1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Age and formation of the flat Earth

« on: December 03, 2018, 02:08:26 PM »

Not sure what a 'Disney writer' is exactly but surely an explanation of how the Earth was formed should be a part of any creditable Earth theory, round or flat.  Is it a case of what cannot be explained doesn't matter?

It took a long time and a lot of brainpower to come up with theories how the earth actually formed. FET seems to be quite young with lots of unanswered questions. I think the problem is not the lack of scientists but that any scientist will conclude without doubt that the earth is sperical after enough research. In the end there is no one left to explore such things as the origin of a flat earth.
So it must not matter because it cannot be explained with sufficient evidence.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the flat earth theory explain modern technology?

« on: December 01, 2018, 04:47:44 PM »

satellites orbit the earth the same way the sun does, just closer.

Those satellites are traveling at thousands of miles an hour, how are they staying aloft for years at time and how are those speeds possible?  Many FE believers say satellites can't exist as their presence and paths through the sky particularly the geostationary satellites are only possible on a spinning globular Earth.

It’s not just about speed, the way a satellite’s orbit works is they are effectively in constant freefall. The forces balance so no propulsion is required to keep them in orbit (I believe in real life occasional corrections are needed). If satellites were orbiting in a circle above a flat earth then aside from how they stay up they’d need constant propulsion to keep them moving in a circle. Changing direction is acceleration so that requires a force. Where is all that coming from?

That same question also applies to the sun and moon of course.

You can't look at it that way. For FE to be true physics must work totally different than we know it. In the FE model the sun and moon and whatnot stays up without being affected by the force that pulls everything down - however that works on a FE. So satellites might be unaffected as well.
I believe one can come up with an insanely complicated mathematical model and completely new physics to explain most of everyday pheonomena on a an actualy flat earth.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position

« on: November 16, 2018, 03:10:47 PM »

If someone can make a flat earth tellurium using actual cogs and gears ... the maths works.

https://www.favosity.com/blog/flat-earth-time-piece-for-elites-in-the-know

Just because YOU can't make it work for a computer model is a reflection on your ability ... not that it is impossible.

But thats just a toy that doesn't even show the real dimensions of earth and has even parts missing. Neither does it address planets.
Maybe with enough time and expertise I could come up with a somewhat working computer model. The model presented before is obviously wrong.
As I understand it it needs time as most FE systems are quite young and cannot explain everything yet. The problem is if a model gets one single thing wrong then the whole model must be incorrect as it is. It will be a huge challenge to get every phenomena right. Without bending of space and/or light it won't work. Then the forces which cause the warping and movements have to be explained and reproduced to show that they actually work.

It sure is a really cool hobby but in the end nobody will use a FE system because we already have a working model of the solar system.
But I like the math games and even the craziest idea has a slight chance to reveal something new about the behavior of the universe.
I really appreciate the effort some people put into this to play around with mathematics and maybe discover new techniques or tricks.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position

« on: November 16, 2018, 02:20:39 PM »

Good luck.

When you are done, please post a thread back here so we can see what you did and discuss your model. 

It doesn't work. There are already too many problems with the existing model. Mars would have to have a crazy movement and light must bend independently from the sun and moon for it to work. Venus transits cannot be consistently explained that way no matter how insanely curved the path of light is.

Putting earth in the center of the solar system and making it a sphere might work for a while but still cannot explain some phenomena.
Making it flat with a close sun and moon as well as other planets would just be impossible.
It's a fun exercise but it approaches it's limits too fast.

It kinda reminds me of the idea that earth is a hollow sphere and we live on the inside so that the universe is essentially mirrored at the surface of the planet. It needs some mathematical distortions, but it kinda works. But thats easy compared to creating a model of a stationairy flat earth. There will always be something that can only work in a heliocentric system.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position

« on: November 16, 2018, 12:55:56 AM »

And I already gave you a model where someone has used this with bending light.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

Click on stars and then click the number 1 to get to the end. You'll see the bending.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat+Earth+Dome+Model&state=-49-1Use--the--green--Sliders--to--change--the--Star--Position-6~70-1~95-11.2-1~60-136-2172.9-50-30-11-10-10-31-12-1

That is quite cool and I played around with it. Problem here is that the landmasses are not sized correctly which means this cannot be the true shape of the earth. Locations on earth using that map won't be correct thus any calculations for planetary motion would be incorrect as well.

The curved lightrays do make sense on a FE model and can probably be the only explanation. For distances on the earth to be correct it seems space itself has do warp so the continents have the right dimensions. Bending light and warped space is nothing exotic for modern physics.
If you play around with the geometry a bit and unbend the light, project this map of earth onto a sphere (which unwarps the space), make the sun huge, massive and insanely far away, let there be a force where objects get drawn to eachother, introduce some motion and suddenly everything falls into place. But that would kinda defeat the purpose of a FE model after all.

