-
I have been reading that the Flat Earther’s don’t have a model of the sun and the earth. Well, they might be right, but I will come back to you and say that the Spherical Earther’s don’t have a correct model either.
The Parabolic Orbit is pure fiction and I will explain why.
Take a yo-yo and spin it in the air. It will make a circular orbit because the tension in string will hold it in position. A string or rope can only have expansion forces; no compression forces. You can’t push something with a string, only pull.
In our yo-yo model, take the sun to be your hand and the earth to be the yo-yo.
The string is the force that binds the sun and the earth together and it can act only in one direction, it can’t do both pull and push.
In order to have a model of the Sun – earth rotation with an elliptical trajectory, with a yo-yo, that would mean that the string would have to change in size as it is spinning.
Which would mean that the gravitational forces of the sun to the earth will have to change, based upon the position.
Also from basic geometry, we know to plot a ellipse, you need to have two focal point where in a circle you have only one.
In the Heliocentric Model, we only have 1 focal point, the sun.
The elliptical orbit is pure fiction, but it was the only way that they could make the heliocentric hypothesis to work out.
Can the Spherical Earthers, build something that rotates in an elliptical orbit, like a motor?
Last time I checked they were all round.
They have created funny math to make it appear that it works, but it really does not. Like I say, make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit and I will agree with you that I am wrong.
-
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:
fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc = rand([2 100]);
fluc2 = (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)
I think you forgot to reply to this thread...
-
The orbits are elliptical, not parabolic.
-
The orbits are elliptical, not parabolic.
Your right, my mistake in wording.
-
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:
fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc = rand([2 100]);
fluc2 = (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)
I think you forgot to reply to this thread...
Trying to change the subject, ha....
Defend your orbit with a yo-yo, if you can!!!
-
yeah, I'm trying to change the subject, that's it...
Its not that I'm trying to point out you have a seriously inflated view of your own intelligence...
-
Go play with a yo-yo and try to make it have an elliptical orbit ;D ;D ;D
-
Go align your self image with the reality of what you are.
i.e. A person of reasonable intelligence that is making themselves look stupid because you think you are FAR more intelligent than you are.
-
Reality, do you maybe mean virtual Reality, you know the place that you live in!!!
-
Thanks, that's a perfect example of my last post.
-
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:
fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc = rand([2 100]);
fluc2 = (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)
I think you forgot to reply to this thread...
Do you remember this
-
Yes I do thanks.
Do you remember that you supported his evidence then he admitted it was a hoax?
-
Oh wait, do you not have the cognitive ability to understand what happened on that thread? is that it?
-
Yes I do thanks.
Do you remember that you supported his evidence then he admitted it was a hoax?
You mean when I made these posts
Since phones are not acceptable instruments for testing, then the video has to be disregarded as to where his location is, since is based on an iPhone and not an expensive machinery that cost thousands of dollars.
The wolf pack has moved on the next stage of making fun of you and calling you names.
If they would truly interested in your work, they would ask for the data readings themselves. It is funny how they can prove you wrong, without ever looking at the actual numbers of your experiment.
But you take the time to attack all topics that go against he Heliocentric model...
OK, but first your credentials...Who do you work for, pay stubs, Your Degrees and transcripts, because we got to know if we are talking with a 4.0 student or a 2.0 student
I have to see the numerical data first, but I'm not interested if the data is precise, but it is accurate and if you had an engineering degree you would know the difference!
In your opinion, for an experiment be to be valid, to how many decimal places must the reading be? If somebody was measuring the height of an object, that was 2 meter tall, how many decimal places must he measure to, cm, mm... But remember with your answer, you will claim that all experiments that we conducted without this extend, are bogus! If you will not answer because you don't know, then your statement of this experiment not being valid is bogus!!!
My mistake, let me clarify my question, To what percentage of the objects height must a person be accurate in making his readings, 99%, 99.9% , 99,99999%
Modify message
OK, for this example, what % accuracy would you expect his readings to be. And how can people disregard this work, without even looking at the numerical data
I don't know, the iPhones are good telephones, but I use Android. Let me put it to you this way, the camera on the iPhone is much better video cameras then the ones costing thousands of dollars 30 years ago. So with this logic, the measuring instruments of the iPhone will be just as good as the measuring instruments of 30 years ago.
If you discard the measurement, then you also have to discard all measurement before 30 years ago also.
Please tell the world where I stated that his work was correct?
-
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:
fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc = rand([2 100]);
fluc2 = (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)
Nope. i don't need to. I'm going to do the equivalent of what you do and dodge your requests for specific info and post exactly what I want.
-
Your scientific integrity
-
Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.
When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.
I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.
I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0)
In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they can’t do the physics.
But I’m curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.
I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.
Good luck
Congratulating him on his hoax...
I agree, it was very smart of him to use 100 jumps to show how people will get behind any crap as long as it supports their belief.
