5521

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

« on: July 16, 2018, 11:43:56 PM »

I have made a new article on the wiki: Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

This is a companion to my previous article, the NOAA Solar Calculator, and should both be read.

It is often alleged that we need only download an astronomy software to see that the Round Earth system predicts celestial events, and that this is a demonstration of the superiority and fact of the Round Earth model. Users on this forum have linked us to astronomy software as their evidence and refuse to entertain the idea that they are just linking to pattern-based methods rather than anything to do with the heliocentric system.

It has also been alleged that the seemingly simple math used in Astronomical calculation textbooks are "really" based on keplerian or newtonian orbital dynamics. This article addresses that.

I have collected a number of resources showing that the pervasive myth that the Round Earth Theory has been validated, to be false. I ask that any challenger in opposition demonstrates with real evidence that astronomy can predict the motions of the planets as they are described in the Round Earth Theory. More evidence than a link to an obscure pdf or unverified model. It will need to be demonstrated that a model, according to the geometry of the heliocentric system, can predict any positions of the planets at all!

5522

Flat Earth Community / Re: AR planetarium on your phone

« on: July 15, 2018, 10:00:05 AM »

Those apps aren't even based on RET. They are based on regular patterns that occur in the sky. Prediction in astronomy is based on patterns. They are equations that predict future occurrences of an event or trend based on historic tables.

There is a book called Astronomical Algorithms which describes how things are predicted in astronomy. I am writing about it here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/NOAA_Solar_Calculator

5523

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

« on: July 15, 2018, 09:10:05 AM »

Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter. It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.

The 'percent illumination' function, for example, uses the radius of the moon and the earth-moon distance. Why do you say 'nothing to do with a world model'?

There is a distance field, but put a 0 into it, or cut it out of the worksheet. It doesn't affect the phase illuminated at all, or any of the other fields in the main section.

If it was based on the Round Earth model most of those fields should turn NULL when the distance is removed.

On my model, if I put the distance at 0, I get #DIV/0!

Perhaps we are using different models. My model does work, however.

I'm talking about the excel worksheet that predicts the phases and other elements of the moon in the Youtube video. Direct Link: http://dropcanvas.com/0hn26

Find the distance field and put 0

Before Zero:

Distance ( R )   381657.7442
Convert to RA and Dec      RA Eq of Date   Dec Eq of Date
Geometric Altitude   8   2
Azimuth   54   16
Phase   0.12919446

After Zero:

Distance ( R )   0
Convert to RA and Dec      RA Eq of Date   Dec Eq of Date
Geometric Altitude   8   2
Azimuth   54   16
Phase   0.12919446

Then when I reversed my change and changed only the "Month" Field from the default 10 to 02:

Convert to RA and Dec      RA Eq of Date   Dec Eq of Date
Geometric Altitude   17   2
Azimuth   0   16
Phase   0.731876501


The excel worksheet has little to do with the round earth model. It is based on patterns.

5524

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

« on: July 15, 2018, 08:56:40 AM »

Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.
[..]Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter. It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.

The 'percent illumination' function, for example, uses the radius of the moon and the earth-moon distance. Why do you say 'nothing to do with a world model'?

There is a distance field, but put a 0 into it, or cut it out of the worksheet wntirely. It doesn't affect the phase illuminated at all, or any of the other fields in the main section.

If it was based on the Round Earth model most of those fields should turn NULL when the distance is removed.

The phase of the moon comes in patterns. It is quite easy to predict when that next pattern will occur.

5525

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

« on: July 15, 2018, 08:33:18 AM »

OK, but I do hope that your maths are better than mine: The Moon Tilt Illusion, Andrea K. Myers-Beaton and Alan L. Myers

I suggest that everyone reads the full text of the article associated with Tom's isolated Moon picture (with the arrow)

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

Yes. Read that, and notice the following.

The number of times the author tries to explain the effect with the change of angles of something close up, such as the angled corners of the room or a building when you travel past it: numerous

The number of times the author actually uses the distance to the moon in any of her calculations: none

The number of times the author remarks how mysterious and hard to explain the issue is: several

5526

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

« on: July 15, 2018, 08:31:00 AM »

Using the Round Earth System ™ -based Stellarium

This is false. Astronomy uses patterns and tables to predict the behavior of bodies in the sky and when the next occurrence will occur.

See the following Youtube video and the excel worksheet in the description.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4eDT8-73ZE

Rowbotham demonstrates the same sort of math in Earth Not a Globe at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter. It has nothing to do with a world model. It is all based on patterns.

5527

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

« on: July 15, 2018, 05:49:13 AM »

It's not a camera effect. The eye sees it too.

