Mysfit

Moons - the small effect
« on: October 06, 2018, 04:36:19 PM »
Hello,
I first thought about the gravitational impact on tides and bees, but that seemed to be getting complicated and I am certain the tides had been covered.
I was at a loss, until I found the AR forum with Pete sarcastically ridiculing the FES
You know what i love that @FlatEarthOrg dosent believe that gravity is real but if eveything else is flying upwords, that dsent make sense though because like how would a small planet go as fast a big one to diffrent densitites so how would that work agains going up words bruh
I am unsure about being allowed to quote from there, but am willing to remove and just summarize if asked to.
Anyways, Pete mentioning densities and comparing planets got me thinking about the other planets, small on the FET side, but huge on the RE one.
I was not able to find this topic when searching, but it was touched upon frequently.

And here we are, the moons (sorry if that's too long of an intro)
The moons (and belts) of nearby planets have been observed to orbit their respective planetary friend (so far, zetetic).
Assuming there is no observable force pushing them into their circular path (Change of direction is acceleration? Correct me here) and no observable tether to the surface of the planet, then this is something as yet unexplained. (still zetetic...)
The difference from the flat earth and the other planets is that they are smaller and spherical. The sun and moon are huge and spherical without causing these, so it must be the smallness. (back to zetetic)
I, therefore, dub this effect - the small effect (never UPPER CASE)

Now, the small effect does not occur for smaller objects, like a bouncy-ball, so there is an upper and lower limit for this to work. (zetetic)
We should test that by checking bigger objects for the tiny force and comparing them to the perceived size of the moons. (not zetetic)
If we can't observe the small effect at work with objects at hand then... It falls apart... then UA... then... Anyway, it'd be a problem.

I hope this is the start of something wonderful as I look into more of the stupid truths.

Mysfit

Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2018, 08:38:32 PM »
Good news everyone, I have managed to find a small stone sphere in my local vicinity. I think it's an art thing, but there's no placard.
The sphere is imperfect (bumpy all round), almost 1m in diameter, and I am almost certain it is entirely stone (it is so heavy, that i can barely make it move.)
I am aware that most planets are not solid stone, but it is the best facsimile I can find. Making a sphere of gas seems super-hard.
I am unsure how its size compares to planets within flat theory, so I would appreciate knowing if it's close.

I will test it for the small effect by putting pebbles very close, but not touching it. I will try multiple pebble types and sizes and maybe a bouncy-ball for control (I don't know of any rubber moons)
My hypothesis is that the stones will hit the ground, ignoring the sphere's small effect entirely. (and the bouncy ball will bounce)
If anyone knows of another way to test the small effect, then we still have a few days before I do my test.

I'll post some pics (if I work out how) when I do my test.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 09:13:14 PM by Mysfit »

Mysfit

Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2018, 10:26:08 PM »
I have completed the test.
Just to quickly go over things, I was testing the 'small effect'.
The small effect is the effect relatively small sphere shapes have on the objects around them, creating an orbit.
This effect can be seen in the small planets, but is not seen on the larger moon and sun.
As such, I decided to prove it with a local sphere.
I am still unsure how to post an image, but I am able to backup the following with visual evidence if requested (with a tutorial on how).

On to the observations.
I decided to use 2 different pebbles, one copper coloured and of a rough shape, the other tin coloured and of a smooth shape. I figured these would cover both material differences and any sort of variation as for shape.
The pebbles were much smaller than the stone sphere I used, to simulate the relative size of moons/belts.
I also used a bouncy ball for control. As I know of no rubber moons.

For my first test, I suspended the pebbles about 10cm from the sphere and let go.
For the second test, I did the same as above, but attempted to provide some perpendicular motion. Almost throwing them.

For both tests, the pebbles were not suspending for any period of noticeable time or maintaining any form of noticeable orbit.
the second test had more motion, but this was in bouncing further away.

This is troubling, as it would indicate that the sphere being used exhibited no small effect.
The information I am missing, before throwing out this hypothesis entirely, is the size of planets that have moons/belts.
The closest one with moons that I can find is Mars. It has 2 moons, show off.

Now for the maths.
FE Sun is 32miles diameter, so 16miles radius. FE Mars is not anywhere on the wiki or discussed at all on the forum. We'll call that 2x, with the radius being x.
RE Sun is 695,508 km radius. RE Mars is 3390km radius.
so, as no other information is available beyond saying the planets are small, I will work out a ratio based on RE figures.
SUN:MARS 200:1
So, 16miles divided by 200 is 0.08 miles. So a FE mars should be... 420ft in radius. That is WAY bigger than my spherical rock and I know of no spherical object that big to test against.

Hmm. I know moons can have moons... And I found such a moon moon (yes, that's the actual term).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(357439)_2004_BL86
This one, we shall call it 'Rock', has a radius of 150m, with it's moon moon being 70m across (not spherical).
Applying the Sun:Mars scale to this gives Rock's radius as less than a meter, so it can exhibit the small effect at that scale.

I had not measured the sphere I used, but I would hesitate to say it was noticeably smaller than Rock. Yet it exhibited no noticeable small effect.
I am loathe to admit it, but there may be a flaw somewhere along the line.
I am legitimately struggling to come up with a new hypothesis, as my test seems to disprove the small effect.

I'll start a new topic, as I have a few big questions.

Mysfit

Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2019, 09:10:59 AM »
Here's the pics I promised (Pete helped me sort it out).
The stone sphere


My hand and pebbles for scale


Far test


Close test



As you can see, neither of the pebbles developed orbit.