-
Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.
When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.
I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.
I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0)
In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they can’t do the physics.
But I’m curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.
I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.
Good luck
Congratulating him on his hoax...
I agree, it was very smart of him to use 100 jumps to show how people will get behind any crap as long as it supports their belief.
Do you remember when I had wrote
I have to see the numerical data first
But, I never read any of you asking for the data but attacked whatever went against your religion.
-
Which would mean that the gravitational forces of the sun to the earth will have to change, based upon the position.
Yes, that's true. Almost like it follows some law, where the force is a function of distance, like Fg=GMm/r^2.
Also from basic geometry, we know to plot a ellipse, you need to have two focal point where in a circle you have only one.
Yes, very good. You can do some basic geometry. Would you like a gold star?
In the Heliocentric Model, we only have 1 focal point, the sun.
No, we still have 2, it is just that only 1 has something (significant) in it.
Are you also going to complain that for parabolic orbits we don't have the directrix?
The elliptical orbit is pure fiction, but it was the only way that they could make the heliocentric hypothesis to work out.
No, it is reality, but it can be done mathematically as well.
Can the Spherical Earthers, build something that rotates in an elliptical orbit, like a motor?
Do you understand the difference between rotation and orbit, between a motor and a planet orbiting a body?
I take it no.
A motor forces the object to move around the pivot point, instead of merely attracting it towards it.
In a gravitationally bound orbit, the "centre" merely attracts the object.
They have created funny math to make it appear that it works, but it really does not. Like I say, make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit and I will agree with you that I am wrong.
No. They used normal math.
Why would a yo-yo make an elliptical orbit?
Remember, the governing equation for an elliptical orbit is F=k/r^2
For a string like on a yo-yo, which would effectively act like a very tight spring, the governing equation is F=k*dx.
For gravity, i.e. the elliptical orbits, the strength of the force drops as you move away. For a string it increases.
As such, it isn't surprising that they act differently.
-
Which would mean that the gravitational forces of the sun to the earth will have to change, based upon the position.
Yes, that's true. Almost like it follows some law, where the force is a function of distance, like Fg=GMm/r^2.
Also from basic geometry, we know to plot a ellipse, you need to have two focal point where in a circle you have only one.
Yes, very good. You can do some basic geometry. Would you like a gold star?
In the Heliocentric Model, we only have 1 focal point, the sun.
No, we still have 2, it is just that only 1 has something (significant) in it.
Are you also going to complain that for parabolic orbits we don't have the directrix?
The elliptical orbit is pure fiction, but it was the only way that they could make the heliocentric hypothesis to work out.
No, it is reality, but it can be done mathematically as well.
Can the Spherical Earthers, build something that rotates in an elliptical orbit, like a motor?
Do you understand the difference between rotation and orbit, between a motor and a planet orbiting a body?
I take it no.
A motor forces the object to move around the pivot point, instead of merely attracting it towards it.
In a gravitationally bound orbit, the "centre" merely attracts the object.
They have created funny math to make it appear that it works, but it really does not. Like I say, make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit and I will agree with you that I am wrong.
No. They used normal math.
Why would a yo-yo make an elliptical orbit?
Remember, the governing equation for an elliptical orbit is F=k/r^2
For a string like on a yo-yo, which would effectively act like a very tight spring, the governing equation is F=k*dx.
For gravity, i.e. the elliptical orbits, the strength of the force drops as you move away. For a string it increases.
As such, it isn't surprising that they act differently.
Fg=GMm/r^2.
If the distance would increase, that means that the gravitational force would decrease, and if the planet was able to break the original gravitational force and go to a higher orbit, what would bring it back into position again, since the gravitational force would be smaller at that point in time....
You said "No, we still have 2, it is just that only 1 has something (significant) in it."
Where is the second point and what is located in our solar system at that point!
-
The orbits are elliptical, not parabolic.
Your right, my mistake in wording.
No your total lack of understanding!
-
Your scientific integrity
Story Of The Piltdown Man Hoax (http://)
Please explain the connection between "Story Of The Piltdown Man Hoax" and "Parabolic Orbit vs Radial Orbit".
That is, unless someone here is over about 125 years of age.
I feel not the slightest guilt in claiming that you, Mr InFlatEarth, are a total idiot.
Saying "Your scientific integrity" is totally irrelevant as no-obe here had any connection with the "Piltdown Man Hoax".
In 1912 Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist claimed to have discovered the ‘missing link’ between ape and man. He had found part of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown village in Sussex, England.
Dawson wrote to Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum at the time, about his find.
-
I'm actually starting to feel bad about this. I think he may have actual issues and maybe we should just leave him alone...
-
Your scientific integrity
Story Of The Piltdown Man Hoax (http://)
Please explain the connection between "Story Of The Piltdown Man Hoax" and "Parabolic Orbit vs Radial Orbit".
