[Mysfit]

Hello,
I have just finished an experiment into what i called the 'small effect'.
The small effect was what theoretically allowed other planets to have moons/belts. And moons to have moon moons.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10924.msg169587#new
The experiment resulted in a failure to prove the effect using a local facsimile of a planet/moon.
As such, it brings into question what causes such a weird anomaly within the flat theorem.

That leaves me with the question.
How do other planets have moons that orbit them?

[TitanicShark]

I never thought of this, also how would the planets move across the sky if they aren't orbiting anything? and the Earth isn't spinning.

[JCM]

I never thought of this, also how would the planets move across the sky if they aren't orbiting anything? and the Earth isn't spinning.

Undeniable facts...
1. Stars have a north polar axis they rotate around perfectly and a south axis, 180 degrees apart, taking nearly 24 hours for a perfect rotation.

2. Star trails show angular velocity is highest above the equator and slows down to zero at the poles.

So, either everything in the universe rotates at different speeds to perfectly maintain their distances from each other or the Earth is spinning? Including the planets ( which don’t orbit the earth, easily seen) Which is more likely?

3. Polaris angular height gives northern latitudes, but it disappears when you go south of three equator and the polar axis in the south will give southern latitudes. 

Now, with those undeniable facts in mind, what possible shapes and scenarios account for that?

[Mysfit]

I never thought of this, also how would the planets move across the sky if they aren't orbiting anything? and the Earth isn't spinning.

Undeniable facts...
1. Stars have a north polar axis they rotate around perfectly and a south axis, 180 degrees apart, taking nearly 24 hours for a perfect rotation.

2. Star trails show angular velocity is highest above the equator and slows down to zero at the poles.

So, either everything in the universe rotates at different speeds to perfectly maintain their distances from each other or the Earth is spinning? Including the planets ( which don’t orbit the earth, easily seen) Which is more likely?

3. Polaris angular height gives northern latitudes, but it disappears when you go south of three equator and the polar axis in the south will give southern latitudes. 

Now, with those undeniable facts in mind, what possible shapes and scenarios account for that?

I'm unsure that has anything to do with moons.

[JCM]

I never thought of this, also how would the planets move across the sky if they aren't orbiting anything? and the Earth isn't spinning.

Undeniable facts...
1. Stars have a north polar axis they rotate around perfectly and a south axis, 180 degrees apart, taking nearly 24 hours for a perfect rotation.

2. Star trails show angular velocity is highest above the equator and slows down to zero at the poles.

So, either everything in the universe rotates at different speeds to perfectly maintain their distances from each other or the Earth is spinning? Including the planets ( which don’t orbit the earth, easily seen) Which is more likely?

3. Polaris angular height gives northern latitudes, but it disappears when you go south of three equator and the polar axis in the south will give southern latitudes. 

Now, with those undeniable facts in mind, what possible shapes and scenarios account for that?

I'm unsure that has anything to do with moons.

That's easy...  We can observe other planets spinning, they have tidally locked observably spinning moons around them.  Whether we are like other planets spinning is absolutely a fair question to ask.  Our shape, our moons shape, and if we are spinning are integral to better understand planetary physics.

[Mysfit]

I'm just worried about moons atm.
Specifically the ones that are not ours and are still somehow stuck to their respective planets.
Flat Theory doesn't cover it, and it is either a HUGE or tiny problem

[stack]

I'm just worried about moons atm.
Specifically the ones that are not ours and are still somehow stuck to their respective planets.
Flat Theory doesn't cover it, and it is either a HUGE or tiny problem

Here's what I think I know of FET so far.

The planets are different than the special kind of crazy that the earth is.
For the most part, it is somewhat agreed that the planets are round and presumably so are their moons.
They, like the sun and our moon, rotate above the earth.
The earth does not spin/rotate so gravity as we know it doesn't exist.
What takes the place of 'gravity' is surmised to be Universal Acceleration (UA), an unknown force that pushes the earth and everything above it upwards.

So, perhaps, in FET, planets are round, appear to rotate and actually do possess a Newtonian gravitational pull on their moons as well as being pushed up by UA?

[JCM]

I'm just worried about moons atm.
Specifically the ones that are not ours and are still somehow stuck to their respective planets.
Flat Theory doesn't cover it, and it is either a HUGE or tiny problem

Here's what I think I know of FET so far.

