The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: GoldCashew on April 29, 2020, 03:11:50 AM
-
Hi,
No matter where one is located on Earth, the same round side of the observed globe Moon always faces the observer.
In a Flat Earth model, the Sun and globe Moon orbit above the Flat Earth, as shown in the Wiki. The Sun And Moon are also much much closer to the Earth VS. the RE model.
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.
Yet, I have been to Cap Town-South Africa, Brazil, and Australia and observe the same side of the globe Moon with my telescope as I do when I am in the northern part of the USA, like Chicago. This observation is a factual observation by anyone else on Earth looking up at the Moon.
So, I am curious as to how seeing the same globed side "face" of the Moon would be possible in the FE model, no matter if one is located in Chicago, Australia, or South Africa?
I've read the Wiki several times and could not find any info. that helps answer the above question.
Thank you.
-
When you play the old Doom video game, the world you play in simulates 3D to an extent (in that you can walk around objects with length, width, height). But items you pick up and dead demons only show one face no matter how you circle it (unlike walls and doors). It always shows the same image, because these items are not simulated 3D, they are just flat images.
Maybe the moon is like that - a flat image projected by some entity.
Oh, wait. The moon also rotates a full circle about once per month. I guess I'm wrong.
-
The moon must be much, much further away from earth than any distance between two points on earth. There are at least two reasons why we actually can see a little bit of the far-side of the moon. 1) The moon's orbit is an ellipse (albeit very close to a circle) and 2) the moon is not infinitely far away.
By the way, the effect you mentioned (that at the same time we all see the same face of an object in space irrespective of location on earth) applies also to the sun and planets when we can identify some distinct features. That would be sun-spots on the sun, great red spot on Jupiter, moon around planets and phases of the planets all look the same when viewed at the exact same time from different positions on earth.
-
The moon must be much, much further away from earth than any distance between two points on earth. There are at least two reasons why we actually can see a little bit of the far-side of the moon. 1) The moon's orbit is an ellipse (albeit very close to a circle) and 2) the moon is not infinitely far away.
By the way, the effect you mentioned (that at the same time we all see the same face of an object in space irrespective of location on earth) applies also to the sun and planets when we can identify some distinct features. That would be sun-spots on the sun, great red spot on Jupiter, moon around planets and phases of the planets all look the same when viewed at the exact same time from different positions on earth.
Well, no that’s not quite correct. The reason we see the same side of the moon is that it is tidally locked to the earth in its stable equilibrium. The reason we see the same features on the sun and Jupiter is because of the distance - but those features change as we orbit (but we still agree everywhere on earth about what they are).
-
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.
-
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 am reacting to the flat Earth animation on the Wiki. The top view of the animation model depicts a moon that moves within the perimeter of the flat earth.
-
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.
(http://)
-
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.
(http://)
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.
-
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.
(http://)
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 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.
"you're" (sorry, I used to teach HS English) ;D
Thank you! Do you have any thoughts on my other two questions? I can't find anything about them anywhere in the Wiki, but it seems like those would really need to be addressed. How is at least SOME light of the "spotlight" not seen anywhere at night? And the sun and moon, if moving around a perimeter as depicted, would have to be constantly shrinking and growing as they get closer and further to where you are on the flat earth. But they don't. I have read about the sunset solution, but as described that can only explain it at sunset, not at all other times, right? Or am I missing something.
-
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 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.
"you're" (sorry, I used to teach HS English) ;D
Thank you! Do you have any thoughts on my other two questions? I can't find anything about them anywhere in the Wiki, but it seems like those would really need to be addressed. How is at least SOME light of the "spotlight" not seen anywhere at night? And the sun and moon, if moving around a perimeter as depicted, would have to be constantly shrinking and growing as they get closer and further to where you are on the flat earth. But they don't. I have read about the sunset solution, but as described that can only explain it at sunset, not at all other times, right? Or am I missing something.
The closest in the Wiki that explains this is Electromagnetic Acceleration.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
The issues are it doesn't really have any working math on how light bends to produce any, or all of the effects we see. Just that, light bends somehow. Not that just a formula would help without knowing the distance to the moon and sun, how big they are and how they move, none of which is also known.
-
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 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.
"you're" (sorry, I used to teach HS English) ;D
Thank you! Do you have any thoughts on my other two questions? I can't find anything about them anywhere in the Wiki, but it seems like those would really need to be addressed. How is at least SOME light of the "spotlight" not seen anywhere at night? And the sun and moon, if moving around a perimeter as depicted, would have to be constantly shrinking and growing as they get closer and further to where you are on the flat earth. But they don't. I have read about the sunset solution, but as described that can only explain it at sunset, not at all other times, right? Or am I missing something.
The closest in the Wiki that explains this is Electromagnetic Acceleration.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
The issues are it doesn't really have any working math on how light bends to produce any, or all of the effects we see. Just that, light bends somehow. Not that just a formula would help without knowing the distance to the moon and sun, how big they are and how they move, none of which is also known.
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.
Proponents then seek to elevate FE and hold an equal comparison of it to RE claims. But it’s not even in the same ballpark yet.
The lion-share of the justification reads as an attempt to poke holes in RE explanations, in the hopes that this will support the FE construction. But it never will, because each claim inherits its own burden of proof.
-
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 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.
You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem. As has been explained many times we can use numerical methods to solve the 3-body problem to as many decimal places as we want. You keep ignoring that. We sent a spacecraft to Pluto and didn't do that by guessing.
Just because we can't calculate PI to an infinite amount of digits doesn't mean we don't know what a circle looks like!
You have yet to provide a single physicist who has published a paper saying we can't use Newtons 2-body laws to accurately calculate planets, moons, comets and spacecraft.
Please provide such a paper. I have asked before and have yet to get anything that says that numerical methods of the n-body problem don't work. They do.
-
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.
Tom,
I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.
I wasn't aware there was a problem. The RE model is pretty much a unifying model that I've never heard of a physicist having a problem with.
You've got a Sun (which is a star), the Earth which orbits about the Sun, and the Moon which is a satellite that orbits about the Earth.
So, not sure of the problem you refer to.
-
You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem.
Then find a single physicist who says that it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.
I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.
I'm referring to the Three Body Problem: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
-
You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem.
Then find a single physicist who says that it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.
How about NASA which employs lots of physicists. Not a paper but actual software that works. ( https://software.nasa.gov/software/LEW-17816-1 )
"SNAP is an N-body high-fidelity propagation program that can model the trajectories of the planets, the Sun, and virtually any natural satellite in the solar system."
How about this one? ( http://sites.apam.columbia.edu/courses/ap1601y/Moon-Earth-Sin%20RMP.70.589.pdf )
"This review is intended as a case study of the many stages that characterize the slow development of a problem in physics from simple observations through many forms of explanation to a high-precision fit with the data."