Learn how a panorama works, Gary. A panorama is just a series of horizontally stitched images as the eye and camera sees it.

Here is another one:



Full size version is here: https://www.eso.org/public/images/potw1218a/

5528

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

« on: July 15, 2018, 03:34:01 AM »

If the distances/attributes of the Round Earth Model can explain the moon tilt illusion for gibbous and crescent moons, I have absolutely no problem admitting that. As I have seen, it cannot. It cannot explain it, and this is why the literature is so vague about the matter.

5529

Flat Earth Media / Re: Why I'm a Flat Earther—37 Must-See Experiments

« on: July 15, 2018, 02:43:40 AM »

The story goes on with this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPouevRkB_o

That's at least strong evidence, that there is refraction, grossly varying with weather conditions, especially close above water surfaces.
I'm not claiming FET or RET wins. What's presented can be explained in both models, depending on the value of refraction.
But no one ever measured refraction close to water surfaces.

This is a very good one. Thanks for posting.

I invite anyone reading to watch all the way until the end. The scene changes over time, obscuring or revealing the distant objects. Sometimes bodies are viewable on the opposite shore, and sometimes they are hidden. When things are hidden near the horizon the background and area near the water is much more messy. When the refraction changes and things "below the horizon" are now viewable as if the earth were flat, in contradiction to RET, the images near the water are much clearer. At the end of the video the author leaves with the message asking which one is refraction -- the messy one, or the clearer one. Does refraction make the scene messier, or does refraction make the scene clearer?

That, combined with Experiment #2 in the first video, which is performed in a fridged environment over ice is, to me, very suggestive.

5530

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

« on: July 15, 2018, 01:25:57 AM »

Astronomers do care about this sort of thing. Over the years every time this topic comes up and the audience provides quotes from astronomical texts, we see that astronomers don't really know why, have trouble explaining it, and mumble something vague about celestial spheres.

there isn't anything to explain.  you're just plain wrong that there's a problem to begin with.

https://i.imgur.com/AQpzxwI.png

you're saying that the line i've drawn won't point at the sun.  i'm telling you that it absolutely does, and you can demonstrate that it does by making your own straight line with a piece of string.  if you align one end of your string to be like the perpendicular line i've drawn on this moon, then you will find that the other end points at the sun.

you don't have to do any math.  you say this line doesn't point at the sun.  i say it does.  don't take my word for it.  see for yourself.

As I said, the only time the moon and sun is seen in the sky is when they are on opposite sides of the sky. Otherwise, when the moon gets too close to the sun it disappears.

A laser cannon pointed upwards into the sky is going to fire its laser beam into outer space. Its not going to wrap around to the horizon. The only way to get the laser beam to go to the opposite horizon is if you imagine it curving on the dome of the sky.

Your "string" experiment is bunk and lacking in explanatory power. You can find something pointing upwards and put a string to it and make any number of paths to the opposite horizon.

Find a panorama of the moon pointing into the sky above the sun and draw your string on it.



What you are trying to do is say that the sky is a dome and that if you make vertical triangles along the top of the image, cut it out with scissors, and paste it together in a domish way that there is a way to make (force) the moon to point at the sun. By manipulating it in this manner you can also force the moon to point at any number of objects on that opposite horizon.

This is not coherent. It is the "celestial sphere" explanation given by some astronomers; but this explanation falls flat with the slightest breeze.

- The sun and moon are not painted on a celestial sphere around the earth where straight lines become curved.
- The sun and moon exist in regular geometric space where an arrow will always point to the object it is pointing at, not in an entirely different direction.

There will need to be a more coherent explanation than this celestial sphere theory. In RET the observers aren't in a planetarium with lines projected on a screen above them that turn into curves. The observers are in regular space.

5531

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

« on: July 15, 2018, 12:03:56 AM »

Per the "you are working in the wrong axis" thing:

"SHOUT" all you want, but until you can grasp that you're working in the wrong axes, you're just going to remain frustrated, thinking that you're right and we're not getting it.

http://oi64.tinypic.com/2ed8ok6.jpg

As I stated in the assessment earlier, whether we imagine that the moon is traveling east to west, or north to south, or both, around the observer the perspective and any changes in its face and orientation is still going to be minimal.

Perspective isn't going to affect bodies at large distances with any large effect unless we also scale our observation points by a large distance. The diameter of the earth is tiny compared to the distance between the earth and the moon in RET, and the idea that we should be able to see vast changes in the angle of bodies is something that will need to be demonstrated.