The planets are different than the special kind of crazy that the earth is.
For the most part, it is somewhat agreed that the planets are round and presumably so are their moons.
They, like the sun and our moon, rotate above the earth.
The earth does not spin/rotate so gravity as we know it doesn't exist.
What takes the place of 'gravity' is surmised to be Universal Acceleration (UA), an unknown force that pushes the earth and everything above it upwards.

So, perhaps, in FET, planets are round, appear to rotate and actually do possess a Newtonian gravitational pull on their moons as well as being pushed up by UA?

Universal Acceleration has too many holes in it.  Atmospheric pressure decreasing in elevation being just one of them.  Comets, Wondering planets, regular periodic meteor showers, red shift/blue shifted stars, speeding up and slowing down of stars rotating around us and planets are just a few other issues UA cannot explain.  Gravity works perfectly, is measurable.  Why FET believes the entire universe revolving a central Earth with everything accelerating upwards near the speed of light is easier to believe then a Heliocentric solar system controlled by gravity is a mystery to me.

[edby]

What takes the place of 'gravity' is surmised to be Universal Acceleration (UA), an unknown force that pushes the earth and everything above it upwards.

So, perhaps, in FET, planets are round, appear to rotate and actually do possess a Newtonian gravitational pull on their moons as well as being pushed up by UA?

But not everything above it. Only the earth and the heavenly bodies. If the stuff immediately above the earth's surface were also affected, we would all be floating around, weightless. Nor does UA affect planes or high altitude balloons, nor apparently things in coal mines deep below the earth's surface. Nor the very bottom of the sea nor all the stuff in the sea.

[JCM]

What takes the place of 'gravity' is surmised to be Universal Acceleration (UA), an unknown force that pushes the earth and everything above it upwards.

So, perhaps, in FET, planets are round, appear to rotate and actually do possess a Newtonian gravitational pull on their moons as well as being pushed up by UA?

But not everything above it. Only the earth and the heavenly bodies. If the stuff immediately above the earth's surface were also affected, we would all be floating around, weightless. Nor does UA affect planes or high altitude balloons, nor apparently things in coal mines deep below the earth's surface. Nor the very bottom of the sea nor all the stuff in the sea.

Are you suggesting planes aren't affected by UA?  This UA would be accelerating everything upwards at near the speed of light. Think this through, everything, absolutely everything would have to be accelerating the exact same.   

Let's pretend a moving train is like the Earth under UA. You are suggesting that a drone flying inside a train moving at 60mph isn't affected by this UA force, as soon as the drone flies upward the train would move forward and smash the drone.  This is obviously untrue.

Back to the Earth, do you agree the atmosphere is made of gases that have mass?  If they weren't being accelerated upwards then how are planes flying, how is air breathable thousands of feet in the air if it isn't moving with the Earth?

[stack]

The question isn't necessarily how UA works, but if gravity is actually UA, what is the force that binds planetary moons to their observable orbits around their hosts? UA says that everything is accelerating upwards, cool, that maybe explains why the planetary moons are where they are. But what makes them orbit? I don't think UA has an answer.

[edby]

Are you suggesting planes aren't affected by UA? 

Yes, obviously. Apply a few minutes' thought.

[JCM]

Are you suggesting planes aren't affected by UA? 

Yes, obviously. Apply a few minutes' thought.

So...  the Earth is moving upwards at near the speed of light but the planes are not affected, wouldn’t everything need to accelerate upwards?  You haven’t given any explanation for how the stars are accelerating to get above us and then deccelerating to get below us. 

[edby]

Are you suggesting planes aren't affected by UA? 

Yes, obviously. Apply a few minutes' thought.

So...  the Earth is moving upwards at near the speed of light but the planes are not affected, wouldn’t everything need to accelerate upwards?  You haven’t given any explanation for how the stars are accelerating to get above us and then deccelerating to get below us.

To avoid confusion: neither planes nor people or buildings on earth are affected, otherwise they too would be accelerating upwards at 10m/s^2, and everything would be floating in space. For UA to work, the stuff on and above the earth's surface is not affected, but the earth is. This is what keeps us pinned to the ground.

[JCM]

To avoid confusion: neither planes nor people or buildings on earth are affected, otherwise they too would be accelerating upwards at 10m/s^2, and everything would be floating in space. For UA to work, the stuff on and above the earth's surface is not affected, but the earth is. This is what keeps us pinned to the ground.

Ok, what is keeping the theoretical near sun and near moon chasing eachother orbiting the north pole above us then? (Nevermind it is demonstrably impossible to have a near moon and sun with the moons phases).