There are so many, the problem is you won't accept any of them.
-
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.
Tom,
I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.
I wasn't aware there was a problem. The RE model is pretty much a unifying model that I've never heard of a physicist having a problem with.
You've got a Sun (which is a star), the Earth which orbits about the Sun, and the Moon which is a satellite that orbits about the Earth.
So, not sure of the problem you refer to.
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). Thus the Earth-Moon-Sun 3-body problem is impossible. Thus space isn't real. Thus the Earth is flat. QED.
-
You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem.
Then find a single physicist who says that it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.
I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.
I'm referring to the Three Body Problem: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Alright. “it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.”
- BRrollin, physicist.
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.
-
You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem.
Then find a single physicist who says that it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.
I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.
I'm referring to the Three Body Problem: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
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. Helio science not only predicted the when, but again, the where. As in exactly where the area of totality would be, down to meters:
"Space.com talked with NASA's Ernie Wright, who has been producing NASA's visualizations of the celestial event, to learn how satellites mapping the surface of the moon and advances in computing power have made it possible for scientists to predict precisely where on Earth the eclipse will be visible and for exactly how long — with a precision of about 100 meters (330 feet, or about the length of a city block)."
https://www.space.com/37128-how-to-predict-eclipse-2017-path.html
The old fashioned way will get you within kilometers. In any case, FET can't make that precise prediction because it requires, first and foremost, a map of earth. FET doesn't have one. In addition, you need the precise topography of both earth and the moon. FET doesn't have those either.
So there you go, 3 body scenario predicted and solved down to 100 meters.
Your 3 body problem is a perpetual red herring that doesn't mean anything especially considering that Helio seems to be able to handle it whereas FET does not.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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??
-
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.
-
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! :D ), 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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
(https://i.ibb.co/1dc95Gz/EA.jpg)
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?
-
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.
(https://i.ibb.co/1dc95Gz/EA.jpg)
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...
-
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.
(https://i.ibb.co/1dc95Gz/EA.jpg)
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.
-
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 ???
-
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.
(http://)
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.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/1dc95Gz/EA.jpg)
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/otw98jE.png)
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.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/1dc95Gz/EA.jpg)
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/otw98jE.png)
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, 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :o
-
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.
-
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.
I see. So you agree that EA has been invented without any evidence to match the observations you'd expect on a globe?
And why does it make light bend downwards to create the moon tilt illusion? ???
-
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
I thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I still have in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:
Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon
Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below
Q: How do you reconcile those two answers which directly contradict each other?
A: ??????
EDIT:
and that other question that's also always dodged, and not at all addressed in the Wiki:
Q: Why do the earth and sun not get bigger as they near your position, and get smaller as they go away, like we would expect?
A: ?????
-
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
I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.
The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.
I was just thinking how difficult it must be defending FE theory, because one would have to constantly keep on their toes and keep up with and create these tangled spider-webs of theories to try and rationalize the FE model.
The RE model works so seamlessly beautiful. And, yes, people have been to space and have also observed the Earth as round.
-
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
I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.
The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.
I was just thinking how difficult it must be defending FE theory, because one would have to constantly keep on their toes and keep up with and create these tangled spider-webs of theories to try and rationalize the FE model.
The RE model works so seamlessly beautiful. And, yes, people have been to space and have also observed the Earth as round.
Totally.
When I first got to this site in the past few days, I loved reading all about the scienc-y proofs and explanations. The FET cannot account for so much, whereas the RET does it without effort. But even aside from physics and math, there is an inherent illogic amongst the FET claims. They are so self-contradictory that you don't even really need to know the math to grasp that it is unworkable.
I'm trying to discuss it through logic alone, without resort to calculations, physics, math, and it's ridiculously simple to discover fallacy.
-
I see. So you agree that EA has been invented without any evidence to match the observations you'd expect on a globe?
In this case, looking South to see the Sun was already there in FE with a close sun before EA. EA doesn't really have anything to do with that one.
thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I still have in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:
Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon
Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below
It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.
I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.
The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.
"I think it's ridiculous" does not seem like a very compelling argument. I could say the same about the thought of a particle or a wave traveling in a straight line for a long distance. Since straight line trajectories are not really known anywhere in nature, that could easily be ridiculed as special pleading.
-
It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.
I'm confused what a non-directional spotlight is describing. Aren't spotlights by definition unidirectional?
Can you draw a picture?
-
I see. So you agree that EA has been invented without any evidence to match the observations you'd expect on a globe?
In this case, looking South to see the Sun was already there in FE with a close sun before EA. EA doesn't really have anything to do with that one.
thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I still have in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:
Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon
Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below
It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.
I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.
The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.
"I think it's ridiculous" does not seem like a very compelling argument. I could say the same about the thought of a particle or a wave traveling in a straight line for a long distance. Since straight line trajectories are not really known anywhere in nature, that could easily be ridiculed as special pleading.
I would not consider this special pleading, but common. Indeed, most particles created in the universe travel in a straight line, with the mean free path being longer than the Hubble radius. I am of course talking about photons. On large scales, space is flat (from cosmology) - so this implies straight trajectories relative to the CMB.
-
I'm confused what a non-directional spotlight is describing. Aren't spotlights by definition unidirectional?
Can you draw a picture?
A spotlight created on a surface != Sun is a unidirectional spotlight. Spotlight can also mean a spot of light.
I would not consider this special pleading, but common. Indeed, most particles created in the universe travel in a straight line, with the mean free path being longer than the Hubble radius. I am of course talking about photons. On large scales, space is flat (from cosmology) - so this implies straight trajectories relative to the CMB.
All of that is part of the RE cosmology. Straight line trajectories aren't really known elsewhere in nature or science. Bodies, waves, and particles tend to be affected by phenomena in the universe.
-
Without any obstacles, of course the Hubble would still move forward, explained by Newton's 1st Law. Straight-line trajectory is commonly seen with robotics, which is part of science.
-
Without any obstacles
That would require a perfect universe, and perfect knowledge of all obstacles; both unreasonable to merely assume.
-
Before I continue further, do you believe that the Hubble Telescope is fake or it doesn't do what it is supposed to do?
-
thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I still have in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:
Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon
Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below
It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.
It's possible the Wiki doesn't out right state that it's "directional." But...that's kind of what a spotlight is - it doesn't shine in all directions. I'm not trying to get into semantics about the definition of directional or spotlight, though. My point is that for the FE model to make sense it HAS to be directional, otherwise there would be no night (hence "spotlight").
But you're saying it's NOT directional like that? Are you saying that so as not to contradict the explanation for the moon question? If so, then why does night exist? You can't have it both ways (without creating a logical fallacy, which has kind of been my point all along in this thread).
-
I see. So you agree that EA has been invented without any evidence to match the observations you'd expect on a globe?
