*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 334
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2019, 07:21:54 PM »
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 :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5974
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2019, 09:14:50 PM »
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



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:





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
« Last Edit: March 12, 2019, 09:30:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2019, 09:39:06 PM »
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?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2019, 11:04:11 PM »
I would like this claim verified that QED has a PhD and is a physicist. Where is the evidence?

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 334
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2019, 11:31:46 PM »
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.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 334
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2019, 11:33:05 PM »
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.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8297
    • View Profile
Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2019, 11:49:27 PM »
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.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2019, 02:02:45 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2019, 03:42:39 AM by Balls Dingo »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5974
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2019, 06:16:05 AM »
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
« Last Edit: March 13, 2019, 06:33:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2019, 07:01:21 AM »
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
You use the word perspective incorrectly. Check its meaning,

Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2019, 09:36:37 AM »
Quote
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)?

Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2019, 12:52:46 PM »
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?

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2019, 08:30:54 PM »
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.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 334
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2019, 03:24:38 AM »
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 :)