Moons on other planets are clearly going around their planets, not above them.   Is it Gravity keeping their orbits? Or UA?  We can't have both in my mind, how would both work or why would both be a better explanation then just having Gravity as an explanation for everything we observe.

[RonJ]

In order for UA to work it would have to push on the back side of the earth, like wind in a sail.  The dark force field would then have to bend around the edges of the earth and push on the sun and moon to keep them accelerating at the same rate as the earth.  Otherwise the sun and moon would either fall to the earth's surface or slowly wander off in space.  That means that the dark force influences the earth, moon, and sun by giving these bodies a push, but also the earth (at least) effects the dark force because that dark force kind of bounces off the bottom of the earth and flows around it before coming back together on the top of the earth to then push on the moon and sun.  If the dark force energy didn't do that and just flowed thru the earth then it would act on everything on the top side of the earth and we would all be weightless.  The force of gravity has a well known equation for the imparted force.  It only depends on the mass and the distance apart any two objects are.  What about the dark energy force.  This force doesn't seem to be effected by the mass of an object, otherwise the earth would have a different acceleration rate than the sun or moon.  The amount of surface area doesn't seem to matter either, for the same reason.  If the FE model is to be believed then a simple equation should be put forth that can be tested and verified just like the force of gravity has been done so many times.

[edby]

In order for UA to work it would have to push on the back side of the earth, like wind in a sail.  The dark force field would then have to bend around the edges of the earth and push on the sun and moon to keep them accelerating at the same rate as the earth.  Otherwise the sun and moon would either fall to the earth's surface or slowly wander off in space.  That means that the dark force influences the earth, moon, and sun by giving these bodies a push, but also the earth (at least) effects the dark force because that dark force kind of bounces off the bottom of the earth and flows around it before coming back together on the top of the earth to then push on the moon and sun.  If the dark force energy didn't do that and just flowed thru the earth then it would act on everything on the top side of the earth and we would all be weightless.  The force of gravity has a well known equation for the imparted force.  It only depends on the mass and the distance apart any two objects are.  What about the dark energy force.  This force doesn't seem to be effected by the mass of an object, otherwise the earth would have a different acceleration rate than the sun or moon.  The amount of surface area doesn't seem to matter either, for the same reason.  If the FE model is to be believed then a simple equation should be put forth that can be tested and verified just like the force of gravity has been done so many times.

Correct.

[Mysfit]

Moons on other planets are clearly going around their planets, not above them.   Is it Gravity keeping their orbits? Or UA?  We can't have both in my mind, how would both work or why would both be a better explanation then just having Gravity as an explanation for everything we observe.

I have disproved any sort of attraction with my earlier 'small effect' experiment.
If UA exists, then I don't think gravity can.
Unless... UA affects only a specific place... No, the other planets move in front of the sun, which is affected by UA. Worth a thought though.

[stack]

In order for UA to work it would have to push on the back side of the earth, like wind in a sail.  The dark force field would then have to bend around the edges of the earth and push on the sun and moon to keep them accelerating at the same rate as the earth.  Otherwise the sun and moon would either fall to the earth's surface or slowly wander off in space.  That means that the dark force influences the earth, moon, and sun by giving these bodies a push, but also the earth (at least) effects the dark force because that dark force kind of bounces off the bottom of the earth and flows around it before coming back together on the top of the earth to then push on the moon and sun.  If the dark force energy didn't do that and just flowed thru the earth then it would act on everything on the top side of the earth and we would all be weightless.  The force of gravity has a well known equation for the imparted force.  It only depends on the mass and the distance apart any two objects are.  What about the dark energy force.  This force doesn't seem to be effected by the mass of an object, otherwise the earth would have a different acceleration rate than the sun or moon.  The amount of surface area doesn't seem to matter either, for the same reason.  If the FE model is to be believed then a simple equation should be put forth that can be tested and verified just like the force of gravity has been done so many times.

Correct.

I agree, correct. Which brings us back to square: What is causing a planet's moon to orbit? UA doesn't seem to be the answer.

[RonJ]

You can't have gravity on the flat earth model because gravity means everything is pulled toward the center of mass of any object.  On a global earth that's no problem.  Everything is pulled toward the center.  On a flat earth those nearer to the edge would be pulled off in a slanted direction.  The closer to the center you are the more your vertical would be straight down.  The more you are out towards the edge the more your 'down' would be slanted towards the center of the earth.  The UA model would solve that little problem, but then brings up others.