Anyway that simulation seems to be definitely a step in the right direction for a working FE model. I im curious to try to get the motion of Mars into that simulation.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position

« on: November 16, 2018, 12:11:54 AM »

Why are you insisting the stars and planets should appear some place else and that there should be different numbers? That is stupid. If the earth is flat, the numbers must work and the stars and planets are where we see them. End of. Round earth or flat, if Mars is in Aquarius, that's where Mars is. The same place.

Perhaps because in GET the sphere may get in the way of me seeing Polaris, for example, based upon my coordinates. Yet in FET I should be able to see it from the same coordinates. So maybe Polaris is in a different place based upon earth shape models.

Light cannot travel in straight lines in a FE model. It must be curved for phenomena like sunsets or stars appearing to be under the horizon to work. That's why the calculations can become a bit complicated.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position

« on: November 16, 2018, 12:09:33 AM »

The 3 body problem only exists if gravity works the way mainstream science describes it. But in a flat earth model gravity would have to work differently so the 3 body problem would not exist.

When we look up, the planets are where they are. You still need the exact same maths whether you attribute the position to gravity or celestial gears or malevolent cosmic monkeys moving them.

Why are you insisting the stars and planets should appear some place else and that there should be different numbers? That is stupid. If the earth is flat, the numbers must work and the stars and planets are where we see them. End of. Round earth or flat, if Mars is in Aquarius, that's where Mars is. The same place.

I am not insisting that they appear somewhere else. They are where they are. I wanna know where they are tomorrow or at any given date from any given location.
If I assume the planets including earth revolve in elliptical orbits around the sun, that the law of gravity as mainstream science understands it is true and the mathematics give me the correct positions of the planets in the sky then any FE system must be wrong. Those models are mutual exclusive.

Now it could be a huge coincidence that the numbers check out and it just seems that we are living on a sphere revolving around the sun. Therefore I was asking about a mathematical model of a flat earth that is able to describe the apparent motion of Mars - obviously without the current theory of gravity. My knowledge of astronomy is by far not good enough that's why I thought maybe there is a working theory of a flat earth that can do that.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position

« on: November 15, 2018, 11:37:17 PM »

I have the formula for those in the heliocentric model. They actually work but only if the earth is a sphere AND the sun is the center of the solar system.

In the ptolemaic system earth is considered a sphere.
The 3 body problem only exists if gravity works the way mainstream science describes it. But in a flat earth model gravity would have to work differently so the 3 body problem would not exist.

If these tables work and the earth is indeed flat then those tables must have been calculated somehow.
The idea is that if some FE model is correct there must be a way to describe the planets motion without gravity and therefore elliptical orbits around the sun.
I am aware that this is not an easy task and it took hundreds of years to come up with formulas to make accurate predictions using the heliocentric model.

edit:
If the planets in the FE model are indeed all above the plane then light and gravity has to work differently as celestial bodies do seem to go below the horizon. I think there has to be a working theory of gravity and electromagnetism first before I can get formulas for the motion of planets.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position

« on: November 15, 2018, 08:54:17 PM »

These tables are calculated as if planets, including earth were revolving around the solar system barycenter by NASA JPL. Things like light travel time, precession or nutation are used to get the needed precision. Those things do not exist if the earth is stationairy and gravity works different.

I am not looking for tables that someone somehow made. I am actually looking for a mathematical model that describes the motion of the planets on a flat and stationairy earth which I then can use to calculate the apparent positions of said planets. Just a formula where I can plug in a date and a position on earth and it spits out the azimuth and declination. I googled for a while without any results but someone must have come up with a working model for this.
I understand there are different FE models but I am interested in the correct one that is able to describe this. Or the other way around, one that can describe this is most likely the correct one.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position

« on: November 15, 2018, 08:12:17 PM »

The provided calculations assume the earth is a sphere for which I already have the formulas. Yes, they do indeed work. But according to FE theories the sun is not the center of the solar system and the planets are not revolving around it. I was asking for how the motion - or in that case apparent motion - of a planet is described if the earth is stationary.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Planets Position

« on: November 15, 2018, 02:57:02 PM »

I am a web developer and for a website I would need a formula that can compute the apparent position of Mars in the sky from any point on earth at any time between the years 1950 and 2050. The result doesn't have to be insanely accurate. A tolerance of 0.1° is absolutely fine.
This is not some condescending challenge or even trolling. I am seriously interested how these calculations would work on a flat earth.

best regards