In this case, looking South to see the Sun was already there in FE with a close sun before EA. EA doesn't really have anything to do with that one.
thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I still have in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:
Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon
Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below
It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.
I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.
The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.
"I think it's ridiculous" does not seem like a very compelling argument. I could say the same about the thought of a particle or a wave traveling in a straight line for a long distance. Since straight line trajectories are not really known anywhere in nature, that could easily be ridiculed as special pleading.
Tom,
Have you checked or consulted the validity of your assumptions or claims with a physicist / astrophysicist? Specifically the created Electromagnetic Acceleration theory?
-
I'm confused what a non-directional spotlight is describing. Aren't spotlights by definition unidirectional?
Can you draw a picture?
A spotlight created on a surface != Sun is a unidirectional spotlight. Spotlight can also mean a spot of light.
Maybe if you mean "spot of light" you should say, "spot of light". I ask for a "flashlight" I don't say "hand me that flash of light". Then you wouldn't have to explain that "spotlight" doesn't mean "spotlight".
Regardless, Electromagnetic Acceleration has a long way to go before you could even call it a hypothesis, let alone a theory. The Wiki is pretty empty of any hard data, and most of the diagrams have serious flaws and don't match observations of what we see.
It doesn't make any predictions, it doesn't explain how the bendy light behaves, it has one formula with missing variables and no numbers for any critical values like how big the Sun is and how far away. I've said before, it would be interesting to run visual simulations but there is just zero information to work with.
If I said all spheres were actually cubes and light just makes them look round, I'd have about the same level of evidence to back up my claim as EA is currently providing.
-
I am reacting to the flat Earth animation on the Wiki. The top view of the animation model depicts a moon that moves within the perimeter of the flat earth.
I'm afraid just looking at pretty pictures won't work here. I can't tell for sure (because you said nothing more than "I looked at a GIF", thus forcing me to guess), but I suspect you failed to take EA into account. Others seem to agree, but somehow that made you angry.
Instead of saying "I looked at this image and this phenomenon doesn't work", navigate us through your logic. Go through each step between the assumptions and conclusion. It's very difficult to help you identify your error without that.
-
I am reacting to the flat Earth animation on the Wiki. The top view of the animation model depicts a moon that moves within the perimeter of the flat earth.
I'm afraid just looking at pretty pictures won't work here. I can't tell for sure (because you said nothing more than "I looked at a GIF", thus forcing me to guess), but I suspect you failed to take EA into account. Others seem to agree, but somehow that made you angry.
Instead of saying "I looked at this image and this phenomenon doesn't work", navigate us through your logic. Go through each step between the assumptions and conclusion. It's very difficult to help you identify your error without that.
I would like to know how to take EA into account but the Wiki doesn't provide any usable theories. All I could find was this equation which is both missing the 'Bishop Constant' and also gives a result that isn't a distance or position.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/9/92/Bendy.png)
y = 3/4 * root((b*x^4)/c^2,3)
Can you explain how we are to take EA into account and determine where the Sun actually is at a given apparent position?
-
All I could find was this equation
Sorry, I'm not sure how to help you with your ability to find things. You clearly found the page which includes the image, but you somehow managed not to find the rest of the page, or the related pages linked within. It's far beyond my ability to identify how this happened, or how you could improve.
-
All I could find was this equation
Sorry, I'm not sure how to help you with your ability to find things. You clearly found the page which includes the image, but you somehow managed not to find the rest of the page, or the related pages linked within. It's far beyond my ability to identify how this happened, or how you could improve.
Not a very helpful response there, but effective at avoiding the question. I was trying to be as concise as I could, but let me be more verbose...
The only potentially useful information on the Wiki about how to apply EA to explain where the Sun and Moon are is this equation, as the rest is all vague pictures and quotes from other sources that all boil down to different ways of saying "bendy light" with no explanation on why it bends or even how much or any observations to back up the vague assertions.
If you want people to "take EA into account" you need to explain what EA is and how it works better than "it bends light somehow" and "read the Wiki" which also gives no answers.
-
The only potentially useful information on the Wiki about how to apply EA to explain where the Sun and Moon are is this equation
I disagree. Once again, I don't know how to help you with your inability to synthesise information, but I suggest you work it out in your own time, without pestering others.
You were provided with diagrams which visualise an equivalent displacement. Of course, you're also trying to shift the goalposts, just in case. The OP talks about a "flaw with the FE model". Now that a plausable explanation has been presented to you, you're immediately jumping towards complaining that you weren't provided with precise numbers.
I hope you realise that no one is going to fall for this.
To clarify: the question here is not where the moon and sun are. The question is whether you should be able to see the dark side of the moon. I posit that there is nothing in FET that suggest this would be the case. If you'd like to demonstrate otherwise, please go ahead. We will not be wasting time with proving negatives.
-
The only potentially useful information on the Wiki about how to apply EA to explain where the Sun and Moon are is this equation
I disagree. Once again, I don't know how to help you with your inability to synthesise information, but I suggest you work it out in your own time, without pestering others.
You were provided with diagrams which visualise an equivalent displacement. Of course, you're also trying to shift the goalposts, just in case. The OP talks about a "flaw with the FE model". Now that a plausable explanation has been presented to you, you're immediately jumping towards complaining that you weren't provided with precise numbers.
I hope you realise that no one is going to fall for this.
To clarify: the question here is not where the moon and sun are. The question is whether you should be able to see the dark side of the moon. I posit that there is nothing in FET that suggest this would be the case. If you'd like to demonstrate otherwise, please go ahead. We will not be wasting time with proving negatives.
The discussion changed to you saying "you failed to take EA into account" and I asked just how one takes EA into account.
A bunch of GIFs with curved lines isn't a theory. I can synthesize information fine, but there needs to be information in the first place. I haven't been presented with any plausible model, just "bendy light" and a refusal to answer questions.
I'm not complaining you don't have precise numbers, I'm claiming you have no numbers at all, and the Wiki just says that bendy light makes the sky look like it does.
I'll start a new discussion since you don't feel this one is appropriate and clearly won't answer any questions.
-
The discussion changed to you saying "you failed to take EA into account" and I asked just how one takes EA into account.
No, it didn't. You might have wanted it to, but I'm not letting you off that easily. If you or OP want to demonstrate why you think FET should allow you to see the dark side of the moon, you're welcome to. If you have nothing, then this thread is dead.
After all, anyone can make similar unsubstantiated accusations. Here, look: if the Earth is round, I should be able to see a giant teapot in the sky. I can't see a giant teapot in the sky. What gives? This is a flaw with the RE model, clearly.
-
The discussion changed to you saying "you failed to take EA into account" and I asked just how one takes EA into account.
No, it didn't. You might have wanted it to, but I'm not letting you off that easily. If you or OP want to demonstrate why you think FET should allow you to see the dark side of the moon, you're welcome to. If you have nothing, then this thread is dead.