Astronomers do care about this sort of thing. Over the years every time this topic comes up and the audience provides quotes from astronomical texts, we see that astronomers don't really know why, have trouble explaining it, and mumble something vague about celestial spheres.

5532

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

« on: July 14, 2018, 11:08:27 PM »

You can't explain this mathematically, and we have not seen a mathematical analysis by an astronomer using the distances and sizes in RET. This is for the simple fact that this matter is unexpainable.

The perspective tilting explanation is fiction. If there was a real explanation, we would have a real document to point to -- not a stupid youtube video of some close range perspective tilting effects.

This needs to be described using the real properties of the Round Earth System. I thought it was supposed to predict everything? Show it then. Show that the Round Earth System can cause this sort of tilting.

5533

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

« on: July 14, 2018, 10:55:17 PM »

Perspective very much does come into the discussion in order to explain why the light/shadow of the sun doesn't appear to be pointing straight at the sun from the perspective of earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2gTSjoEExc

Ignore what Tom posted. He's working the wrong problem.

The author of that video is, once again, as in the numerous explanations we have seen, comparing close range perspective tilting to a grand Round Earth system with bodies that are very far away.

DO THE MATH

5534

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

« on: July 14, 2018, 10:52:49 PM »

And if you draw in the horizon line for the observer the moon points into the observer's horizon.

https://i.imgur.com/YR9cWkE.png

That's not a horizon for the photographer. That's a tangent to the surface of the Earth.

Here's where the photographer's horizon line will be (not to scale, obviously)

https://i.imgur.com/o5sFEJp.jpg

Since his camera is looking up 45 degrees toward the Moon, he's looking above the horizon at that side, along the shortest side of the green triangle.

Since the purple circle of his horizon is completely in the night side of Earth, the sun is below his horizon. The illumination of the Moon, along the longest side of the green triangle, doesn't care where he is, as there's a direct line between the Moon and Sun (even though the sun is below the photographer's horizon.

You need to think in 3D, not 2D.

The phase of the moon is still pointing into the horizon, Tumeni.

DO THE MATH

Do it right.

You're in the wrong axis, one that has nothing to do with the sun.

Here's what you're doing. Here's my 4.5"D moon placed 40' away:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/1zl94z6.jpg

And here it is again with the camera moved laterally 15":

http://oi68.tinypic.com/1zl94z6.jpg

That's right. The perspective shift with distant bodies would be very small. If that moon were Rubix Cube suspended 1 foot above your head the shift would be far greater when you walk away by 15 feet.

But that's rotation of the moon's lateral planes about either the x-axis (if observers are split E/W) or the y-axis (if observers are split N/S).

http://oi63.tinypic.com/n6lgg.jpg

What you've calculated is why you don't see "around" the moon given RE distances and sizes of moon and earth. But that's an earth/moon relationship only and has nothing to do with the rotation about the z-axis, which is what the picture of the sun's light on the moon not pointing to the sun is all about.

The moon isn't going to shift by less than two degrees, but tilt by 45 degrees. Don't be that person.

DO THE MATH

SHOW HOW THESE VAST PERSPECTIVE TILT CHANGES CAN OCCUR IN RET

5535

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

« on: July 14, 2018, 10:12:13 PM »

The moon disappears when it gets too close to the sun. The moon is only seen in the day when the sun is across from it at nearly the maximum distance it can be from it in the opposite sky; and when it gets too high, it disappears. If you imagine straight lines curving on a dome of the sky, of course there is going to be an area where anything pointing upwards can seem to arc to a place across to the opposite sky, and into the opposite horizon.

You can imagine lines on the above Dexter cartoon still that arcs around to the opposite horizon and intersects it. But will a laser that points upwards really hit the opposite horizon when fired? No. You are imagining silly celestial sphere nonsense.

You are imaging the line bending on a dome to hit something in the opposite sky and the curve of that bend is up to your own imagination. If the laser weapon in the above image were a real object, you could take a string and connect the tip of that laser weapon in the above image to almost anything in the opposite sky.

None of the above are explanatory. Making a connection that this is an "explanation" for what is happening, in any way, is fallacious.

Do the math under the Round Earth model. Perspective cannot cause things to shift or tilt to the degree it needs to. Don't post malarkey about strings and corners of the ceilings and about how you drove past a building and saw that it turned or tilted in angle.

DO THE MATH

5536

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

« on: July 14, 2018, 09:46:10 PM »

How does the string point to the direction of the sun if the sun is below the horizon and the moon is pointing upwards into the sky?

Are you telling us that any and all angles that are pointing upwards are eventually going to come back and meet the earth's horizon rather traveling out into space? 

instead of imaging the experiment in your head, just do it.  it takes 20 seconds and a piece of string.  if you do the experiment, then you will see exactly why you're confused.

you're just thinking of the space as a 2d projection.  it's a 3d space.