That is, unless someone here is over about 125 years of age.
I feel not the slightest guilt in claiming that you, Mr InFlatEarth, are a total idiot.
Saying "Your scientific integrity" is totally irrelevant as no-obe here had any connection with the "Piltdown Man Hoax".
In 1912 Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist claimed to have discovered the ‘missing link’ between ape and man. He had found part of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown village in Sussex, England.
Dawson wrote to Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum at the time, about his find.
Read your history, Piltdown Man was fabricated in 1912 and was exposed in the 50's. They had even made a fucking memorial for the find.
The same standards that the scientist had in 1912, are used today, oh by the way, when did the scientist accept Einsteins relativity theory???
You profession does not have a clean record, and thus everything must be checked and rechecked to verify. True scientists will not have a problem with that all.
Just because you say something is true, does not meant that it is true.
-
Fg=GMm/r^2.
If the distance would increase, that means that the gravitational force would decrease, and if the planet was able to break the original gravitational force and go to a higher orbit, what would bring it back into position again, since the gravitational force would be smaller at that point in time....
The same thing which causes a pendulum to swing back and forth, or something that is rolling up a hill due to its momentum to stop and come back down.
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
As it climbs up out of the gravitational potential well, it slows down.
Remember, the only thing keeping an object in a circular orbit is its sideways momentum, if it lost that (such as by slowing down), then it would start falling inwards.
If it goes to fast (such as by falling inwards and gaining speed) then it will fly out.
An elliptical orbit is basically just switching between them.
A more technical explanation:
Lets say it starts off low, but it is going to fast. This means that it will deviate from the circular orbit and start flying outwards.
This means the object it is being attracted towards is no longer off in a direction at right angles to its path. Instead, it is now slightly behind.
As it's speed is still too fast, the force of gravity falls further and further behind, slowing it down more and more.
It eventually reaches a point where the sideways component would be enough, but it is still ahead. This means gravity keeps on slowing it down.
But just after that the sideways force is too great. This means it starts falling back, and thus the force of gravity can now start catching up, so it starts going from slightly behind to beside.
Eventually it reaches a point where it is directly to the side, as gravity has now caught up. But now the object is going too slow for an orbit of that distance. That means it now starts falling inwards, and falling behind. That means the direction of the force of gravity now gets slightly in front. This results in it speeding up.
This continues until it reaches the point where it is travelling at the right speed for the sideways force, after which it is going slightly too fast and thus it starts catching back up with gravity falling behind and eventually ending up purely sideways and we are back to the start.
You said "No, we still have 2, it is just that only 1 has something (significant) in it."
Where is the second point and what is located in our solar system at that point!
For what?
The solar system doesn't just have one.
Did you mean for Earth?
If so, one is the barycentre of the Earth-sun system (as an approximation anyway).
As for the second one, well it would be 2 times the distance between the centre and the focus away from that.
The eccentricity is the distance between the centre and the focus divided by the semi-major axis.
That means the distance is the eccentricity times the semi-major axis.
For Earth, the eccentricity is 0.0167086 and the semi-major axis is 149.60 e+6 km.
So the distance from the focus to the centre is 149.60 e+6*0.0167086=~2.5e+6 km.
So that would be a short distance from the sun.
-
Fg=GMm/r^2.
If the distance would increase, that means that the gravitational force would decrease, and if the planet was able to break the original gravitational force and go to a higher orbit, what would bring it back into position again, since the gravitational force would be smaller at that point in time....
The same thing which causes a pendulum to swing back and forth, or something that is rolling up a hill due to its momentum to stop and come back down.
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
As it climbs up out of the gravitational potential well, it slows down.
Remember, the only thing keeping an object in a circular orbit is its sideways momentum, if it lost that (such as by slowing down), then it would start falling inwards.
If it goes to fast (such as by falling inwards and gaining speed) then it will fly out.
An elliptical orbit is basically just switching between them.
A more technical explanation:
Lets say it starts off low, but it is going to fast. This means that it will deviate from the circular orbit and start flying outwards.
This means the object it is being attracted towards is no longer off in a direction at right angles to its path. Instead, it is now slightly behind.
As it's speed is still too fast, the force of gravity falls further and further behind, slowing it down more and more.
It eventually reaches a point where the sideways component would be enough, but it is still ahead. This means gravity keeps on slowing it down.
But just after that the sideways force is too great. This means it starts falling back, and thus the force of gravity can now start catching up, so it starts going from slightly behind to beside.
Eventually it reaches a point where it is directly to the side, as gravity has now caught up. But now the object is going too slow for an orbit of that distance. That means it now starts falling inwards, and falling behind. That means the direction of the force of gravity now gets slightly in front. This results in it speeding up.
This continues until it reaches the point where it is travelling at the right speed for the sideways force, after which it is going slightly too fast and thus it starts catching back up with gravity falling behind and eventually ending up purely sideways and we are back to the start.