After all, anyone can make similar unsubstantiated accusations. Here, look: if the Earth is round, I should be able to see a giant teapot in the sky. I can't see a giant teapot in the sky. What gives? This is a flaw with the RE model, clearly.
Pete,
I've read the EU theory several times and I now better understand the basis of the EU theory as to why one on Earth (no matter their location) would see the same face of the moon.
Mainly, it has to do with light bending (not travelling in a straight line).
The one question I asked Tom was if this EU theory has been checked // verified with Physicists. It would be interesting to get feedback on this from Physicists.
-
The discussion changed to you saying "you failed to take EA into account" and I asked just how one takes EA into account.
No, it didn't. You might have wanted it to, but I'm not letting you off that easily. If you or OP want to demonstrate why you think FET should allow you to see the dark side of the moon, you're welcome to. If you have nothing, then this thread is dead.
After all, anyone can make similar unsubstantiated accusations. Here, look: if the Earth is round, I should be able to see a giant teapot in the sky. I can't see a giant teapot in the sky. What gives? This is a flaw with the RE model, clearly.
Pete,
I've read the EU theory several times and I now better understand the basis of the EU theory as to why one on Earth (no matter their location) would see the same face of the moon.
Mainly, it has to do with light bending (not travelling in a straight line).
The one question I asked Tom was if this EU theory has been checked // verified with Physicists. It would be interesting to get feedback on this from Physicists.
Lastly, similar to how you gave me a warning for telling people "what to do", you can't just declare when a thread is dead or not dead as you did with JSS. It's fair to be a Moderator but not fair to Moderate a debate. JSS is simply trying to dig into the specifics of the equation and challenging the FE group on this.
-
you can't just declare when a thread is dead or not dead as you did with JSS.
It's my job to do just that. If you started a thread which focuses on an assertion that you're unwilling to substantiate, and if no one else is willing to step up in your place, then the thread does not belong in the upper fora. As I already explained, the alternative would be for everyone to start spurting out baseless assertions and expect the other side to defend itself against them.
If you're unwilling to defend your own OP, then the thread is dead for all intents and purposes.
It's fair to be a Moderator but not fair to Moderate a debate.
???
-
I am reacting to the flat Earth animation on the Wiki. The top view of the animation model depicts a moon that moves within the perimeter of the flat earth.
I'm afraid just looking at pretty pictures won't work here. I can't tell for sure (because you said nothing more than "I looked at a GIF", thus forcing me to guess), but I suspect you failed to take EA into account. Others seem to agree, but somehow that made you angry.
Instead of saying "I looked at this image and this phenomenon doesn't work", navigate us through your logic. Go through each step between the assumptions and conclusion. It's very difficult to help you identify your error without that.
I did navigate through the logic several times during this thread pointing out the exact logical flaw more than once. It has not yet been responded to on this thread or in the Wiki. I read the explanation for EA on the wiki thoroughly twice. It is certainly possible I missed some other section on the wiki that accounts for the logical inconsistency between observation and the explanation provided for FET via EA, but I could not find it. To wit:
Why does EA make moonlight bend in the exact proper way so that two people in very different parts of the earth see the same part of the moon BUT the sun's light doesn't bend at all, and instead shines quite directionally so that night happens? Furthermore, how does EA also cause the sun and moon to not change their size constantly as they draw near and far from the observer's place on the FE?
How can EA account for all of these contradictory phenomena?
Logically you need separate explanations rather than simply "It's EA." Sorry, doesn't work.
-
The discussion changed to you saying "you failed to take EA into account" and I asked just how one takes EA into account.
No, it didn't. You might have wanted it to, but I'm not letting you off that easily. If you or OP want to demonstrate why you think FET should allow you to see the dark side of the moon, you're welcome to. If you have nothing, then this thread is dead.
After all, anyone can make similar unsubstantiated accusations. Here, look: if the Earth is round, I should be able to see a giant teapot in the sky. I can't see a giant teapot in the sky. What gives? This is a flaw with the RE model, clearly.
Nobody said "dark side of the moon" before you did.
The question was how do Flat Earth believers explain how we all see the exact same side of the moon, when we should all see it from different angles it if it's so close.
The response was "take EA into account" and when asked how to do this, no answer but "read the Wiki" which also doesn't explain it.
-
Nobody said "dark side of the moon" before you did.
Yes, your friend was pretty bad at describing what he meant. I wasn't gonna be as mean about it as you were. Nonetheless, it's obvious what was intended by the following:
I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.
Are you going to start substantiating it, or is the thread dead?
-
Nobody said "dark side of the moon" before you did.
Yes, your friend was pretty bad at describing what he meant. I wasn't gonna be as mean about it as you were. Nonetheless, it's obvious what was intended by the following:
I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.
Are you going to start substantiating it, or is the thread dead?
It's only dead because nobody on the FE side will even try and explain how EA works. His question is pretty simple, why does everyone see the same side of the moon on a flat Earth if it's so close?
FE theory has yet to explain this other than saying "Because EA" and then not explaining how that actually works.
-
Hi all,
Wanted to also follow up on my additional previous query (to Tom or other Flat Earthers) in this topic to see if the light bending Electromagnetic Acceleration theory has been verified // checked with Physicists. Specifically, as it pertains why we see the same face of the Moon no matter where one is located on Earth.
There were some additional queries from existoid as well.
Thanks.
-
I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.
Are you going to start substantiating it, or is the thread dead?
All it requires is simple spatial reasoning. It's quite simple, but I can only conclude from reading this thread one of two possibilities regarding your posts
A) You are intentionally deflecting because you have no answer
B) You misunderstand your own FE model as put forward in the Wiki and/or cannot grasp its spatial implications.
I'm going to elaborate as best I can on the OP's question and why it requires an explanation from the FET. I'll do my best to explain the Wiki's explanation (which has been elaborated on not one bit in this thread, despite specific questions about it that are not clarified in the Wiki). I’ll then fully describe how the Wiki’s explanation then creates a contradiction with the Wiki’s explanation of why there is night on a FE.
PART 1 – Substantiating and Explaining the OP’s Question
Imagine you are standing in a circular field 2 miles in diameter (Edit, previously wrote "1 mile" but the example needs it to be 2). Imagine you are standing about halfway along the radius. Imagine further that there is a drone flying in a concentric circle to the field that is about half the field’s size. This would mean that it is flying in a circle that passes directly over your head (since you’re halfway along the radius of the field). When the drone flies in its circle directly over your head, you see the very bottom of the drone. So far, so good, right?
I am standing at a point slightly closer to the center of the field from you. Say, another quarter mile in. And a third person is standing a quarter mile out from where you are. All of us are standing along the same radius to the center of the field itself.
