[JSS]

As I have mentioned to you several times (though you elect to ignore it), the working examples have been posted (with active links for cross reference) for both computational and analytical cases.

If you're going to keep combining different peoples replies in a single message, could you please quote us correctly? That wasn't me, thanks.

[stack]

Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse.

Eclipses can be predicted in ways that do not involve the three body problem. Lets see a source from a physicist that the three body problem has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Not down to the 100 meter mark.

When you figure out where the Sun and other celestial bodies are and where they go and you have a map of earth, you too can play with the big boys in calculating and simulating n body scenarios. Until such time, FET has no knowledge of the heavens nor where things are on Earth. Helio seems to be nailing predictions left, right, and center in comparison. Or do you have an FE Physicist that has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system?

[Tom Bishop]

Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse.

Eclipses can be predicted in ways that do not involve the three body problem. Lets see a source from a physicist that the three body problem has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Not down to the 100 meter mark.

When you figure out where the Sun and other celestial bodies are and where they go and you have a map of earth, you too can play with the big boys in calculating and simulating n body scenarios. Until such time, FET has no knowledge of the heavens nor where things are on Earth. Helio seems to be nailing predictions left, right, and center in comparison. Or do you have an FE Physicist that has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system?

What are you talking about? The claim was "While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework."

Now, do you have a physicist who you can cite to tell us that the Three Body Problem works to describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system or will you concede on this subject and admit that the laws proposed by RE Theory fail to show how a star can have a planet with a moon around it?

[stack]

Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse.

Eclipses can be predicted in ways that do not involve the three body problem. Lets see a source from a physicist that the three body problem has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Not down to the 100 meter mark.

When you figure out where the Sun and other celestial bodies are and where they go and you have a map of earth, you too can play with the big boys in calculating and simulating n body scenarios. Until such time, FET has no knowledge of the heavens nor where things are on Earth. Helio seems to be nailing predictions left, right, and center in comparison. Or do you have an FE Physicist that has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system?

What are you talking about? The claim was "While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework."

Now, do you have a physicist who you can cite to tell us that the Three Body Problem works to describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system or will you concede on this subject and admit that the laws proposed by RE Theory fail to show how a star can have a planet with a moon around it?

Helio predicted down to the 100 meter mark totality during the 2017 eclipse and was observed to be correct. From the same space.com article:

"Wright uses elevation data from NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, which measures the elevation at 1,200 points between each line of latitude or longitude. He also takes into account the precise locations of the Earth, moon and sun at each time, and the time the sunlight takes to travel to the moon and then down to Earth."

Seems that Helio solved that Sun-Earth-Moon scenario quite well. I don't see FET solving much of anything. Are there any modern FE Physicists you could find that could help FET out with the 3 body problem??

[Tom Bishop]

Nope. There were methods to predict the eclipses long, long, before Newton or Copernicus were even born. You are merely inferring that it must be done through a dynamical Three Body Problem.

Kindly quote a physicist who says that the Three Body Problem can describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

[existoid]

I agree, and imo that’s the entire issue with current FE status. It seeks to provide a descriptional account for its claims - which it has yet to fully do. While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework.

As you have been unable to find a single physicist who says that the three body problem is solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system, this is false. You are unable to contradict the many sources and physicists who say that the Three Body Problem is insoluble except for some symmetrical solutions.

Your model can't even keep the Sun, Earth and Moon together.

I am new to this site (but have read the seven or eight most recent threads in two of the forums in their entirety). I have no background or expertise that really applies - I have English and history degrees (though not scientific or cartographic history, etc.), I have taught 9th and 10th grade HS English, and now I work for a very small tabletop game publisher.   Luckily, it seems that no expertise is really needed - just clear thinking and reasoning.  (As an aside, I'm here because the apparently growing FE belief is fascinating to me, much more so than traditional conspiracy theories). 

I have a point (at least I believe I do!  ), but it will take a teeny bit to get to. Bear with me.

First, I need to summarize/characterize this discussion up to your comment if I may (I am sure I'll be savaging some of your words as I rephrase and summarize them, so let me know if I misrepresented anyone) -

GoldCashew: The observation that the same face of the moon is seen by people standing in different continents is a big problem for FET. The Wiki doesn't provide an answer.