You said "No, we still have 2, it is just that only 1 has something (significant) in it."
Where is the second point and what is located in our solar system at that point!
For what?
The solar system doesn't just have one.
Did you mean for Earth?
If so, one is the barycentre of the Earth-sun system (as an approximation anyway).
As for the second one, well it would be 2 times the distance between the centre and the focus away from that.
The eccentricity is the distance between the centre and the focus divided by the semi-major axis.
That means the distance is the eccentricity times the semi-major axis.
For Earth, the eccentricity is 0.0167086 and the semi-major axis is 149.60 e+6 km.
So the distance from the focus to the centre is 149.60 e+6*0.0167086=~2.5e+6 km.
So that would be a short distance from the sun.
But the momentum will be constant and the gravitational forces will decrease the further away you go.
Momentum is in a "linear" path the instant the force that hold's it breaks off.
it's like the string breaking, the yo-yo will be flying.
You just debunked yourself
have to go, be back in 2 hours!!!
-
Fg=GMm/r^2.
If the distance would increase, that means that the gravitational force would decrease, and if the planet was able to break the original gravitational force and go to a higher orbit, what would bring it back into position again, since the gravitational force would be smaller at that point in time....
So, like most flat earthers, you ridicule what you can't understand.
Reasonable people do a bit of study until they do understand what is going on.
I'm too lazy (and it's too late at night) to try to use my own words, so here is a video on circular and elliptical orbits.
Hewitt-Drew-it! PHYSICS 50.Circular/Elliptical Orbit
One little note on your title "Parabolic Orbit vs Radial Orbit".
While you should have made it "Elliptical Orbit vs Circular Orbit", the term "Parabolic Orbit" does have a specific meaning.
If the satellite is travelling just a little too fast for gravitation to bring it back it can travel on a parabolic path and escape altogether.
Also some piece of space debris could approach the earth with just the right velocity, travel on a parabolic path ans escape.
This sort of orbit is more applicable to "once only" comets, which might travel or either approximately hyperbolic or parabolic orbits.
Periodic comets travel on approximately elliptical orbits.
In both cases the "approximately" is because of possible gravitation effects of the planets.
-
Can the Spherical Earthers, build something that rotates in an elliptical orbit, like a motor?
How about an elliptical trainer?
(https://www.fitnesstep1.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Schwinn-430-Elliptical-Machine.png)
-
But the momentum will be constant and the gravitational forces will decrease the further away you go.
Momentum is in a "linear" path the instant the force that hold's it breaks off.
it's like the string breaking, the yo-yo will be flying.
It is the conservation of angular momentum that controls the satellite's motion.
I'm too rushed now, but you could read Circular and Elliptical Orbit Geometries. (http://web.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/AERO2705/Resources/Orbital-Calcs/Orbit%20Geometries.pdf)
You just debunked yourself
have to go, be back in 2 hours!!!
No, he didn't,
but you are still proving what I said about flat earthers simple ridiculing what they cannot understand.
This fault is, of course, not restricted to flat earthers,
but is common among people who imagine that they are far smarter than they really are.
There is no shame in ignorance nor in not understanding something.
Where that shame is to be found is in ridiculing something because you cannot understand it.
Even Albert Einstein is reported to have said
(http://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1429114964p8/9810.jpg) “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
― Albert Einstein
From Goodreads (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/620163-the-more-i-learn-the-more-i-realize-how-much)
But you think that you know everything!
-
But the momentum will be constant and the gravitational forces will decrease the further away you go.
No it won't.
Not even in a circular orbit is momentum constant.
As I said, if it goes too fast, then it moves ahead of the orbit and thus is pulled backwards, slowing it down.
Momentum is in a "linear" path the instant the force that hold's it breaks off.
it's like the string breaking, the yo-yo will be flying.
And unlike a yo-yo, gravity doesn't just break. It reduces following an inverse square law.
You just debunked yourself
have to go, be back in 2 hours!!!
No I didn't. I explained the origin of an elliptical orbit and you compared it to a pathetic strawman.
-
Defend your orbit with a yo-yo, if you can!!!
Why a yo-yo? Do you think that gravitation acts like a string?
-
A string only applies tension when it is stretched. Anything less than a stretch to its full length, and the tension decreases or ceases altogether.
Gravity applies whatever the distance.
Not the same at all.
-
Congratulations, InFlatEarth, you have found out something:
Gravity does not act like a string!
You want a cookie now?
BTW: When you are able to perform actual calculations you would see that (in the limit m_earth << m_sun) exactly those elliptical orbits are the bound solutions to the differential equation. I challenge you to do it!
-
Defend your orbit with a yo-yo, if you can!!!
Why a yo-yo? Do you think that gravitation acts like a string?
Do you think that gravity asks like a spring?