When the drone flies over your head, I do not see the exact same parts of the drone as you do. You see the direct bottom of it. I see it at an angle from where I’m standing, closer to the center of the field. I see part of the bottom, but not directly. And the third person standing further out from you sees the other side of the drone, which I do not see.
All three of us see different parts of the drone at different angles.
The FE model depicts and describes a scenario like this, in which the drone is the moon, and we three are standing hundreds or thousands of miles apart in S. America, Central America, and N. America. And yet, what is actually observed is the SAME EXACT face of the moon at the same time. (Something which is easily explained in the RET by the fact that the moon is very far away).
PART 2 – How the Wiki Answers it
To explain why this is, the Wiki on this website claims the “EA” phenomenon. And it provides a helpful diagram (with the concept of it attributed to you!). It shows that light from the moon bends upward in all directions such that all observers on the FE see the same “bottom” part of the moon ("nearside" in the wiki), no matter where they are.
Okay, so far the Wiki has an explanation. I don’t know physics or math very well, so I can’t easily go deep into arguing about the proofs for electromagnetic acceleration. The diagram shows the answer, and it conceptually makes sense.
PART 3 – We therefore need a new explanation for why night exists
The Wiki in the introduction/FAQ states “Day and night cycles are easily explained on a Flat Earth. The Sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The light of the sun is confined to a limited area and its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth.” [emphasis added].
How is this possible if light actually “bends upward” per the electromagnetic acceleration claim? (And the section on EA also uses EA to explain time zones, so it clearly is claiming that EA applies to sunlight as well as moonlight).
This is a massive logical contradiction. Are the sun’s rays bending or not bending? They can’t be doing both.
Going back to the three people standing in the field, this leads us to yet another problem with the FE model.
All three of us are standing in the same half of the circle (at ¼ mile from the center, half a mile, and ¾ of a mile all along the same radius). Suppose it is night, and the drone we’re observing has a spotlight directly below it that shines directly down, illuminating about half of the field at once. This would be very similar to how the sun is described as working in the FE model on the wiki. When the drone is in the other half of the circular field such that its spotlight does not illuminate any of the three people standing there, those three people should still easily be able to see the light on the ground across the field. And, looking up at an angle, they would see the spotlight itself!
But we do NOT see the sun from a great distance when it is night. In the field analogy, there are no mountains or ground structures inhibited our view of the rest of the field. But what about a plane ride at night? If you are thousands of feet in the air, higher than any mountain, when flying at night you might still be lower than the sun, but high enough to look over and see where the sun is illuminating the other half of the FE, even if the features are not discernable due to the distance, why not see a great patch of light in the vast distance?
EDIT:
And I didn't even get to the fact that the drone, as it nears where we are overhead, it would get bigger, and then get smaller as it goes past us. Why don't the sun and moon change size as they cross the sky? I have yet to find an answer in the Wiki on this thread that addresses that problem in the context of the other contradiction that EA brings us.
-
It's only dead because nobody on the FE side will even try and explain how EA works.
It's been explained plenty of times, both in threads here and in the Wiki. It's not all that shocking that people aren't willing to explain it over and over again to someone who lacks basic maths literacy.
His question is pretty simple, why does everyone see the same side of the moon on a flat Earth if it's so close?
If his question is so simple, why do you keep misrepresenting it?
PART 1 – Substantiating and Explaining the OP’s Question
Right, so I was correct in stating that your failure was in assuming that light travels in a straight line, then?
This is a massive logical contradiction. Are the sun’s rays bending or not bending? They can’t be doing both.
What is the contradiction? There is nothing about EA that would prevent the spotlight effect. Be specific, for Christ's sake. I don't care if the contradiction is massive, I care about what exactly you think it is.
Why don't the sun and moon change size as they cross the sky? I have yet to find an answer in the Wiki on this thread that addresses that problem in the context of the other contradiction that EA brings us.
What is it with this new wave of RE'ers, their complete and utter inability to find pages on the Internet, and assuming that if they can't find it, it must not be there? I'm really not here to teach you how to use search engines. If you're going to waste my time, don't expect it to work.
-
PART 1 – Substantiating and Explaining the OP’s Question
Right, so I was correct in stating that your failure was in assuming that light travels in a straight line, then?
I'm not saying anything about whether light bends or does not bend. I'm being agnostic about that. Just re-read my posts. I'm saying that the Wiki's explanations REQUIRE light to BOTH bend AND go straight, in order to be consistent with itself.
I wrote that I cannot mathematically dispute the Wiki's explanation of EA, and said it conceptually makes sense.
However, if light does not travel in a straight line, then how do you explain night, which requires light traveling uni-directionally to illuminate only one half of the FE?
I've asked this several times now, and you've never provided an answer. The burden is on you to respond to the logical contradiction that your Wiki creates. And you haven't.
Why don't the sun and moon change size as they cross the sky? I have yet to find an answer in the Wiki on this thread that addresses that problem in the context of the other contradiction that EA brings us.
What is it with this new wave of RE'ers, their complete and utter inability to find pages on the Internet, and assuming that if they can't find it, it must not be there? I'm really not here to teach you how to use search engines. If you're going to waste my time, don't expect it to work.
I'm not trying to waste your time. I've tried searching several times. There are long pages about the moon tilt illusion, and plenty of related things, but there is no discrete section about why the sun and moon do not change sizes every hour that I can find.
Rather than being glib, perhaps you can either provide a one sentence summary, or even just a link to the part of the wiki that explains it?
You don't have to, of course. You can continue to be belligerent in your responses to my sincere and thoughtful posts, I can handle it. But it would be nice if you at least addressed the major logical contradiction that is the focus of my posts.
-
I'm saying that the Wiki's explanations REQUIRE light to BOTH bend AND go straight, in order to be consistent with itself.
Right. Now, instead of just stating it with a wondrous mix of bold italic and CAPITALS with no qualification, explain why you believe this to be the case.
However, if light does not travel in a straight line, then how do you explain night, which requires light traveling uni-directionally to illuminate only one half of the FE?
Is there something about the first few paragraphs and diagrams in the EA page that you disagree with? They seem to illustrate this exact scenario quite well.
I've asked this several times now, and you've never provided an answer. The burden is on you to respond to the logical contradiction that your Wiki creates. And you haven't.
In order to respond to the supposed contradiction, I need to know what it is. My reading of your posts here so far goes along the lines of "This must both be bending and not bending? How COME? This is a massive contradiction!!!!" Until you clarify your reasoning, I can't really tell you where you went wrong. I'm no mind reader.
I'm not trying to waste your time. I've tried searching several times. There are long pages about the moon tilt illusion, and plenty of related things, but there is no discrete section about why the sun and moon do not change sizes every hour that I can find.
Sigh. Let's see.
I want to learn about why the Sun doesn't change its size. I would expect that effect to be most pronounced at sunrise and sunset. Let's look at https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset
Wow, that's a short page. Let's have a quick scan. Oh, look: "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) describes why the Sun does not shrink as it recedes"
That wasn't so hard. Let's try again! This time, I'm going to use Google. Don't we all just love Google?
I'll copy the exact phrasing of your question as you used it now: "why the sun and moon do not change sizes every hour". I'll throw in a "site:wiki.tfes.org", because we're looking for our wiki pages.
(https://i.imgur.com/LR8QNS7.png)
Not bad, second result.
This really is not that hard.
-
I'm saying that the Wiki's explanations REQUIRE light to BOTH bend AND go straight, in order to be consistent with itself.
Right. Now, instead of just stating it with a wondrous mix of bold italic and CAPITALS with no qualification, explain why you believe this to be the case.
However, if light does not travel in a straight line, then how do you explain night, which requires light traveling uni-directionally to illuminate only one half of the FE?
Is there something about the first few paragraphs and diagrams in the EA page that you disagree with? They seem to illustrate this exact scenario quite well.
I've asked this several times now, and you've never provided an answer. The burden is on you to respond to the logical contradiction that your Wiki creates. And you haven't.
In order to respond to the supposed contradiction, I need to know what it is. My reading of your posts here so far goes along the lines of "This must both be bending and not bending? How COME? This is a massive contradiction!!!!" Until you clarify your reasoning, I can't really tell you where you went wrong. I'm no mind reader.
I'm not trying to waste your time. I've tried searching several times. There are long pages about the moon tilt illusion, and plenty of related things, but there is no discrete section about why the sun and moon do not change sizes every hour that I can find.
Sigh. Let's see.
I want to learn about why the Sun doesn't change its size. I would expect that effect to be most pronounced at sunrise and sunset. Let's look at https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset
Wow, that's a short page. Let's have a quick scan. Oh, look: "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) describes why the Sun does not shrink as it recedes"
That wasn't so hard. Let's try again! This time, I'm going to use Google. Don't we all just love Google?
I'll copy the exact phrasing of your question as you used it now: "why the sun and moon do not change sizes every hour". I'll throw in a "site:wiki.tfes.org", because we're looking for our wiki pages.
(https://i.imgur.com/LR8QNS7.png)
Not bad, second result.
This really is not that hard.
Did you not read my analogy with the field? In that analogy I showed how we would see different parts of the moon from different parts of the earth. But we don't. The EA answers this by showing how the moonlight bends so that we all see the "nearside" of the moon at once. So far so good.
But the explanation for night in the Wiki (on a different page than EA, because the EA page doesn't not discuss day/night), it says that there is night because on the other half of the FE, the sun is acting like a spotlight. If this were not uni-directional, but with bending lights, as it says on the EA page, then we would not have night time. We would see the sun from all the way across the FE, as the light bends up towards us.
Hence, the explanation on the EA page about bending light, and the explanation about why night exists on a differents page of the Wiki contradict each other.
I am using no bold or italics or some wondrous mix of words without qualification. I am summarizing the same point I've been making that you have yet to directly address. In the most simplest, basic form:
In the FE model as explained on the Wiki, why does the explanation for why the nearside of the moon is seen from different points require bending light, whereas the explanation for night existing require uni-directional light? How can light both bend and not bend?
....
As far as the size of the sun - I totally did read the "magnification of the sun at sunset" portion of the Wiki already. But I'm not talking about sunset - I never once used that term in this thread so far. I'm talking about the size of the sun and moon while they travel across the sky at all hours of the day, and in particular when it nears just above us in the sky. In my analogy, I explained that we would be seeing the drone change sizes as it nears us, then it would be the largest as it passes overhead, and then would get smaller. This is not about the drone's relative position of where it would be "at sunset" relative to the FE model. This is more about noon.
EDIT:
Your search results are the same as mine, and hilariously, those are the things I read over previously. First, I find it funny that it suggests you add "sides" in the result, implying the question itself hasn't been much discussed. Secondly, the moon tilt article says nothing about the sizes of the objects - I've read it twice now. And the third one, about magnification, again, doesn't address why it isn't always changing sizes throughout the day, as it would.
-
If this were not directional, but with bending lights, as it says on the EA page, then we would not have night time. We would see the sun from all the way across the FE, as the light bends up towards us.
This is not the case. What makes you think that light would not be directional under EA?
Once again: Is there something about the first few paragraphs and diagrams in the EA page that you disagree with? They seem to illustrate this exact scenario quite well.
First, I find it funny that it suggests you add "sides" in the result, implying the question itself hasn't been much discussed.
Good lord, you really don't know how search engines work, do you? Yes, it's not very surprising that your exact phrasing of the question is not one of Google's most common search phrases.
And the third one, about magnification, again, doesn't address why it isn't always changing sizes throughout the day, as it would.
Well, it does. You're doing that thing again where you point-blank state something while not explaining yourself at all. That's time-wasting at its finest. Don't expect it to be effective.
I am using no bold or italics or some wondrous mix of words without qualification.
Why would you lie about something so simple?
I'm saying that the Wiki's explanations REQUIRE light to BOTH bend AND go straight, in order to be consistent with itself.
This is a massive logical contradiction. Are the sun’s rays bending or not bending? They can’t be doing both.
-
If this were not directional, but with bending lights, as it says on the EA page, then we would not have night time. We would see the sun from all the way across the FE, as the light bends up towards us.
This is not the case. What makes you think that light would not be directional under EA?
Once again: Is there something about the first few paragraphs and diagrams in the EA page that you disagree with? They seem to illustrate this exact scenario quite well.
I meant to write "uni-directional" in that sentence, and I've edited it to reflect that.
No, as I've said a few times, I'm not arguing against the explanation of EA on that section of the Wiki. Rather, I'm saying that that section is consistent conceptually (I've said this in a few of my posts on this thread).
I'm not trying to disprove EA or something (because, again, I can't do the maths anyway).
But given EA, we then have a problem with the explanation for night, which requires the sunlight to illuminate only a portion of the FE directly below, and to not bend upwards in order to illuminate the entire FE plane. That must be why the explanation on the introduction/FAQ uses the word "spotlight" as an analogy for how the sun works. Because spotlights shine pretty directly at a single spot. In this case, half the FE.
Let me ask about this logical contradiction using different words to perhaps break it down better:
Why is the moon not a spotlight, but the sun is?
I'm not going to respond to the other parts of our conversation, because really, the size of the sun/moon as they travel is a separate discussion, and it's going nowhere on this thread.
-
I meant to write "uni-directional" in that sentence, and I've edited it to reflect that.
I understood you, the question stands.
But given EA, we then have a problem with the explanation for night, which requires the sunlight to illuminate only a portion of the FE directly below, and to not bend upwards in order to illuminate the entire FE plane.
The question stands: what makes you think EA would cause sunlight to "illuminate the entire FE plane"? This is not the case, and the very first diagram in the EA page illustrates that for your convenience. I ask once again: is there anything about that diagram and the beginning of that article that you disagree with?
Why is the moon not a spotlight, but the sun is?
This is not the case.
-
But given EA, we then have a problem with the explanation for night, which requires the sunlight to illuminate only a portion of the FE directly below, and to not bend upwards in order to illuminate the entire FE plane.
The question stands: what makes you think EA would cause sunlight to "illuminate the entire FE plane"? This is not the case, and the very first diagram in the EA page illustrates that for your convenience. I ask once again: is there anything about that diagram and the beginning of that article that you disagree with?
Why is the moon not a spotlight, but the sun is?
This is not the case.
Going back to my analogy of the drone. If the light from the very bottom of the drone were bending towards us, all three people would see the bottom of it, whether at the 1/4 mile out circle, the 1/2 mile out, or the 3/4 miles out. That's the explanation in the EA section for how moonlight works. So far so good.
Now, instead of looking at the drone representing the moon, another drone, representing the sun has a bright spotlight shining below it illuminating half the field. If the light from this were bending so that we all see the "nearside" of the drone as it passes overhead (as does the drone representing the moon), then why does this light that is bending "upward" not let three other people on the non-illuminated half (the night time side) not see the light too? Maybe it doesn't bend quite enough to illuminate that side, but why would it not even be seen at all? What is "stopping" the light from reaching across?
The EA page says light bends to account for timezones and why we see the same side of the moon in different places at once. But the explanation for night needs to describe the sun as a spotlight, not bending up.
-
What is "stopping" the light from reaching across?
The Earth.
Once again: the diagram I pointed to you illustrates this. Is there anything about it, or the accompanying text, that you disagree with?
-
What is "stopping" the light from reaching across?
The Earth.
Once again: the diagram I pointed to you illustrates this. Is there anything about it, or the accompanying text, that you disagree with?
"The earth" doesn't provide me with enough information to get what you mean at all. If light is bending "up" from a spherical sun (which is not disputed by the wiki https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun), it would illuminate across the entire FE, because it's high enough from the surface to do so.
Rays from the "nearside" might only reach one portion, but rays from other parts of the sun would "bend" to reach the "night" part of the FE. Does that make more sense why I find a logical contradiction in how the FE is described? It's a spotlight, or it has bending rays that reach across.
Further, a plane that is thousands of miles up should be able to look over at the "night" side and see a massive patch of light many thousands of miles across. The Wiki talks about the horizon and how at higher altitudes we should be able to see farther, but this also presents (a different) problem. (I.e., imagine a third drone following our analogy with the field that has a camera, and is flying much lower than the "sun" and "moon" drones, but still higher than anything else in the field - that drone should see the "day" side no problem). But I digress.
-
it would illuminate across the entire FE, because it's high enough from the surface to do so.
This continues not to be the case, no matter how many times you restate it. I once again refer you to the diagram, and encourage you to explain if you disagree with any part of it. We will not be able to progress until you state your objection coherently.
-
it would illuminate across the entire FE, because it's high enough from the surface to do so.
This continues not to be the case. I once again refer you to the diagram, and encourage you to explain if you disagree with any part of it. We will not be able to progress until you state your objection coherently.
I'm not disagreeing with the diagram. I'm saying that the diagram disagrees with the idea expressed in several other places on the Wiki that the sun acts like a spotlight.
(This is indeed, the thing I've repeated many times - the EA describes light that bends. The explanation for night/day requires sunlight to be pretty straight).
-
Another way of summarizing everything I've been writing is that there are two different parts of the Wiki that contradict each other, and need to be resolved. Perhaps a new section for the Wiki needs to be added to bridge this gap?
-
I'm saying that the diagram disagrees with the idea expressed in several other places on the Wiki that the sun acts like a spotlight.
I think I may have finally guessed what you're talking about. It's a shame you didn't just say it.
The diagram illustrates only the portion of the Earth that's currently affected by sunlight. You might notice how it ends at 6AM on one side, and 6PM on the other. It does not suggest that the entire Earth is covered by sunlight, and indeed illustrates only the area affected by the spotlight Sun. The supporting text clarifies what happens to the areas unaffected by sunlight, or, rather, why they are unaffected.
Did I divine your objection correctly? Does my answer help? If not, you're really going to have to go through your logic step by step.
The explanation for night/day requires sunlight to be pretty straight
This is false. Perhaps you could explain why you think this so we can set you straight?
Another way of summarizing everything I've been writing is that there are two different parts of the Wiki that contradict each other, and need to be resolved.
I fully understand that you think there's a contradiction. The problem is that you're not very forthcoming about what that contradiction is. You seem to think that a spotlight Sun is impossible under EA, but you make no explanation as to why you think that's the case. We even drew it out for you.
-
I'm saying that the diagram disagrees with the idea expressed in several other places on the Wiki that the sun acts like a spotlight.
I think I may have finally guessed what you're talking about. It's a shame you didn't just say it.
The diagram illustrates only the portion of the Earth that's currently affected by sunlight. You might notice how it ends at 6AM on one side, and 6PM on the other. It does not suggest that the entire Earth is covered by sunlight, and indeed illustrates only the area affected by the spotlight Sun. The supporting text clarifies what happens to the areas unaffected by sunlight, or, rather, why they are unaffected.
Did I divine your objection correctly? Does my answer help? If not, you're really going to have to go through your logic step by step.
The explanation for night/day requires sunlight to be pretty straight
This is false. Perhaps you could explain why you think this so we can set you straight?
Another way of summarizing everything I've been writing is that there are two different parts of the Wiki that contradict each other, and need to be resolved.
I fully understand that you think there's a contradiction. The problem is that you're not very forthcoming about what that contradiction is. You seem to think that a spotlight Sun is impossible under EA, but you make no explanation as to why you think that's the case. We even drew it out for you.
Pete,
The fallacy and issue with your Diagram from the Wiki is that it incorrectly depicts a limited area of a flat earth catching the rays of the globe Sun. In reality the globe Sun emits rays in all directions and thus on a flat earth one would see light no matter their position.
Yes, I know that one explanation you offer is that light rays from the Sun make a U-turn back into space, which is why the diagram is depicted as such. But, therein lies the flaw.
Ray's from the Sun don't just make U-Turns into space; it's not plausible and the evidence we have to know it's not plausible is that we are able to see Sun's / Star's that are light years away. Our Sun is not light years away.
For clarity, recommend you at least update the Diagram to show the Sun light Ray's making U-Turns back into space.
-
Right, so your objection is that you disagree with EA. That directly contradicts what you said before, but okay. Explain why you disagree.
