Rocket in a vacuum:

Another paper on the same topic: https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards.pdf

A paper literally entitled "The globe model".
Both sources are clearly globe earthers - the first one the brief synopsis of the book talks about how it applies to planetary motions.
So are you now a globe earther trying to understand GE or are you just cherry picking keywords which you think back up your worldview?

It's pretty clear we'll be faking the next moon mission and Mars landing. Nobody is going anywhere and never has. Step right up to the greatest launch in history !!!

I'm genuinely confused about the FE beliefs in this area.

You see this failure of evidence of something but all the footage of the successful launches...what, they faked those? It's like hearing about a plane crash and concluding that planes can't fly.
I mean, firstly, there are loads of witnesses to successful launches - I saw a Shuttle launch back in the day and these launches are being witnessed too.
And secondly if you're claiming they fake the successful launches did they fake this? Why did they bother faking a failure?
Or is it that this was real but the fake ones aren't? I honestly don't know what your point is.

Similarly I don't understand Tom's questions about the payload. Of course SpaceX are delivering payloads, they have launched satellites for the US military. What does anyone think is going on here? The military pay SpaceX to deploy a satellite into orbit and just assume they've done it without checking? Or SpaceX are just somehow simulating the deployment but really using some other technology to fool the military into believing they have done it?

I am genuinely baffled by FE beliefs in this area.

If one body is experiencing a more forceful pull from the earth, as to cause it to weigh more, it does not make sense that all bodies would fall at the same rate.

It does make sense if you understand that it requires a more forceful pull to accelerate an object which is more massive than one which has less mass. And you do understand that because you know it’s easier to move (and therefore accelerate) a toy car than a real car.

An answer of "Just because they do" is not a very satisfying mechanism, IMO.

Maybe not, but isn’t that your answer to almost everything about your FE Model?

somerled is basically right here, but the whole point of triangulation is it assumes a flat base. If you don't have a flat base then you don't have a triangle.
It also assumes that the light is travelling in a straight line. If it doesn't then, again, you don't have a triangle.

The reason for using multiple points is that on a globe earth the way the observed angle to the sun changes with distance is different to the way it would change on a flat earth.
If you take observations from any 2 points and assume a flat earth then yes, you will get a distance to the sun.
If you take observations from multiple points you will find inconsistent distances, you'll find that the lines don't converge on any point.
That's either because the earth is not flat, or you might be able to explain it with bending light - but if it's the latter then it renders all calculations meaningless anyway.

There are many theories about the Sun's distance, Rowbotham showed one with actual evidence. What do you have instead?

Well, I have the history of science in which the distance to the sun has been calculated using different methods based on evidence which have, over time, given us the true distance.
But the problem with Rowbotham's calculation is that while it is based on observations, he assumes a flat earth.
If you assume a globe you would get a very different result.

And the trouble is his method only relied on measurements from 2 points. If you want to triangulate then you need, as the name suggests, to take measurements from at least 3 points.
Metabunk did an experiment which took observations from 23 people in 9 countries:

https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/

The issue if you assume a flat earth is the lines point all over the place, so where is the sun? This does assume the light going in straight lines though so maybe EA could fix that for you. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. But Rowbotham's method assumed the light goes in straight lines too...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2019, 11:40:37 PM

It appears to be based on perturbation theory.

Oh, for goodness sake Tom, do you really have to drag 3600 year old 'mathematics' into this?  Is flat earth hypotheses that desperate that it needs to draw on arguing against ancient misconceptions to help it out?  You had to be laughing when you wrote that, right?

To be fair, he did start a previous post with “I don’t understand”. A rare moment of self-awareness. Tom has repeatedly shown he doesn’t understand this. And even if there were no solutions, analytical or numerical, to model a system, why is that significant?
As others have pointed out, the behaviour of a double pendulum is chaotic, there is no way of predicting its future state over long timespans.
Tom’s logic here would claim that this fact shows that the theory that double pendulums exist must not exist.
It’s a common FE tactic. “I don’t understand this model ergo the model is wrong”, or “This model is imperfect which demonstrates that the system it’s modelling can’t exist”.
Not only is that poor logic, it’s particularly disingenuous when you consider the gaping holes and inconsistencies in FE models.

Wow. OK, there's a lot here but a few thoughts...

If you are a hardcore remoaner, you'll go with the lying ilLiberal unDemocrats.

One of my Remainer friends is planning to do just that.
Personally, I won't because although I'm a Remainer I don't agree with the Lib Dems' policy of revoking Article 50. The referendum result was what it was and no government should just ignore that. Legally they can - referendums are advisory - but there would be riots and it would lead to further disillusionment with our system.

So we fuck up every other election from now until we die until they deliver the thing we voted for in 2016. I'll vote UKIP, Brexit party, Monster raving looney party, independent, whatever is tactical and hurts the main parties the most until Brexit is done. In local elections, European elections, general elections, referendums ...

But you're not hurting the main parties, are you? Because none of those tiny parties are going to get any MPs, or not enough to make a difference. One of the main parties is still going to form a government and you'll have had no say in which.

That would pretty much be the BSOD for our democracy. I think at that point the head of the armed forces needs to march into Westminster and give our democracy a hard reset. I think back to 1653 the last time Parliament started doing whatever it wanted

Ah, the old "another referendum would be undemocratic" argument.
Just have a think about what you're saying. Another vote would be undemocratic.
Where in the democracy rulebook does it say that once a vote is taken the result stands for all time? You know it doesn't say that because you say elsewhere:

And once every 5 years they vote and place sovereignty in the hands of representatives to run the country for them.

Exactly. You don't just have an election and that party stays in power for perpetuity.
Public mood can change, so you have regular elections to reflect that.
Now, a fairly reasonable argument against what I've just said is that when the result of an election is known you don't immediately have another vote to check, the winning party forms a government. But the problem here is the length of time between the Referendum and the delivery of its outcome. A lot has happened in those 3 years, a lot more is known about the potential deal we might get with the EU. There are indications that we might well get a different result now. Is a narrow majority of a one off snapshot of public opinion 3 years ago really a sound basis for taking a long term course of action?
Before the referendum Farage said that a 52/48 split to Remain would be "unfinished business". That was the result to Leave and now it's "You lost, get over it".

However, parliament has decided to ignore what the very people who placed them there want them to do.

Except they haven't, have they? It's pretty much all they've been working on.
They triggered Article 50, they've been working on what our future relationship with the EU looks like. They even got an agreement with the EU about that despite all our red lines, and theirs, which seemed almost impossible to reconcile.
The problem is there is no concensus either in parliament - or amongst the population - about what Brexit looks like. The referendum wasn't voting for anything, it was voting against something. The analogy I always use is it was like voting to move house with no plan about where to move to. I'm guessing you want a hard Brexit. But the last poll I saw suggested that about two thirds of Leavers want that, about a third of people in total.
What Leave meant in detail was not articulated at the time of the referendum.

The only way I see out of this mess is another in/out referendum and a second question about if out is to win do you want No Deal or Boris's Deal (or whatever mess Corbyn comes up with, if he's elected, which he won't be).

Then just bloody get on with it.

Maybe this place already does this and I just don't know how to see it, but on other forums I've posted on there's a "Notifications" bit where you can see when people have quoted your posts.
It would be useful if this place did that, if it doesn't. I wouldn't want to miss any of Pete's sick burns in reply to my posts

Have a look at the Tycho Brahe geocentric model , a supposed  advancement of the Ptolemaic model . You will find that all observations of planetary phase and motion were explained within these models in which the earth is stationary.

And his explanation of phases was, surely, the same as the heliocentric model's - that the planets are not "luminaries", they are objects being lit by a light source, the sun. Luminaries do not have shadows or phases as we see on the moon or the inner planets.

The heliocentric model brought no new observation or experiment which required the sun to be at the system's centre and earth in motion. Science still has not verified the assumptions of motion or curvature.

Then why is that the prevailing scientific view? Obviously the hundreds of people who have been to space can attest to the shape of the earth, amateurs with balloons can demonstrate curvature. The evidence for motion is things like the the Coreolis effect and the good people at Globebusters managed to measure the 15 degree per hour drift caused by the earth's rotation.

Stars are small , not distant and they scintillate . Planets are nearer and are luminaries within the reaches of the atmosphere which is why they do not scintillate ever.

Evidence?

Science cannot explain how Saturn reflects sunlight which after travelling 9.5 AU is then scattered and a minute amount can travel a further 8.5 AU back to earth  , through the van Allen belts and our light scattering atmosphere  and produce stable image which we can see with the naked eye .

Is this really something science something cannot explain or just something you cannot understand?
Can we agree that the sun is quite bright? You literally can't look at it safely. And that's at 1 AU. So yeah, obviously it will be dimmer at 9.5 AU but still very much visible and Saturn has an albedo of about 0.5, it reflects about half of the light back. And Saturn is very big. So the fact Saturn is visible with the naked eye is not a mystery.

Same for all planets.

Well no, not all planets because the outer planets are further away and smaller and have a lower albedo (although still quite high) and can't be seen with the naked eye. But yes, with the right equipment they can be seen for the exact same reason Saturn can.

Your nonsense about what you say I think or have stated about the atmosphere is irrelevant and a diversionary tactic .

It's completely relevant. It shows your lack of understanding. Basing beliefs on ignorance leads you to the wrong conclusions.
If you think the atmosphere is only chaotic at times then you don't understand what the term means in this context.