forces as well.   Of course the data is a bit noisy because it hasn't been corrected for the differences in altitude yet.  The graph is an example of good scientific methods.  Formulate a hypothesis for the shape of the earth.  Develop an equation based upon the expected variables.  Make thousands of measurements in the field and collect all the data being as careful as you can to reduce error.  Compare that data with the expected values based upon the equations you have. If there is a good match, then it is a good indication that your thesis has some merit.  Of course if another theory and mathematical equation can be developed that also will matched the actual observed data then there will be a strong basis for a debate.  If there is another theory and equation for the flat earth paradigm now is the time to bring it forth so it can be compared with the actual collected data to see if there's also a reasonable match.

411

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

« on: November 18, 2018, 02:25:20 PM »

Nice diversionary tactic with the record player question.  Now let's get back into the groove and start considering the question about the FET required orbit of the sun above the earth.  The math is obvious.  If you want to have the rotation time of the sun remain exactly the same in two different length orbits you have to change the speed.  It's a simple application of the time/distance equation.  The concept is simple, I'm hoping that the FET explanation will be too.

412

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.

413

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.

414

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.

415

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. 

416

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.   

417

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.

418

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. 

419

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.   

420

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?