Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - 9 out of 10 doctors agree

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >
1
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki correction: AN/DN
« on: May 17, 2019, 10:20:59 PM »
Perhaps the nodes should be defined as being from the observer's view of the crossing of paths?
Go ahead, I'm sure the IAU would love to fundamentally redefine one of their most important terms so that a flat-Earther's diagram is correct.

2
Flat Earth Projects / Wiki correction: AN/DN
« on: May 17, 2019, 03:16:19 PM »
I'd like to submit a correction to this article, in particular this image:



In this diagram, the Moon's ascending and descending nodes are incorrectly identified. The AN should be on the first quarter and the DN should be on the third quarter.

3
Spherical, where did you get your statistics? Most of those things are facts taught in elementary school, which according to Our World in Data is attended by 90% of the world.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 16, 2019, 04:55:33 PM »
If you guys want to know how prediction of the eclipses work, open any astronomy textbook or consult any astronomy source on the topic. That's how it's predicted. It's all there. If you are curious about the details, look into it. It has nothing to do with the Wiki.
Here: http://eclipsewise.com/help/de405-predictions.html
Quote
The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system ephemeris. This ephemeris consists of computer representations of the positions, velocities and accelerations of major Solar System bodies, tabulated at equally spaced intervals of time, covering the span 1599 Dec 09 to 2201 Feb 20. Beginning in 2003, the JPL DE405 has been the basis of the Astronomical Almanac. See Jet Propulsion Laboratory Developmental Ephemeris for more information of the JPL ephemerides.
So not using the Saros cycle like you say it is.

It says that the model was only used to get the position of the sun, not to predict the eclipse.

Do some searching and you will find that JPL DE405 is based on perturbation prediction.
It models the positions of the Sun, the Moon, and every known planet, using Newtonian gravity, general relativity, and some tidal-force effects studied. This information is one link away from the page I linked.

You're intent on driving this "perturbation" point for every simulation that has ever been used, yet you very clearly either didn't actually do those searches you're talking about, or cherrypicked what you found. If you show me some sources and provide quotes for debate then I'll take the claim seriously.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 15, 2019, 05:13:52 PM »
If you guys want to know how prediction of the eclipses work, open any astronomy textbook or consult any astronomy source on the topic. That's how it's predicted. It's all there. If you are curious about the details, look into it. It has nothing to do with the Wiki.
Here: http://eclipsewise.com/help/de405-predictions.html
Quote
The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system ephemeris. This ephemeris consists of computer representations of the positions, velocities and accelerations of major Solar System bodies, tabulated at equally spaced intervals of time, covering the span 1599 Dec 09 to 2201 Feb 20. Beginning in 2003, the JPL DE405 has been the basis of the Astronomical Almanac. See Jet Propulsion Laboratory Developmental Ephemeris for more information of the JPL ephemerides.
So not using the Saros cycle like you say it is.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
« on: May 15, 2019, 03:35:24 PM »
You know Einstein’s did a bunch of work on Quantum Mechanics that was poorly regarded and seen as him trying to validate his biases?
Didn't he get a Nobel prize for his QM work though? Or are you referring to more obscure work?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
« on: May 09, 2019, 10:42:01 PM »
Sagnac himself also thought that his experiment contradicted SR. The complaint that it doesn't apply has been experimentally disproven. It also occurs in transverse uniform motion. See the paper linked above for references.

Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved through its EurekaAlert website:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

Quote
snip
My first thought was that it was too generic of a title to be credible at all. Then I found out that they're 170 years old and publish one of the most respected journals out there.

I thought it was really bad that the most popular physical theory for the last 90+ years was rejected. But then I remembered that it also means that Bell's theorem is wrong, and that's good news.

This isn't to say that the world is actually flat though.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
« on: May 09, 2019, 05:05:16 PM »
Funny thing about the Sagnac experiment: it uses a rotating reference frame, whereas the postulates of special relativity concern inertial reference frames. They're not applicable to rotation.

And if you're accepting the results of that experiment, then what makes a ring laser gyroscope, which relies on the same principle, so unreliable?

Edit: and yes I saw your changes, give me a minute to respond.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Airy's "failed" experiment
« on: May 09, 2019, 04:28:48 PM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/Airy%27s_Failure

Wow, an experiment failed to show motion of the Earth through the behavior of light? You know, it's almost like they were missing an extremely important axiom regarding the physics of light that would be established a few decades later, and that the equations and properties derived from it specifically explain the results of the experiment.

YOU KNOW, ALMOST.

Tom, I would advise caution in using the failures of 19th century experiments to measure the Earth's motion using light. Their results are almost invariably explained by special relativity.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Code for earth moon orbits
« on: May 09, 2019, 12:14:14 AM »
Give it another read. The F=ma example is the simplified state to which perturbations are applied; like the example of the simplified (traditional) model of the atom to which perturbations are applied because the simplified model does not represent reality.
No, you use the simplified models because they're simpler and easier to work with. You don't need to solve %5Cfrac%7B%5Cdelta%7D%7B%5Cdelta%20t%7D%5Cnabla%5Ccdot%5Crho%3D%5Cfrac%7B%5Cepsilon_0%7D%7B%5Cmu_0%7D%5Ciint%5Crho%20dsdt%5Ccdot%5Crho%5Cfrac%7B%5Cdelta%7D%7B%5Cdelta%5Cnabla%7D for every individual atom in a liter of water just to see if it can dissolve a given set of ions. You can instead just test K_%7Bsp%7D%5Cgeq%5BA%5E-%5D%5BB%5E%2B%5D for a table of measured Ksp values; if any of them fail, you get a precipitate forming.
Since that equation is technically Creative Commons.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Theory/Model Request
« on: May 07, 2019, 05:08:07 PM »
You can think of "Repulsive Radiance" (RR™) as the same of atomic nuclear force, it attracts electrons that has opposite polarity, but does not expunge the protons tied together, even having the same polarity.
Electrons are held around the nucleus by electromagnetism. Nucleons are held against electromagnetism in the nucleus by a completely different force, the strong nuclear force.