-
Defend your orbit with a yo-yo, if you can!!!
Why a yo-yo? Do you think that gravitation acts like a string?
Do you think that gravity asks like a spring?
Maybe you are better with other attracting force
-
Defend your orbit with a yo-yo, if you can!!!
Why a yo-yo? Do you think that gravitation acts like a string?
Do you think that gravity asks like a spring?
No. Do you?
According to Einstein, gravity acts kinda, sorta like this:
-
Do you think that gravity asks like a spring?
I already told you it doesn't.
Force on spring:
F=k*dx, where dx is the distance from the 0 point, where there is no force.
Force due to gravity:
F=k/r^2, where r is the distance between the masses.
Note the difference? the spring is directly proportional to distance.
You increase the distance, you increase the force.
Force due to gravity is inversely proportional to the distance squared.
You increase the distance, you decrease the force.
Does that sound the same? No.
Treating gravity as a string only works for perfectly circular orbits.
-
Can you please explain why the Moon is accelerating?
We can learn a lot by studying our history and reading old scientific books
Below is a portion from a book from 1858
The time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.
Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false)
This link to the book was given to me yesterday by Spherical Earth believer.
Can you please show me the math, that the Moon can accelerate in a Heliocentric Theory.
Know, if you claim that this book is bogus, then why would one of the Heliocentric Theory believers recommend to me to read a bogus book?
When I can say to you, that all of your sources are questionable and thus have to be truly examined
-
Can you please explain why the Moon is accelerating?
We can learn a lot by studying our history and reading old scientific books
Below is a portion from a book from 1858
The time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.
Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false)
This link to the book was given to me yesterday by Spherical Earth believer.
Can you please show me the math, that the Moon can accelerate in a Heliocentric Theory.
Know, if you claim that this book is bogus, then why would one of the Heliocentric Theory believers recommend to me to read a bogus book?
When I can say to you, that all of your sources are questionable and thus have to be truly examined
I believe that is referencing tidal friction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
http://study.com/academy/lesson/tidal-friction-effects-on-earth-the-moon.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tidal-friction
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/tidfrict.html
-
I see you made a new thread about the moon, so I wont bother answering it here.
So now how about you address what has already been said in this thread, such as how elliptical orbits are stable?
-
Try to explain this, in a Heliocentric hypothesis and a Elliptical Orbit
Let’s do the math
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second)
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Let extrapolate the math at this rate:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nG00h5/Leap_second.jpg) (https://ibb.co/miPRN5)
We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.
At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM
But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…
Busted!!!
-
I see you are assuming the rate is constant when it is known it is not.
also, what is the point of spamming the same post across the forum? all it does is make you look desperate.
-
I see you are assuming the rate is constant when it is known it is not.
also, what is the point of spamming the same post across the forum? all it does is make you look desperate.
Time flows at a constant rate, this principle is used to determine the distance to the stars and radioactive dating.
If time is not linear, then the same must be applied for star distances and radioactive dating, producing a young earth...
-
I see you are assuming the rate is constant when it is known it is not.
also, what is the point of spamming the same post across the forum? all it does is make you look desperate.
Time flows at a constant rate, this principle is used to determine the distance to the stars and radioactive dating.
If time is not linear, then the same must be applied for star distances and radioactive dating, producing a young earth...
NOBODY said time is not constant. Please stop trying to put words in others' mouths.
the rate at which the Moon recedes is not constant.
-
I see you are assuming the rate is constant when it is known it is not.
also, what is the point of spamming the same post across the forum? all it does is make you look desperate.
Time flows at a constant rate, this principle is used to determine the distance to the stars and radioactive dating.
If time is not linear, then the same must be applied for star distances and radioactive dating, producing a young earth...
NOBODY said time is not constant. Please stop trying to put words in others' mouths.
the rate at which the Moon recedes is not constant.
have you heard of a negative angular acceleration?
If time is not constant, was it faster or slower in the precious years. Please provide citations as proof?
-
I see you are assuming the rate is constant when it is known it is not.
also, what is the point of spamming the same post across the forum? all it does is make you look desperate.
Time flows at a constant rate, this principle is used to determine the distance to the stars and radioactive dating.
If time is not linear, then the same must be applied for star distances and radioactive dating, producing a young earth...
NOBODY said time is not constant. Please stop trying to put words in others' mouths.
the rate at which the Moon recedes is not constant.
have you heard of a negative angular acceleration?
If time is not constant, was it faster or slower in the precious years. Please provide citations as proof?
Our clock is based on the interval between between the sun's daily zenith - not one rotation of the planet. This keeps the sun at its zenith locally at noon as the earth orbits the sun. Which I'm sure you know.
-
I see you are assuming the rate is constant when it is known it is not.
also, what is the point of spamming the same post across the forum? all it does is make you look desperate.
Time flows at a constant rate, this principle is used to determine the distance to the stars and radioactive dating.
If time is not linear, then the same must be applied for star distances and radioactive dating, producing a young earth...
NOBODY said time is not constant. Please stop trying to put words in others' mouths.
the rate at which the Moon recedes is not constant.
have you heard of a negative angular acceleration?
If time is not constant, was it faster or slower in the precious years. Please provide citations as proof?
AGAIN, nobody said anything about time not being constant. You are AGAIN trying to put words in other people's mouths.
Do you really not know the difference between time and a rate? Didn't you claim to be an engineer?
-
I see you are assuming the rate is constant when it is known it is not.
also, what is the point of spamming the same post across the forum? all it does is make you look desperate.
Time flows at a constant rate, this principle is used to determine the distance to the stars and radioactive dating.
If time is not linear, then the same must be applied for star distances and radioactive dating, producing a young earth...
NOBODY said time is not constant. Please stop trying to put words in others' mouths.
the rate at which the Moon recedes is not constant.
have you heard of a negative angular acceleration?
If time is not constant, was it faster or slower in the precious years. Please provide citations as proof?
Our clock is based on the interval between between the sun's daily zenith - not one rotation of the planet. This keeps the sun at its zenith locally at noon as the earth orbits the sun. Which I'm sure you know.
But if you read the book from 1858, it states that the moon accelerates with respect to the start positions.
-
Try to explain this, in a Heliocentric hypothesis and a Elliptical Orbit
Stop spamming the same shit all over the place.
Post it in one thread and leave it there. It has already been dealt with.
Your analysis is based upon numerous assumptions you have no backing for.
Now again, DEAL WITH THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD!!!
Do you accept elliptical orbits are stable?
Yes or no?
-
But if you read the book from 1858, it states that the moon accelerates with respect to the start positions.
I haven't read that book, but I'm willing to bet that it says that the moon is orbiting about a spherical earth.
-
Read your history, Piltdown Man was fabricated in 1912 and was exposed in the 50's. They had even made a fucking memorial for the find.
Yes, "fabricated in 1912"!
The same standards that the scientist had in 1912,
Some evidence of that please! Who revealed the Piltdown Hoax? Scientists of course!
Please read PILTDOWN: Evidence of Smith-Woodward's Complicity by Gerell M. Drawhorn (UC Davis)/color] (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown/drawhorn.html).
There are a few "bad eggs" in every profession and trade and of course YOU are pure as the driven snow!
are used today, oh by the way, when did the scientist accept Einsteins relativity theory???
Which "scientist accept Einsteins relativity theory"?
Einstein's SR and GR seemed very radical changes and as you say
"everything must be checked and rechecked to verify. True scientists will not have a problem with that all"
Not only that, SR and GR are being continually checked and rechecked because no real scientists regards is as "The Truth" as FEers like to claim anout their "beliefs".
You clearly have no real idea of how real science works.
Try reading at least some of the simpler journals and see just how much quetioning of "accepted theories" goes on.
Then you will find plenty of papers published questioning relativity, gravitation hypotheses, dark energy and dark matter and even the need for them.
Scientific theories are questioned all the time.
You Your profession does not have a clean record, and thus everything must be checked and rechecked to verify. True scientists will not have a problem with that all.
What do you mean by my profession?
I am not, never claimed to be and never have been a "scientist" and I do believe that Engineering has enjoyed a rather good reputation, thank you Mr InFlatEarth.
Whereas you have been spreading proven false information all over this forum and I have no way of knowing
whether this is intentional or out of pure ignorance.
Just because you say something is true, does not meant that it is true.
I totally agree, as we have seen dozens of times:Just because you say something is true, does not meant that it is true.
-
Try to explain this, in a Heliocentric hypothesis and a Elliptical Orbit
Let’s do the math
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second)
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Not necessarily. Your number itself doesn't necessarily mean the rotation of the earth is slowing down.
We're getting into the weeds here, but you brought it up. Let's look at the details and the facts:
The first leap second was inserted at the end of 30 June 1972 at 23:59:60 UTC.
The last leap second was inserted at the end of 31 Dec 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC.
Between 00:00:00 1 Jul 1972 UTC (immediately after the insertion of the first leap second) and 00:00:00 1 Jan 2017 (immediately after the insertion of the 27th leap second) there were exactly 16,255 civil days, including leap days (thank you, Excel). Each civil days is nominally 86,400 seconds long plus a very occasional leap second, so those 16,255 days amount to 1,404,432,000 (one billion, 404 million, 432 thousand) seconds plus 26 (twenty-six) leap seconds, or 1,404,432,026 (one billion, 404 million, 432 thousand and twenty-six) seconds.
