The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: QED on March 09, 2019, 05:18:51 PM
-
Hi FEers!
Motivation
The purpose of this post is to begin the formal development for a rigorous FE theory. Part I will lay the foundation for constructing the formalism. After some searching, it appears that there are presently no modern FE theorists, and this inhibits efforts to establish FE theory.
Organization
Part I will set the basic assumptions and concerns. I would politely ask that replies are limited to these items, simply to keep the information organized and usable. I ask for the help of other FEers in this development, as they have a greater understanding of the current status than I. TomFoolery is investigating experimental designs for testing these theories, and I hope data will soon be forthcoming.
Assumptions
1. The surface of the Earth is a plane on large scales.
2. The Earth accelerates upward at a constant 9.8 m/s^2. Additional sig figs to be found later.
3. The Sun is an object located above the Earth (at some yet to be determined distance). It must accelerate at the same rate as the planar Earth (on average), in order to match zetetic everyday observations.
4. The Moon is an object located above the Earth (at some yet to be determined distance). It must accelerate at the same rate as the planar Earth (on average), in order to match zetetic everyday observations.
Initial Definitions
1a. An object has the property of mass, which is measurable.
1b. An object has the property of speed, which is defined as displacement/time.
2a. Locations in space can be uniquely defined using three numbers only. For a given chosen origin, an object's position can be uniquely stated as a position vector (r): which points from the origin to its (x,y,z) location.
2b. If an object changes its position, we can trace the change in its position as a derivative of time: dr/dt, this rate of change can be defined as the velocity.
2c. If an object's velocity changes, we can trace the change in its velocity as a derivative of time: dv/dt, this rate of change can be defined as the acceleration.
3a. We are then allowed to define an object's momentum, using 1b and 2b, as: p:=mv, where v:=dr/dt.
3b. We are then allowed to define an object's change in momentum, using 3a and 2c, as dp/dt:=mdv/dt=md^2r/dt^2.
Help Needed
1. Descriptions of the Sun's motion across the sky needs to be mapped. Using the definitions above, it should be possible to describe its trajectory, for a given location (chosen origin) on Earth. Generalizing this to any location on Earth will require coordinate transformation equations which should be possible.
2. Same as 1 above, but for the moon.
3. An interpretation for dp/dt.
4. Any amendments to the assumptions or definitions above.
Thanks everyone for any help! This will likely be an involved process, but a worthwhile one :)
-
For the Monopole (AE) model, I believe that the best theories for the sun would probably involve a combination of the sun's projection upon the atmolayer and perspective that makes the celestial bodies appear to travel in an opposite direction in the South.
See:
- P-Brane: Anti-rotation in the south explained by perspective (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t30-YbayyXE)
- A Flat Earth Equinox (https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox#A_Flat_Earth_Equinox)
Also take a look at the Bi-Polar model's sun and celestial model, which provides a more direct cause for the rotations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y7hErgB6mQ&t=2s
The author states elsewhere that the particular bi-polar map and layout used in the video is a placeholder, and is just a projection that the author found for illustration purposes only in his sun analysis.
Per circumnavigation on the Bi-Polar model, which usually comes up, the magnetic field lines would spread out from the North and South poles like the magnetic field lines on a bar magnet.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ex3thmV.gif)
The needle on a compass would align with those magnetic field lines. Since East and West are at right angles to the field lines, moving East or West in relation to those field lines would take one in a circle around the North or South poles.
-
Thanks Tom! I will try to make some progress using these resources.
-
Do I understand correctly here that the video is stating that people at different latitudes have different celestial equators?
Is that observed to be true?
(Linked to exact location)
https://youtu.be/_Y7hErgB6mQ?t=305
I'm not sure I understood how his sun charts out its daily path in the video, just the yearly path.
-
I'm not sure I understood how his sun charts out its daily path in the video, just the yearly path.
I believe the daily paths are described from 1:27 in the video. From 10:52 is actually a decent summary of the difficulties you'll encounter if this project is based on an AE model too.
I have given some thought as to how I'd begin developing a FE model. I'd start with things that could be observed directly before going too far into experimentation (designing and conducting valid and repeatable experiments is surprisingly hard!). For me, that is firstly the observed azimuth of the sun throughout the day/year and the stars rotating around the celestial poles (the Southern Cross rotating around the South Celestial Pole in my case). That requires only a set of eyes and a compass. Of course, some trust must be placed in the datasets that plot the path of the sun in different locations but that is unavoidable without personally travelling the world with a compass. The good news is that if you can come up with a model that can describe both of these things with any degree of accuracy, that will be superior to any FE model that I've seen.
-
So I started watching your video and got as far as your map. I had to pause the video and look at that map, as questions immediately arise.
What is the scale? How long is a mile/km?