Pete: That's not actually a problem for FET

Me: [with limited knowledge of physics, astrophysics, geomatics, climatology, or really any physical sciences], well, actually, it's quite an obvious problem that should be readily apparent even to a layman like me. [Reads several sections of the Wiki to make sure I didn't miss something] Also, in looking at this animation further, two more problems arise: 1) A "spotlight" sun is not what we observe, and 2) the moon and sun do not dramatically distort in size as they travel their course, which would clearly be the case if the FE animation were accurate. [Re-checks the Wiki, still finds no answer to these issues.]

JSS: The claim is that light can bend (electromagnetic acceleration), but there's no actual formula or claim for sizes - all the things required to use a scientific claim to resolve these problems with the FE model.

BRollin: That's the entire issue with FET: there's no actual explanatory framework. Instead, each separate FET claim creates more burdens of proof that aren't met.

Tom: [Super out of the blue] The three body problem isn't solved; therefore the RE model can't "keep" the Sun, Earth, and Moon together.

[Various others]: the 3 body problem isn't really a problem. Here's some science links!

....

Wait.  What?  Again, I really don't know much about physics. But let's say for the sake of argument that the 3 body problem is totally unsolved by "science" up to today.  How could that matter?  (I'm not trying to obliquely say that it's outside the scope of this thread).  I'm saying that a failure to fully describe one particular phenomenon with math is hardly a refutation of the RE model and framework.  I would guess (again, no background) that there are loads of phenomena that modern physics has yet to fully describe, making it a "problem" in the same way, and that some of these may have to do with the RE model.  But this doesn't help the argument for the FET in the context of simple observations (such as the one that launched this thread and the two I've added to it, none of which have yet to receive answers). 

Let me put it in other words:
You're saying we don't know how to use algebra (apparently?) to solve an exceptionally complex math problem (apparently). I would conclude that it must be really damn complex!
I'm saying there are three simple, basic observations that even a total non-physicist (like me!) can make about the FE model that kind of destroys it.  Can I have a coherent answer to these?  It would help convince me that the FET has a figment of legitimacy among thinking people (which I consider myself a part of!).


The reason I wanted to summarize this thread is to point out how weak the FET claim is even if you have almost no knowledge of physics and science (as I do).   Talking about a super complex algebraic problem that most folks (like me) don't understand is one thing. Making simple observations that show the FE model doesn't match reality is quite another.  And it's something I can do! So, can you answer these three problems with the FE model?  I'd really like to know.

You see, I cannot do the RE experiments and proofs myself to know that the earth is a sphere (or oblate spheroid or whatever).  My background is in English.  So I have to rely on experts, NASA, my teachers. You know - all those folks who must be in on the conspiracy, since they DO know how to make the experiments. But if you cannot even refute the simple observations that I can make by myself regarding the FE animated model, well, FET has some serious problems.  Don't bring the 3 body problem into this. Answer my three observations...

Thanks for reading!

[stack]

Nope. There were methods to predict the eclipses long, long, before Newton or Copernicus were even born. You are merely inferring that it must be done through a dynamical Three Body Problem.

Of course there were ways long ago. We've just gotten way more advanced and precise post Newton & Copernicus. From the same article:

"To factor all of that in, eclipse modelers like Wright use the 19th-century coordinate system as a starting point, but then calculate the view for millions of simulated observers by working in the profile of the moon, size and angle of the sun in the sky, as well as elevation at each of the points on the ground. That lets them plot out the swath of land that will see an eclipse, and how long it will last at each point. The number of calculations would seem very strange to early eclipse modelers, but isn't unusual for fields like computer graphics.

"We're able to do modern calculations now just because of this confluence of computing power and large datasets describing the shape of the moon and the Earth," Wright said.

Kindly quote a physicist who says that the Three Body Problem can describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

What sort of solution are you looking for? Numerical, analytical, simulations?

And any luck on finding a modern day FE physicist to help rough out all of the celestial mechanics FET seems ignorant of?

[BRrollin]

Tom is trying to claim that because we don't know how to solve the 3-body problem using algebraic equations, that somehow means we can't use analytic, numeric or simulations to solve them (which we do all the time).

Lets see a source from a physicist on that.

As I have mentioned to you several times (though you elect to ignore it), the working examples have been posted (with active links for cross reference) for both computational and analytical cases.

I want to see your sources from physicists telling us that the three body problem has solutions or works for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse.

Eclipses can be predicted in ways that do not involve the three body problem. Lets see a source from a physicist that the three body problem has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system, or that a three body problem can solve for an eclipse.

I don’t think you really do want to see them. The reason why I say this is because they are already there!

I’ve posted two threads for 3-body solutions. The sources are linked.

...just go look.