Quote
The repulsion itself is proved by the fact that no electron plunges and it is consumed by the nucleus - even being strongly attracted, it is also strongly repulsed.  The scientists also have plenty of calculations and formulas to explain the Sun's flares and winds that can blow matter far away, the case of particles and gases from comets, forming the long trails.
Electrons can be captured by the nucleus. They usually don't because of centrifugal force.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Code for earth moon orbits
« on: May 06, 2019, 05:48:32 PM »
Sorry QED, the simulation uses Kepler's laws along with the periodic perturbations between the gas giants. It is, literally, the exact problem that Tom was talking about.

I might make my own simulation later.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Davis Model
« on: May 04, 2019, 01:46:31 AM »
Today I found this absolute masterpiece of misuse on the wiki, trying to "prove" that an infinite plane could have finite gravity:

https://wiki.tfes.org/images/e/ec/Infinite_Plane.gif

Let's start with statement (1). It appears to be invoking Gauss's law, but there are a lot of problems with it:

  • S is a surface, you can't do a single integral over it
  • Surface integrals are over dS, not dA
  • You don't want flux, you want a triple vector integral

Just these problems are enough to reject this proof.

I’m afraid you are mistaken, it is possible to have finite gravity from infinite plane. The FES has depicted an accurate calculation.

Yes, I am surprised as well.

Your issues:

1. Surface integrals are often done this way in physics.

/integral{2*pi*r*dr}=pi*r^2.

I just computed the area of a circle with a single integral.

2. dS or dA are used interchangeably to denote a surface integral, depending on the textbook.

3. No. A triple vector integral makes no sense here. You want to compute a the flux of gravitational field lines through the closed surface, exactly how you would for an electric field.

The computation is correct and this is not a surprise. You can also have a finite electric field from an infinite plane of charge.

Many, many things on the wiki are incorrect physics or baseless unphysical claims, but this is not one of them.
  • Sure, but most of those are shorthands just to skip single integrals. The use of dA indicates that this isn't so.
  • Yes, I am aware of that.
  • I'm not really following. The goal is the gravitational force on an arbitrary point, no?
You'll notice that I never rejected the claim, only the proof.

14
Flat Earth Theory / The Davis Model
« on: May 03, 2019, 09:12:56 PM »
Today I found this absolute masterpiece of misuse on the wiki, trying to "prove" that an infinite plane could have finite gravity:



Let's start with statement (1). It appears to be invoking Gauss's law, but there are a lot of problems with it:

  • S is a surface, you can't do a single integral over it
  • Surface integrals are over dS, not dA
  • You don't want flux, you want a triple vector integral

Just these problems are enough to reject this proof.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clock the Sky
« on: April 26, 2019, 08:54:14 PM »
The time a star or the Sun takes to move 15 degrees is exactly 60 minutes, or, 4 minutes per degree, EXACTLY.
Nope. A star near Polaris will move significantly slower, and a star on the equator will move slightly faster.

And for the record, clocks were never set based on the speed at which stuff moves in the sky; they were historically set by a standard pendulum length and "sun at due north/south = 12:00 PM".

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Light Composition
« on: April 26, 2019, 06:31:56 PM »
I hope you realize that the power from the sun isn't actually even.

Of course, radiation burst and solar flares make it radiation fluctuating, this is why we use average measurements.
No, I mean it's not even across the Earth's surface. Sunlight coming at an angle is less radiance than sunlight from directly overhead.

This is exactly why we use "average" of 1kW/m².   The same average I used to calculate the energy within the cone from the flat earth sun.
That average was probably calculated based on spherical area. You can't use it as a reference for flat area.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Light Composition
« on: April 26, 2019, 03:58:38 PM »
I hope you realize that the power from the sun isn't actually even.

Of course, radiation burst and solar flares make it radiation fluctuating, this is why we use average measurements.
No, I mean it's not even across the Earth's surface. Sunlight coming at an angle is less radiance than sunlight from directly overhead.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Light Composition
« on: April 26, 2019, 02:53:10 PM »
I hope you realize that the power from the sun isn't actually even.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of planets
« on: April 26, 2019, 02:51:44 AM »
There is nothing inherently wrong with moons orbiting planets in FET. Jupiter already moves irregularly compared to the stars, so other stuff near it with even more irregular movement isn't out of the question.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The three-body problem wiki article
« on: April 24, 2019, 04:13:27 PM »
There is no way to do it. The motions of the bodies are unpredictable.

From the above:

Quote
Such solutions do not exist because motions of the three bodies are in general unpredictable

Look up chaos theory, which directly spawned from attempts to solve the three body problem. Neither an analytical solution or a numerical solution can solve chaos theory.

The fact that we claim the official orbiting model is defined by very specific laws and mathematical formulas.

The official round earth model is not even a 3 body problem. It's like a 90 body problem.


The fact that the three body problem has not been solved, and the official model is a 90+ body problem is something that definitely weakens some aspects of the official model and should be kept on the wiki.
Once again, solvability has almost nothing to do with veracity. There are solvable models that are inaccurate, and there are unsolvable models that are accurate.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >