The standard FET model asserts that the sun revolves over the surface of the earth at an altitude of roughly 3000 miles, making one revolution around the North Pole per day. This stands in apparent contradiction to contemporary mainstream physics, which requires a centrifugal force to keep the sun from flying off at a tangent into the Beyond. In an effort to see if the FE model could be reconciled with mainstream physics, I came up with the following possible solution, and I’d like to hear what our Flatlanders think about it. Here it is:
The sun is tethered by a spring, or perhaps a bungee cord, to the North Pole, which extends at least 3000 miles above the earth’s surface. This spring oscillates with a period of one year. The oscillation of a spring produces harmonic motion, i.e., the distance of the sun from the Pole will vary with time as a sinusoidal curve, which is exactly what we see with the seasonal variation of the sun’s apparent altitude at noon above the horizon.
True, conservation of angular momentum would require the sun to move faster (resulting in shorter days) when it is closer to the Pole, but work with me here. Another problem to be solved is what prevents the sun and earth from colliding, if we assume the mainstream theory of gravitation. Yet another is how this whole setup originated.
FE fans, do you believe that the standard FET model of the sun’s motion (as well as that of the moon) is consistent with contemporary mainstream physics? If not, what theory or theories do you have to replace the currently accepted theories of physics, or at least the parts that seem to contradict FET? You do realize, I assume, that you can’t just toss out a hugely successful set of theories without coming up with theories that are at least as successful at explanation and prediction -- otherwise why would anyone rationally want to bother with FET?