Your "evidence" is nonsensical. There is nothing about the current description that would prevent us to see distant stars. Once again, you completely failed to specify why you think otherwise, you just stated that you do.
As for having a diagram with light rays u-turning: there already is one in the article. Why would you demand that we add something that's already there?
It would have been a good idea to read the article prior to complaining about it, don't you think?
-
Right, so your objection is that you disagree with EA. That directly contradicts what you said before, but okay. Explain why you disagree.
Your "evidence" is nonsensical. There is nothing about the current description that would prevent us to see distant stars. Once again, you completely failed to specify why you think otherwise, you just stated that you do.
As for having a diagram with light rays u-turning: there already is one in the article. Why would you demand that we add something that's already there?
It would have been a good idea to read the article prior to complaining about it, don't you think?
My summary was to help clarify what existoid was trying to convey. That sunlight should reach all parts of a flat earth.
Yes, you're right, there is an addendum diagram showing light rays making U-Turns and I read that; I was just suggesting that it be added to the first Diagram.
Existoid can add anything else to this or can feel free to disagree.
-
Nah, I’m done with this thread.
In my view a neutral observer reading this conversation would grasp that there are logical contradictions in what the articles on this site are saying based on what I’ve described and explained.
But I’m not a neutral observer and it’s going to go into endless circles. So I prefer to leave it as is and let what I’ve already written stand for itself
-
Yes, you're right, there is an addendum diagram showing light rays making U-Turns and I read that; I was just suggesting that it be added to the first Diagram.
The assumption is that people will read the entire page. So far, we haven't seen anyone have a problem with this.
In our experience, cramming too much information into one diagram tends to confuse laymen. It's a balancing act we've put a fair amount of work into.
In my view a neutral observer reading this conversation would grasp that there are logical contradictions in what the articles on this site are saying based on what I’ve described and explained.
Sadly, no. There is no contradiction there. A spotlight whose rays are slightly bent outward (or inward, if you prefer to think of it that way) is still a spotlight. You got confused somewhere, but you're refusing to lay out your logic in steps, which leaves me guessing. I can only guess that you've tunnel-visioned yourself into a certain image of the bent spotlight, one that differs from the diagrams I've asked you time and time again to address.
You say that the Sun emits rays in all directions. Granted, but this doesn't mean they'll reach the Earth. You will be looking at a few categories:
- Rays going more or less downward, which will bend out slightly and hit the Earth.
- Light rays which start a bit more "sideways", which will curve away from the Earth without reaching it
- Rays which weren't initially aimed towards the Earth
You offered no objection to this. You claimed it makes sense to you conceptually, until you suddenly u-turned and stated that it's impossible for light to curve in this fashion. But, again, you didn't even try to explain why you think that.
I can't help you if you don't want to be helped, and grandstanding about how obvious this will all be to a "neutral" observer is the oldest trick in the book - very few people will fall for it.
So, unless you want to open up about your logic, I agree - this thread is pretty much dead.
-
Pete,
The basic fallacy with your Diagram is that it depicts one group of Sun rays bending and making U-Turns. In this fashion, you are attempting to explain the phases of the Moon, why sunlight can be reflected under clouds. Etc..
But, in reality, the Sun emits rays from its surface in all directions of it's globe surface. If you were to depict rays in this fashion, than on a flat Earth's surface one would see light no matter where they stood.
In your Diagram, you need to take the 2D set of rays shown in your first Diagram and then do a "revolve" of the those all around the globe Sun. You then end up with a more correct Diagram where the Sun is emitting rays from all directions, thus light reaching all surfaces of a Flat Earth.
Your argument to my above might then be that light bends and makes U-Turns in such a manner that at a certain distance away from the Sun this light doesn't make it to the areas of a Flat Earth that are further away, hence why we have day and night at the same time on a flat disk.
Light simply does not bend and make U-Turns in such drastic fashions such that at a certain distance I could not see the Sun.
We know that this is not true because we can see other Suns (Stars) that are light years away. If your EA Diagram were true, than we would not be able to see such far away bodies.
Unfortunately, FE theory does not believe that the celestial bodies we see are other Suns many light years away. FE theory suggests these as small points of light in the Firmament dome.
You can have the last word Pete. But, the fallacy with your Diagram has been summarized. Your Diagram is a hot mess of incorrect assumptions and incorrect depictions.
I've also recommended to you and Tom that you check // verify your light bending EA theory and Diagram with a Physicists. Couldn't hurt, right?
-
The basic fallacy with your Diagram is that it depicts one group of Sun rays bending and making U-Turns. In this fashion, you are attempting to explain the phases of the Moon, why sunlight can be reflected under clouds. Etc..
But, in reality, the Sun emits rays from its surface in all directions of it's globe surface. If you were to depict rays in this fashion, than on a flat Earth's surface one would see light no matter where they stood.
You really struggle to substantiate your claims. Allow me to repeat myself:
I understand that you think this is the case, but you need to explain why that is. It is not sufficient to say that this is the case "in reality".
You've made a mistake somewhere. I want to point at it and help you understand. However, this will only be possible once you've laid out your reasoning in steps.
In your Diagram, you need to take the 2D set of rays shown in your first Diagram and then do a "revolve" of the those all around the globe Sun. You then end up with a more correct Diagram where the Sun is emitting rays from all directions, thus light reaching all surfaces of a Flat Earth.
This is incorrect. If you created the same diagram in three dimensions, including the unilluminated part of the Earth, you would end up with a circular illuminated area, one that covers part, not all of the Earth.
If you think otherwise, you have to lay out your logic, in steps. Allow me to be perfectly clear: it will be insufficient for you to state that:
- You think there's a fallacy
- You are correct "in reality"
without any meaningful qualification of these claims.
Light simply does not bend and make U-Turns in such drastic fashions such that at a certain distance I could not see the Sun.
Of course it does. In the FE model, that's sunrise and sunset. At the time of these phenomena, you observe the Sun being partially obscured by the Earth. Move a little further, and boom, you're in an area of the Earth that's not reached by any sunlight - because all light rays are either obstructed by the Earth, or not hitting the Earth at all.
Once again, if you disagree with what's posited in the diagrams, you'll have to illustrate why. If you think drawing additional light rays may be helpful, draw them. Do not repeatedly state that there is a contradiction without explaining what it is.
We know that this is not true because we can see other Suns (Stars) that are light years away. If your EA Diagram were true, than we would not be able to see such far away bodies.
This also does not follow. Whether an EA light ray will reach the Earth or not depends on (broadly) two factors: the elevation of the source and the angle of incidence of the ray. You are arguing that we should be seeing wide-angle rays from the Sun, and backing it up with the height of other stars. This is a non-sequitur.
You can have the last word Pete. But, the fallacy with your Diagram has been summarized.
You have yet to state your objection in a way that's complete, coherent, and free of fallacies itself.