A ship leaves San Francisco and sails west. What happens?
Where does a compass in Mexico City point?
I have flown from San Francisco to Beijing, they showed us a map of a route across the pacific, what was the route on your map? Also flew from Sydney Australia to San Francisco. How?
On your map, Australia is wider than USA, yet maps, google earth, people's odometer readings, every proof point ever says USA about 3000 mi, Australia is 2700 mi. ????
A pilot flying straight south, heading 180 degrees, would fly in a straight line. On your map, this would only happen on 0 degree longitude, all other would fly a curved path, where the shortest path towards the south pole appears to cut across curved longitude lines willy nilly. Is that the shortest path, and do ship captains, airline route planners, and programmers at gps navigation equipment manufacturers understand this?
Many more questions, but as soon as you answer all these satisfactorily, I will watch another 30 seconds and ask questions about that bit.
-
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize the author knew his map was wrong.
By saying "this is just a placeholder", you are escaping falsifiability, science must be falsifiable. We can't say whether your model is correct until we know what it is.
Come back to me when the author has the right map, with a scale.
-
Can't resist, you came up with an explanation of magnetic compass.
On RE, the shortest route when traveling heading 0 or 180 is a straight longitude line. Mag compass with correction, gyrocompass and straight line on map all match.
How in your world, does the gyrocompass also bend around correctly to match your needs?
Do the airlines and aviation agencies map airline routes with radar and gps?
Does their data match RE or FE?
-
Where is Hawaii? Looks like they are living on the edge. Hopefully, no one sails the wrong way.
Also, since you have abandoned the "surrounded by Antarctica" model, you have no ice wall to keep the water in.
What's up with the edge, NASA patrol, fall off, or advanced physics not yet known that cause instantaneous pop up to the opposite edge?
-
Where is Hawaii? Looks like they are living on the edge. Hopefully, no one sails the wrong way.
Also, since you have abandoned the "surrounded by Antarctica" model, you have no ice wall to keep the water in.
What's up with the edge, NASA patrol, fall off, or advanced physics not yet known that cause instantaneous pop up to the opposite edge?
Hi Jimster,
Would you be so kind as to read the initial post at the top? I’m asking contributions to this topic to be specific, for the sake of organization. I have no authority to enforce this request, it is just a friendly one :)
-
How in your world, does the gyrocompass also bend around correctly to match your needs?
Modern gyrocompasses auto self correct to local magnetic field, or possibly GPS compass reading.
Old fashioned ones had to manually be corrected every few minutes because their own drift was probably greater than the earth's rotation anyway.
-
I'm sorry, I thought I was helping you by showing that this proposal could not be correct and so helping you not to waste time. I would want someone to do that for me, so golden rule.
Apparently it amuses you to build a system based on things that can't be true. I am sorry, I thought you were trying to figure out how reality works.
Carry on, Sorry.
-
I'm sorry, I thought I was helping you by showing that this proposal could not be correct and so helping you not to waste time. I would want someone to do that for me, so golden rule.
Apparently it amuses you to build a system based on things that can't be true. I am sorry, I thought you were trying to figure out how reality works.
Carry on, Sorry.
No worries :)
And pointing out things that you think are wrong with it is not the same as “showing the proposal can’t possibly be correct.” Especially since I did not specify the geography yet you chose one model in particular to assess.
Feel free to contribute, if you wish.
-
Really liking this thread! Does anyone have a model of how the atmolayer works? All I can find is vague notions of the atmolayer being a fog that occludes things at a long distance. Do we have an estimate for the thickness of this fog or when things should stop appearing?
-
Why don't you use my method for finding the height of the north star? Having that as a reference would make locating everything in its proper place would be helpful, no? On FE, the math is simple, You know the north star is directly above the north pole, so with the flat earth, you have a right triangle. All you have to do is know the elevation of the north star above the horizon, and you know two angles and the length of one side. Use a triangle calculator and find the length of the side that is vertical up from the pole. Then you know the north star is "x" miles directly above the north pole.
Isn't this true? Doesn't this tell you where the north star is? Simple geometry right?
-
Why don't you use my method for finding the height of the north star? Having that as a reference would make locating everything in its proper place would be helpful, no? On FE, the math is simple, You know the north star is directly above the north pole, so with the flat earth, you have a right triangle. All you have to do is know the elevation of the north star above the horizon, and you know two angles and the length of one side. Use a triangle calculator and find the length of the side that is vertical up from the pole. Then you know the north star is "x" miles directly above the north pole.
Isn't this true? Doesn't this tell you where the north star is? Simple geometry right?
I get what you are saying, but please re-read my assumptions at the beginning of this post. You are adding assumptions to this to state your ideas.
For example, how do you know that the stars are fixed to a dome, or that their rotation vector is normal to the earth’s plane? Polaris is only above the North Pole in a RE model, in FE geometry other possibilities may exist. So we need to take a step back and think about matters more fundamentally. Does that make sense?
-
Why don't you use my method for finding the height of the north star?
Just out of interest and for reasons of fairness, do you know what the RE stated distance of Polaris is and the method used to establish that distance?
-
It's less that there aren't FE theorists out there, and more that they tend not to be able to explain things on the forum because if they try this happens. Certain roundies are ridiculously insecure.
-
Quote from QED:
================================================================================
And pointing out things that you think are wrong with it is not the same as “showing the proposal can’t possibly be correct.”
================================================================================
I pointed out the things you have to explain and the difficulties. If your theory is correct, it is more strongly proven after explaining these things. If it can't explain these things, we can't call it correct until it does. If there is a long list of such things, the probability they all have explanations is lower. If the probability of your explanation is low, why spend time?
Are you doing this as an exercise knowing the earth is round, but just a thought experiment, or do you think hundreds of years of science since Newton is wrong and the use of this science for gps and space flight, etc, is wrong and you and FEs have truth?
-
Are you doing this as an exercise knowing the earth is round, but just a thought experiment, or do you think hundreds of years of science since Newton is wrong and the use of this science for gps and space flight, etc, is wrong and you and FEs have truth?
That is what he is doing. He is a PhD physicist who was nearly perma-banned from the forum before for being an insufferable jerk. It seems like he isn't being a jerk anymore, so he is free to post in support of whatever he wants as long as it is on topic. He is capable of generating very engaging conversations as has been witnessed in the past.
-
Are you doing this as an exercise knowing the earth is round, but just a thought experiment, or do you think hundreds of years of science since Newton is wrong and the use of this science for gps and space flight, etc, is wrong and you and FEs have truth?
That is what he is doing. He is a PhD physicist who was nearly perma-banned from the forum before for being an insufferable jerk. It seems like he isn't being a jerk anymore, so he is free to post in support of whatever he wants as long as it is on topic. He is capable of generating very engaging conversations as has been witnessed in the past.
Yes, that’s right. As amends for being such an asshole, I’m going to help you folks out develop this FE theory in a rigorous way. ‘‘Tis the least I can do :)
-
I found the following interesting. It may be questionable whether the sun has a daily and hourly constant rate of pace over the observer. Take a look at what the Gnomon and the NOAA Solar Calculator shows.
Gnomon
(https://i.imgur.com/jx0uEmD.png) (https://i.imgur.com/wGiOH9r.png)
Source: The History & Practice of Ancient Astronomy by James Evans, p. 54
NOAA Solar Calculator
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/
The NOAA Solar Calculator can show some extreme changes of position when the sun travels by. Compare the azimuth (no. of degrees from north) of the sun from 9am to 10am on June 12th, 2019:
(https://i.imgur.com/oTYw5nn.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/QAayQkF.png)
The same type of extreme changes are seen when we switch around the year and days a bit, such as 11am to 12pm on June 25th, 2005.
11am, June 25th, 2005 - https://i.imgur.com/Oex4L8i.png
12pm, June 25th, 2005 - https://i.imgur.com/Pu1vKJJ.png
-
I found the following interesting. It may be questionable whether the sun has a daily and hourly constant rate of pace over the observer. Take a look at what the Gnomon and the NOAA Solar Calculator shows.
What have your experiments regarding this shown?
Can you publish your method and the results for review?
-
I would like this claim verified that QED has a PhD and is a physicist. Where is the evidence?
-
Hi Tom!
Interesting data! The shadow plots depict a solar trajectory consistent with the Sun moving across the sky as though it was on a dome. Hence, it’s angular velocity (relative to us) would change to keep angular momentum constant. Thus, this data is also consistent with the conservation of angular momentum principle.
-
I would like this claim verified that QED has a PhD and is a physicist. Where is the evidence?
I can’t really provide evidence without sacrificing my anonymity. But you may ask me any question you want, if you wish to “test my knowledge.”
Fire away.
-
I would like this claim verified that QED has a PhD and is a physicist. Where is the evidence?
This isn't the thread for it. He has previously proven he at least has the requisite knowledge of higher level physics. I don't let people derail threads by questioning Thork's credentials, and I hate Thork, so it won't be allowed here (feel free to do so in CN/AR). Stick to the topic at hand.