Now, the nuisance of leap seconds are (barely (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second#Proposal_to_abolish_leap_seconds)) tolerated to keep UTC, which is legal time based on atomic clocks, coordinated within one second of UT1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Time#Versions), which is based on the slightly more variable rotation of the earth. The 26-second correction over 16,255 civil days means that, on average, the actual rotation of the earth was 0.0000019% (1,404,432,026/1,404,432,000 = 1.000000019; about 2 parts in 100 million) slower than the technical definition of a civil day. This number alone says nothing about whether the rotation of the earth is speeding up, slowing down, or if the definition of the length of a day was off by about the same amount as most physical constants are known. In fact, the rotation of the earth is known to be slowing down, but it ain't by anything close to 27 seconds in 44.5 years.
Let extrapolate the math at this rate:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nG00h5/Leap_second.jpg) (https://ibb.co/miPRN5)
We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 [?] hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.
At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM
That's nice. That's the problem with blindly extrapolating data you don't understand waaaayyyy beyond the domain of the actual data. Doing that almost almost always gives you very wacky answers. If you actually believe long extrapolations without knowing the root cause of the change (including having a good handle on the error that exists in all measurements), it just shows that you don't understand what the data is telling you.
But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…
Or, waaaayyyy more likely, linearly extrapolating 44 years (actually 44.5 years, but who's counting, right?) of data you don't understand out to 100 million years, one million years, or even 100,000 years, is giving a preposterous answer. But, nah! It couldn't be that, could it?
Busted!!!
You sure were. Oops!
-
The numbers don't lie...
Their is a linear line in the graph between Leap seconds added and the number of years that have passed
(https://preview.ibb.co/duRK9k/Leap_Seconds_trend.jpg)[/url]
The data
Year Leap Seconds
1972 2
1973 1
1974 1
1975 1
1976 1
1977 1
1978 1
1979 1
1980 0
1981 1
1982 1
1983 1
1984 0
1985 1
1986 0
1987 1
1988 0
1989 1
1990 1
1991 0
1992 1
1993 1
1994 1
1995 1
1996 0
1997 1
1998 1
1999 0
2000 0
2001 0
2002 0
2003 0
2004 0
2005 1
2006 0
2007 0
2008 1
2009 0
2010 0
2011 0
2012 1
2013 0
2014 0
2015 1
2016 1
2017 0
-
I have been reading that the Flat Earther’s don’t have a model of the sun and the earth. Well, they might be right, but I will come back to you and say that the Spherical Earther’s don’t have a correct model either.
The Parabolic Orbit is pure fiction and I will explain why.
Take a yo-yo and spin it in the air. It will make a circular orbit because the tension in string will hold it in position. A string or rope can only have expansion forces; no compression forces. You can’t push something with a string, only pull.
In our yo-yo model, take the sun to be your hand and the earth to be the yo-yo.
The string is the force that binds the sun and the earth together and it can act only in one direction, it can’t do both pull and push.
In order to have a model of the Sun – earth rotation with an elliptical trajectory, with a yo-yo, that would mean that the string would have to change in size as it is spinning.
Which would mean that the gravitational forces of the sun to the earth will have to change, based upon the position.
Also from basic geometry, we know to plot a ellipse, you need to have two focal point where in a circle you have only one.
In the Heliocentric Model, we only have 1 focal point, the sun.
The elliptical orbit is pure fiction, but it was the only way that they could make the heliocentric hypothesis to work out.
Can the Spherical Earthers, build something that rotates in an elliptical orbit, like a motor?
Last time I checked they were all round.
They have created funny math to make it appear that it works, but it really does not. Like I say, make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit and I will agree with you that I am wrong.
Your notion of how gravity works is childish to say the least.....there are no strings involved.
You really need to question your motivation in putting forward your vain attempts in trying to discredit science that's driven by no more than your basic ignorance and prejudices.
The motion of the planets has been well understood for hundreds of years with calculations that can predict with great accuracy future planetRy positions. The total eclipse in a couple of weeks time is a good example. If what you were saying were true how could any accurTe predictions ever be made?
Ps.
The solar system is made up of hundreds of orbiting bodies all making their presence felt in a gravitational sense.
-
I have been reading that the Flat Earther’s don’t have a model of the sun and the earth. Well, they might be right, but I will come back to you and say that the Spherical Earther’s don’t have a correct model either.
The Parabolic Orbit is pure fiction and I will explain why.
Take a yo-yo and spin it in the air. It will make a circular orbit because the tension in string will hold it in position. A string or rope can only have expansion forces; no compression forces. You can’t push something with a string, only pull.
In our yo-yo model, take the sun to be your hand and the earth to be the yo-yo.
The string is the force that binds the sun and the earth together and it can act only in one direction, it can’t do both pull and push.
In order to have a model of the Sun – earth rotation with an elliptical trajectory, with a yo-yo, that would mean that the string would have to change in size as it is spinning.
Which would mean that the gravitational forces of the sun to the earth will have to change, based upon the position.