EDIT: Wait, it's not working. lemme re-read instructions.
EDIT2: fixed but it's huge... The instructions have summink for this.
EDIT3: Aha, got it in one.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 09:17:32 AM by Mysfit »

Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2019, 11:05:46 AM »
Why would a pebbles develop a orbit around that stone sphere when it has negligible mass compared to the earth?

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10857
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2019, 12:49:03 PM »
I am unsure about being allowed to quote from there, but am willing to remove and just summarize if asked to.
Anyways, Pete mentioning [...]
It's not so much that you're not allowed to quote that thread, but it'd probably be a good idea if you understood its purpose first
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Mysfit

Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2019, 06:37:49 PM »
Why would a pebbles develop a orbit around that stone sphere when it has negligible mass compared to the earth?
With the assumption of no gravity on earth, I tried to develop orbit around a big rock. A moon facsimile.
Also, the force keeping moons to planets appears to be WAY stronger than RE gravity.

Luckily there's some sort of spherical art/decorative thing near me.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2019, 06:44:20 PM »
I guess you proved gravity does exist, the stones fall to the massive earth instead of orbiting a tiny, less massive stone sphere.

You need objects on a far grander scale to see the effect of orbit unless you're doing a very careful and controlled experiment with equipment
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Mysfit

Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2019, 06:45:52 PM »
I am unsure about being allowed to quote from there, but am willing to remove and just summarize if asked to.
Anyways, Pete mentioning [...]
It's not so much that you're not allowed to quote that thread, but it'd probably be a good idea if you understood its purpose first
I'll avoid doing it in future and I don't treat the quote as sincere or anything.

Mysfit

Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2019, 06:50:45 PM »
I guess you proved gravity does exist, the stones fall to the massive earth instead of orbiting a tiny, less massive stone sphere.

You need objects on a far grander scale to see the effect of orbit unless you're doing a very careful and controlled experiment with equipment
No, I did not prove gravity exists. I have simply failed to ascertain the correct conditions for the small effect.

Something I did not account for would be lack of atmosphere and absolute zero temperatures. Though something with sun on it doesn't lose orbit... Scratch that last one.
Rather than trying to create a vacuum around what might be an art exhibit (or a big rock that rolled into town), I have to think of a way that air negates the small effect...
A head-scratcher if ever I saw one.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2019, 07:35:49 PM »
Do you suppose the small effect accounted for the attraction I had between my lead weights?


Mysfit

Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2019, 07:52:22 PM »
Do you suppose the small effect accounted for the attraction I had between my lead weights?


Not proven the small effect yet. All I have is observations of it at work in space. Was your test in a vacuum?

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2019, 08:24:51 PM »
Do you suppose the small effect accounted for the attraction I had between my lead weights?

Not proven the small effect yet. All I have is observations of it at work in space. Was your test in a vacuum?
No, that one was not in a vacuum.
The next one I'm planning is in a vacuum, and involves a single big mass and a single small mass, the latter being inside a vacuum.  Instead of lead and lead, I am planning to use lead and tungsten.

Mysfit

Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2019, 08:28:48 PM »
Well, if it gains orbit, let me know.

I don't think mass matters for the small effect, or a mountain might demonstrate it.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2019, 08:58:27 PM »
Well, if it gains orbit, let me know.

I don't think mass matters for the small effect, or a mountain might demonstrate it.

It won't gain orbit. The tungsten weight weighs like 70 grams or something. It would be swinging from a string in a vacuum, then see if it's swing rate changed with the addition of a dense mass above or below it.

But I may not be following your small effect. Which effect is it you're trying to measure?

Mysfit

Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2019, 09:24:51 PM »
Just the effect that allows moons (and moon moons) orbit bigger objects, normally spheres.
I am applying the small scale gifted from most flat earth theories (tiny planet in front of the sun and it's relatively tinier moons).

So, small and effect. small effect.
Not the most creative name, but I give it an 'A' for effort.

Anyway, I don't know of a round earth equivalent, but gravity is the closest.
I am attempting to discover the physical laws of a flat earth, as I believe it needs new ones.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2019, 09:34:43 PM »
Just the effect that allows moons (and moon moons) orbit bigger objects, normally spheres.
I am applying the small scale gifted from most flat earth theories (tiny planet in front of the sun and it's relatively tinier moons).

So, small and effect. small effect.
Not the most creative name, but I give it an 'A' for effort.

Anyway, I don't know of a round earth equivalent, but gravity is the closest.
I am attempting to discover the physical laws of a flat earth, as I believe it needs new ones.

Well if you need me to try an experiment in a small vacuum jar let me know.

It may be difficult though since whatever attraction is between us and the earth really swamps out trying to measure weaker forces.

I know that if you take a goose down feather and put it in a vacuum jar, it rattles around like a marble in there -- it can fall just like a BB and it bounces like  a rubber ball in there too, without the air slowing it down.


Mysfit

Re: Moons - the small effect
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2019, 02:31:54 PM »
A bouncing feather sounds interesting, but I am unsure your experiment is big enough (ironically) to test for the small effect. It appears to have an upper and lower limit.

So, the vacuum is the only difference I can think of. It works in one, but not out of one.
There are some gaseous planets, but they still orbit...
Maybe the vacuum around it? But that would mess with tests like yours in a vacuum.
If anyone can think of a solution, I am happy to test