[AATW]

Oh dear, you've all been Bishoped...
Try not to let him derail threads like this. I don't know if he really doesn't understand about the 3 body problem or is just pretending not to but either way it's not what the thread is about.

We were talking about EA. That is the FE solution to why we all see the same face of the earth but I'm not convinced it works - and there's no actual evidence for the effect existing, it has been invented to explain why observations don't fit what they would on a FE with a close moon. It's also the explanation for sunrise and sunset.

Honestly, I don't see how it matches observations. Let's say the light bends such that it is horizontal at 'x' miles.
If the moon is in the position of the small circle and the dotted line has radius x then that means anyone on the perimeter of the circle sees the moon on the horizon.



But they'd all see it in different directions. People in the South would have to look North, people in the North would have to look South (South being the perimeter of the big circle, which represents the earth, North being at the centre).

Does that in any way match what we observe?

[existoid]

Oh dear, you've all been Bishoped...
Try not to let him derail threads like this. I don't know if he really doesn't understand about the 3 body problem or is just pretending not to but either way it's not what the thread is about.

We were talking about EA. That is the FE solution to why we all see the same face of the earth but I'm not convinced it works - and there's no actual evidence for the effect existing, it has been invented to explain why observations don't fit what they would on a FE with a close moon. It's also the explanation for sunrise and sunset.

Honestly, I don't see how it matches observations. Let's say the light bends such that it is horizontal at 'x' miles.
If the moon is in the position of the small circle and the dotted line has radius x then that means anyone on the perimeter of the circle sees the moon on the horizon.



But they'd all see it in different directions. People in the South would have to look North, people in the North would have to look South (South being the perimeter of the big circle, which represents the earth, North being at the centre).

Does that in any way match what we observe?

To the extent that I understand you, it doesn't at all seem to match what is observed.  Also, beyond needing to account for how we see the moon, it seems there needs to be an additional part of EA to account for how the sun only shines on a PORTION of a flat earth.  The spotlight idea seems seriously flawed - anyone who's ever seen a spotlight knows that you don't have to be immediately inside its area of direct illumination to know it can be seen from elsewhere, even in a very dark area. Just look towards the patch that IS illuminated!  Right?   

Seems like an amazing oversight in the FE model...

[JSS]

Oh dear, you've all been Bishoped...
Try not to let him derail threads like this. I don't know if he really doesn't understand about the 3 body problem or is just pretending not to but either way it's not what the thread is about.

We were talking about EA. That is the FE solution to why we all see the same face of the earth but I'm not convinced it works - and there's no actual evidence for the effect existing, it has been invented to explain why observations don't fit what they would on a FE with a close moon. It's also the explanation for sunrise and sunset.

Honestly, I don't see how it matches observations. Let's say the light bends such that it is horizontal at 'x' miles.
If the moon is in the position of the small circle and the dotted line has radius x then that means anyone on the perimeter of the circle sees the moon on the horizon.



But they'd all see it in different directions. People in the South would have to look North, people in the North would have to look South (South being the perimeter of the big circle, which represents the earth, North being at the centre).

Does that in any way match what we observe?

To the extent that I understand you, it doesn't at all seem to match what is observed.  Also, beyond needing to account for how we see the moon, it seems there needs to be an additional part of EA to account for how the sun only shines on a PORTION of a flat earth.  The spotlight idea seems seriously flawed - anyone who's ever seen a spotlight knows that you don't have to be immediately inside its area of direct illumination to know it can be seen from elsewhere, even in a very dark area. Just look towards the patch that IS illuminated!  Right?   

Seems like an amazing oversight in the FE model...

That is the challenge to try and discuss EA, there just isn't anything to work with.

It doesn't state how light bends, or where the Sun and Moon are, or how big, or how they move. If you try and show it doesn't work, you just get told "Well it doesn't work that way" or you are "Making assumptions" or that you don't understand it and should read the Wiki again.

It's all very vague and about the only thing it states for certain is that light bends upward. I'd love to see some actual numbers and any kind of equation you could put a number into and get one out. Heck, it would be fun to build a ray-tracing engine to try and model what you would actually see using them.  But there just isn't anything to work with.

The Wiki page has a lot of text but zero evidence or workable explanations. If it can't predict anything and can't be tested, you can't really call it a theory.

[AATW]

To be fair, it works better as an explanation for things like sunrise and sunset than any other FE explanation
But it would mean that at sunset everyone on the perimeter of the circle 'x' miles from the sun would see sunset and would all have to look towards the centre of the circle to see it. I don't believe that matches observations. In the northern hemisphere it might sort of work but definitely not in the southern hemisphere.

This is the Wiki page about it:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

An equation is given with no clue about how it was derived or any evidence that it matches observations.
And, curiously, towards the bottom of the page it is used to explain the moon tilt illusion which:
a) Is an illusion, as the name suggests. The terminator does line up with the sun, it just looks like it doesn't.
b) The explanation involves light bending downwards

[GoldCashew]

For the Flat Earth model, if I am say in South America/ Lower South America, Africa/ South Africa, or Australia, it would appear that if I were to look up at the Moon, I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It doesn't follow from FET.

I assume he is referring to the animation of the sun and moon circling overhead from the FAQ:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif

Based on this, what GoldCashew is saying absolutely follows from FET.  Pick his first example that he is in South America.  Attached is a screenshot of the animation.  Suppose the moon is at this point, and he is in S. America looking up at it.  Now, say that I am in North America. We are far enough apart, and the moon is close enough to the earth (as depicted by the animation) that we would see different parts of the moon at the same time.  But that's not what is observed. So, it's a problem for FET.  I cannot see it addressed on the wiki, though I admit I have not read all of it.

Only if the moon were very far away, would those in N. AND S. America see the same side (the "bottom" side of the moon from this model of a FE).  But if it were far enough away that both would see the same part of the moon at once, then ALL humans on the planet would see the moon at the same time. And they don't - only half (geographically) of the world can see the moon at a time.

Additionally, this animation brings up far more questions for which I cannot find answers in the wiki. Two of them come immediately to mind:

1. What causes the sunlight to stop its shine from covering the whole earth, regardless of where it is on its course above? Even when it is directly over the Phillipines (as in my screen capture of the animation), on an actual FE light should trivially still reach S. America. The Wiki reads "its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth."  But this doesn't make sense - imagine you are in a big circular field with a spotlight in the relative proportions and distances as the flat earth animation capture I've attached. The people in this field in the relative area where S. America is would not be under the direct spotlight. But they would SEE the light and that part of the field that is directly illuminated. There is nothing on the Wiki that explains this which I can find.

2. Why do the sun and moon not drastically change size as they move across the sky? As it moves around, if it were traveling within this system, and this much closer, it would obviously become much smaller as it travels over thousands of miles across the earth.  (EDIT: Yes, I know there is a section on the Wiki that addresses why the sun doesn't shrink when it sets. But this is a much bigger problem that seems unaddressed to me. The sizes of both the sun and moon would be visibly changing in size just about every single hour, if it were anywhere close to proportional as depicted in this animation).

In the past few days, after discovering this forum, I've read through several threads and been fascinated and enlightened by the clear reasoning and sophisticated understanding of math that I do not grasp. I'm new, and while I've read the forum rules, I don't believe I've broken any of them.

If these questions have been answered by the Wiki, please point them out to me.  They seem like glaring errors.

existoid,

Your exactly correct in re-summarizing my query about the Wiki animation model.

It presents a problem with the FE model in that if the moon is moving INSIDE of the perimeter of the Earth and moving INSIDE the tips of say South America // Africa // Australia (as the Wiki model shows), than folks living at these locations would see the "bottom face" or a portion of the "back side face" of the Moon which doesnt occur in real life. Hence, the potential flaw. For the FE model to be consistent with how people at every location on Earth actually see the same face of the Moon, the Moon would have to be moving about the flat Earth outside of the Earth's perimeter. The dome firmament that contains the Moon would look kind of funky, like a large mushroom or an expanded Jiffy Pop bag, if viewed from the side. So. I am just trying to get clarity on the FE model as depicted in the Wiki.

My apologies if I am leap- frogging some recent posts.

I did want to bring the original thread inquiry back to center.

Do flat Earthers have an explanation for my original inquiry which is quoted above? It's in regards to the flat earth model.

Thanks.

[Tom Bishop]

But they'd all see it in different directions. People in the South would have to look North, people in the North would have to look South (South being the perimeter of the big circle, which represents the earth, North being at the centre).

Does that in any way match what we observe?

This reads as ignorance of your own model. That is what is predicted by RE.



Observers in the South would have to look North and observers in the North would have to look South. This occurs regardless of the Moon's distance from the Earth.

Not surprising that you wouldn't know how your model works.

[existoid]

But they'd all see it in different directions. People in the South would have to look North, people in the North would have to look South (South being the perimeter of the big circle, which represents the earth, North being at the centre).

Does that in any way match what we observe?

This reads as ignorance of your own model. That is what is predicted by RE.



Observers in the South would have to look North and observers in the North would have to look South. This occurs regardless of the Moon's distance from the Earth.

Not surprising that you wouldn't know how your model works.

Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.   I admit to not fully understanding these diagrams, but I can read and understand the point of the posts.  You might need to re-read his.

You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.

What observation would that be? His imagined observation which contradicts Round Earth Theory's prediction that observers in the North would have to look South and observers in the South would have to look North?

You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?

Those were discussed. You were directed to the FE's celestial model of EA Theory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

[BRrollin]

Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.

What observation would that be? His imagined observation which contradicts Round Earth Theory's prediction that observers in the North would have to look South and observers in the South would have to look North?

You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?

Those were discussed. You were directed to the FE's celestial model of EA Theory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

The “imagined observation” is in fact a geometrical consequence. The burden is on FE to provide an explanation on this direct consequence from their claim.

The reference to the wiki does not provide such an explanation, hence this reply is a dodge and against forum rules.

[Tom Bishop]

The “imagined observation” is in fact a geometrical consequence. The burden is on FE to provide an explanation on this direct consequence from their claim.

The reference to the wiki does not provide such an explanation, hence this reply is a dodge and against forum rules.

Needing to look South to see the Moon from a location in the North is what occurs. It is also what occurs in RET. I would suggest trying to educate yourself on this matter.

[existoid]

Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.

What observation would that be? His imagined observation which contradicts Rount Earth Theory's prediction that observers in the North would have to look South and observers in the South would have to look North?

You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?

Those were discussed. You were directed to the FE's celestial model of EA Theory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Yes, I've read that part of the Wiki (thanks to JSS I believe pointing it out in this thread).  It totally doesn't answer the three questions - ESPECIALLY not when combined.  Once again, the RET has a consistent, coherent explanation for all three simultaneously, but the answers from the Wiki create contradictions. 

Let me explain what I mean. The three questions summarized were:

1. Why do we see the same face on the moon all over the earth [this is the only one of the three questions actually addressed by the Wiki]
2. What is stopping the sun's light from reaching the entire FE?  How can it possibly be a spotlight?
3. Why do the sun and moon not change their size all the time throughout the day and night, as it travels nearer and farther from where you stand?


There IS an answer in the Wiki page you linked (which I've now read for the second time in its entirety). It's in the "Nearside Always Seen" section with a helpful diagram showing how two people on different places see the same part of the moon because the light is bending. Okay, so far so good. I can accept that, because I can't fully understand the maths involved with the bending of the light. But here's where we get a massive contradiction. This contradicts the "spotlight" explanation for why the sun's light doesn't illuminate the entire FE at once.    In other words, if the light is bending down to curve all over the earth for the moon, why is it NOT doing that for the sun, but instead showing a laser-like direction downward that, contrary to all other observations of light, doesn't even let you see it from a distance from a non-directly illuminated area? 

And finally - there's NO explanation for the fact that the sun and moon don't change their size virtually every hour (the third question).  The explanations for bending light don't seem to account for this at all - they are all about "where" you are positioned as to "what" you see (except as it concerns sunset/sunrise, apparently).  Imagine you are standing in a circular field one mile in diameter. And there is a remote controlled drone flying in a circle that is about half the size of the field, concentrically inside (basically, like where the sun/moon path is on the FE model).  If I were standing directly below that path in the field, I would see the drone get smaller after it passes overhead and bigger as it nears me from the other direction after traveling around.  Why don't the sun and moon change sizes throughout the day, therefore?

See what I mean?  I'm sorry, but your Wiki doesn't address all three questions, and certainly doesn't address their implications all together.  The one explanation it has, for the first question, cannot account for the second.   

[BRrollin]

The “imagined observation” is in fact a geometrical consequence. The burden is on FE to provide an explanation on this direct consequence from their claim.

The reference to the wiki does not provide such an explanation, hence this reply is a dodge and against forum rules.

Needing to look South to see the Moon from a location in the North is what occurs. It is also what occurs in RET. I would suggest trying to educate yourself on this matter.

Again, a geometrical consequence is the current status. Unless a geometric rebuttal is forthcoming, calls to “educate yourself on the matter” are empty and off-topic, which is against forum rules.

Also, the EA wiki was used originally to create the geometrical consequence. Linking it for a rebuttal is self-referential and provides no new information to the discussion. This is also against forum rules.