Are you asserting that if Dexter fires his laser cannon, that the laser beam will leave the weapon and eventually intersect the horizon of the earth?

5537

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

« on: July 14, 2018, 08:25:45 PM »

I suggest that everyone reads the full text of the article associated with Tom's isolated Moon picture (with the arrow)

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf

Yes. Read that, and notice the following.

The number of times the author tries to explain the effect with the change of angles of something close up, such as the angled corners of the room or a building when you travel past it: numerous

The number of times the author actually uses the distance to the moon in any of her calculations: none

The number of times the author remarks how mysterious and hard to explain the issue is: several

Really? Let's see you do the math. I never see you do it. You propose these thought experiment analogies all the time without any math to back them up.

It is easy to see how perspective plays very little part in the Round Earth system.

In RET the distance to the moon is 238,900 miles.

Imagining that distance as a radius of a circle, with observers positioned all around it, we can get the circumference of that circle with C=2*pi*R.

The circumference is 1501052.96989 miles

We divide it by 360 to get 4169.59158301 miles per degree

The diameter of the earth is 7,917.5 miles

7,917.5 / 4169.59158301 = a ratio of 1.89, or a little less than 2 degrees.

If we place the earth on the circumference we created above, with two observers standing on direct opposite sides of the earth, about 7917.5 miles apart, looking at the moon on their horizon should see a difference in shift of less than 2 degrees. This should also mean that the moon will shift back and fourth very minimally as it passes over the head of the observer.

The shift in perspective, under the Round Earth Theory, should be very slight.

Factoring in the idea that the moon does not always pass directly overhead does not help either. The shift in perspective should be very slight whether you were at the North Pole of a Round Earth or at the equator. Under the Round Earth model the moon is very far away.

The concept that perspective would play hardly any part in the observation of the moon under the Round Earth system is straight forward and apparent. Tilting, shifting, all becomes less and less with greater distances. Lets see your math on these dramatic perspective shifts or tilts. Go.

5538

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

« on: July 14, 2018, 07:40:14 PM »

Look at this simplistic diagram. Can you draw a straight line between the day side of the Earth and the 'night' side of the Moon at any of the Moon phases here? I can.

http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/images/pictures/space/moonphases.jpg

Here's how your photographer can be on the night side of Earth, looking at an almost Full Moon, with the moon illuminated by a sun below his horizon (not to scale, of course). The sun is to the left, obviously...

And if you draw in the horizon line for the observer the moon points into the observer's horizon.

Do the math.

no math required.  you only need a piece of string and maybe 20 seconds of your time.  if you would stop being a rationalist for a moment and actually do an experiment yourself, you'd see that the string points to the sun's location, even if the sun is below the horizon.

it seems like you're perfectly willing to depart from an empiricist mindset the moment it's inconvenient to your narrative.

How does the string point to the direction of the sun if the sun is below the horizon and the moon is pointing upwards into the sky?

Are you telling us that any and all angles that are pointing upwards are eventually going to come back and meet the earth's horizon rather traveling out into space? 

5539

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

« on: July 14, 2018, 07:29:25 PM »

Perspective:

The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .

You need to explain in more detail. What math do you have an issue with exactly?

As a body increases its distance from you the less it will turn, shift, or angle itself to perspective. The examples of corners of rooms tilting, planes tilting, rubix cubes tilting as they are seen over the observer are all irrelevant, since the distance to the moon as it passes over you in RET is at a much greater distance, and generally stays the same distance from you at all times. Examples of perspective as it occurs to an observer or a camera when those bodies are close to the camera is irrelevant and lacking.

You did the math on how much the moon would tilt or change position due to perspective in RET before in previous threads. I saw you. Don't play dumb. You know that the moon barely shifts or turns to perspective.

DO THE MATH

In your trolling video against me, in the examples bobby is referencing, and many other explanations, you and others are referencing small scale or close up perspective. I don't really give a flip about those explanations. They only showcase a handicap in logic and critical thinking, as far as I am concerned.

5540

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

« on: July 14, 2018, 05:36:47 AM »

Perspective:

The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .

Comparing a ball to the moon:

Dumb. There is an image of the moon pointing up away from the earth when the sun is below the horizon. Are you to assert that a ball will point up into the sky when the sun is below the horizon?

Gibbous moon tricks, et all:

The effect also happens with crescent moons, which is even more perplexing. See the video nick linked me to on the other forum the last time we had the conversation. A crescent moon is seen to behave the same way.