-
The NOAA Solar Calculator can show some extreme changes of position when the sun travels by. Compare the azimuth (no. of degrees from north) of the sun from 9am to 10am on June 12th, 2019:
Yes, that's exactly how it works on the RE model. If you use this site, you should be able to visualise it a bit better (note different timezone):
https://www.suncalc.org/#/29.993,-81.5625,10/2019.06.12/13:00/1/3
https://www.suncalc.org/#/29.993,-81.5625,10/2019.06.12/14:00/1/3
And this is the location of the sun above the Earth on a Mercator projection at those times:
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?day=12&month=6&year=2019&hour=13&min=0&sec=0&n=411&ntxt=Jacksonville&earth=0
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?day=12&month=6&year=2019&hour=14&min=0&sec=0&n=411&ntxt=Jacksonville&earth=0
And here's the arc described by the path of the sun at that location on the 12th December and it's location above the Earth:
https://www.suncalc.org/#/29.993,-81.5625,10/2019.12.12/12:00/1/3
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?day=12&month=12&year=2019&hour=12&min=0&sec=0&n=411&ntxt=Jacksonville&earth=0
Now we've cleared that up, can you tell me why the sun rises at 118.39° ESE at Santiago on the 12th December?
-
The second post in the thread has the bipolar model. The OP has asked for contributing content only.
Our Wiki explains the constant speed of the sun finite perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun
I suppose that the constant speed may also be explained by the Electromagnetic Accelerator.
Both the Sun and Moon seem to rotate (to perspective?) as they pass overhead - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZqWmgJSPI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZqWmgJSPI)
-
The second post in the thread has the bipolar model. The OP has asked for contributing content only.
Our Wiki explains the constant speed of the sun finite perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun
I suppose that the constant speed may also be explained by the Electromagnetic Accelerator.
Both the Sun and Moon seem to rotate (to perspective?) as they pass overhead - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZqWmgJSPI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZqWmgJSPI)
You use the word perspective incorrectly. Check its meaning,
-
It may be questionable whether the sun has a daily and hourly constant rate of pace over the observer
The equatorial mount in my observatory has selectable tracking rates for the stars (sidereal), lunar and solar. The solar rate is used quite often as I regularly observe the Sun in Ha and CaK wavelengths. The Sun remains centred in my telescope all day. Needs the mount to be accurately polar aligned with the NCP which it is.
Does that help to provide evidence that Sun moves across the sky with a constant rate relative to the observer (i.e. me)?
-
The second post in the thread has the bipolar model. The OP has asked for contributing content only.
My apologies. I didn't recognise your comment on changing azimuth to be contributing content. It appeared to be a misunderstanding on your part which I hope that I have helped clear up with some useful resources. I think most of my posts on this forum have been helpful - I've taken the time to create clear diagrams and I downloaded an app and took a screenshot of the azimuth of the sun at sunset at my location for the other Tom.
Do you agree that explaining the azimuth of the sun throughout the day as witnessed by observers in different locations on Earth is a necessary feature of a viable FE model? Do you know of any FE models that can explain this or even come remotely close? All those that I have seen are way, way off. Finding a model that explains this is critical to the success of this project. The sun rising at 118.39° ESE at Santiago on the 12th December is as good an example as any.
I did look at the video of the bipolar model in the second post. It suggested (at 1:27) that the sun travelled a daily clockwise path around the Northern Hemisphere for 6 months of the year and then crossed the Equator and travelled in a daily anti-clockwise path in the Southern Hemisphere for the remainder of the year. Does this match your observations or any online resources such as the NOAA Solar Calculator? I still don't know what that figure 8 path is meant to represent or how it relates to the daily path. Perhaps you could explain what that video contributes to the discussion?
-
So do I understand that you are creating a rigorous formalism for a world you know can't exist to explain why everything appears RE but if put through a math transform can actually be FE without specifying the composition and shape of how this transformation is physically implemented?
How would this be helping to lay a foundation for FE if the careful and valid formalism is based on a map that can't be right?
Is this an attempt to subtly mock FE? Or just pointless smarty pants showing off? Not that there's anything wrong with that, just curious.
-
So do I understand that you are creating a rigorous formalism for a world you know can't exist to explain why everything appears RE but if put through a math transform can actually be FE without specifying the composition and shape of how this transformation is physically implemented?
How would this be helping to lay a foundation for FE if the careful and valid formalism is based on a map that can't be right?
Is this an attempt to subtly mock FE? Or just pointless smarty pants showing off? Not that there's anything wrong with that, just curious.
I am not certain I understand you here. Why can’t a FE exist, exactly? And why can’t a FE map be correct?
I am guessing that you mean to say that you do not think these things.
Why attempt to establish a formalism for an idea? Well Jim, because that is what scientists do. Are you asking why do scientists bother? Well, I suppose there is some ingrained instinct to understand the Universe around us. Really, there is no distinction. The stuff that makes the Universe also makes us. We are it. So in fact, the situation is the following:
We are a piece of the Universe attempting to understand itself.
Hell, it’s worth it just for the bizarreness of that sentence :)