Also from basic geometry, we know to plot a ellipse, you need to have two focal point where in a circle you have only one.
In the Heliocentric Model, we only have 1 focal point, the sun.
The elliptical orbit is pure fiction, but it was the only way that they could make the heliocentric hypothesis to work out.
Can the Spherical Earthers, build something that rotates in an elliptical orbit, like a motor?
Last time I checked they were all round.
They have created funny math to make it appear that it works, but it really does not. Like I say, make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit and I will agree with you that I am wrong.
Your notion of how gravity works is childish to say the least.....there are no strings involved.
You really need to question your motivation in putting forward your vain attempts in trying to discredit science that's driven by no more than your basic ignorance and prejudices.
The motion of the planets has been well understood for hundreds of years with calculations that can predict with great accuracy future planetRy positions. The total eclipse in a couple of weeks time is a good example. If what you were saying were true how could any accurTe predictions ever be made?
Ps.
The solar system is made up of hundreds of orbiting bodies all making their presence felt in a gravitational sense.
You said "been well understood for hundreds of years" but they have been misunderstood, since they believe that they are physical objects, instead of lights in the sky.
Why don't you try your planetary calculations on a strobe light, and see if it will work!!!
if their basic assumption is wrong, then all their calculations are wrong also.
-
The numbers don't lie...
Their is a linear line in the graph between Leap seconds added and the number of years that have passed
(https://preview.ibb.co/duRK9k/Leap_Seconds_trend.jpg)[/url]
The data
Year Leap Seconds
1972 2
1973 1
1974 1
1975 1
1976 1
1977 1
1978 1
1979 1
1980 0
1981 1
1982 1
1983 1
1984 0
1985 1
1986 0
1987 1
1988 0
1989 1
1990 1
1991 0
1992 1
1993 1
1994 1
1995 1
1996 0
1997 1
1998 1
1999 0
2000 0
2001 0
2002 0
2003 0
2004 0
2005 1
2006 0
2007 0
2008 1
2009 0
2010 0
2011 0
2012 1
2013 0
2014 0
2015 1
2016 1
2017 0
What are you havering about? Like gravity your understanding for the need for the inclusion of leap seconds is again laughable. They are used every now and then to keep Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) close to the mean solar time. Why?.....because of small irregularities in Earth's orbit due to various climatic and geological events driven partly by the varying energy we receive from the sun. We live in a system that's dynamic hence the need to fine tune.
-
What you can't explain in your Heliocentric fair-tail, you call it laughable.
Bottom line you are always adding second to the clock, because the earth is slowing down.
Your basic logic is this.
If I keep getting loans to by things, and never pay the loans back, somehow the money that I owe and the money that I have will balance out and I will not owe anything!!!
Your economics fit perfectly in a Heliocentric Model of the Earth, that has life on it!!!
Your Hypothesis has been busted!!!
-
I have a dream, that one day, InFlatEarth will rise up and post something in the thread it belongs to, and not in five different threads all over the board!
-
I have a dream, that one day, InFlatEarth will rise up and post something in the thread it belongs to, and not in five different threads all over the board!
We all have dreams
My dream is the scientist will tell the truth about the flat earth
-
I have a dream, that one day, InFlatEarth will rise up and post something in the thread it belongs to, and not in five different threads all over the board!
We all have dreams
My dream is the scientist will tell the truth about the flat earth
They do, and have done for recorded history.
The Sumerians, Babylonians and early Chinese "scientisrs" (astronomers/astrologers) might have believed the earth was flat, but they told the truth as they saw it.
And I have not seen any evidence that any real scientist believes the earth flat, yet claims it to be a Globe.
-
I have been reading that the Flat Earther’s don’t have a model of the sun and the earth. Well, they might be right, but I will come back to you and say that the Spherical Earther’s don’t have a correct model either.
The Parabolic Orbit is pure fiction and I will explain why.
Take a yo-yo and spin it in the air. It will make a circular orbit because the tension in string will hold it in position. A string or rope can only have expansion forces; no compression forces. You can’t push something with a string, only pull.
In our yo-yo model, take the sun to be your hand and the earth to be the yo-yo.
The string is the force that binds the sun and the earth together and it can act only in one direction, it can’t do both pull and push.
In order to have a model of the Sun – earth rotation with an elliptical trajectory, with a yo-yo, that would mean that the string would have to change in size as it is spinning.
Which would mean that the gravitational forces of the sun to the earth will have to change, based upon the position.
Also from basic geometry, we know to plot a ellipse, you need to have two focal point where in a circle you have only one.
In the Heliocentric Model, we only have 1 focal point, the sun.
The elliptical orbit is pure fiction, but it was the only way that they could make the heliocentric hypothesis to work out.
Can the Spherical Earthers, build something that rotates in an elliptical orbit, like a motor?
Last time I checked they were all round.
They have created funny math to make it appear that it works, but it really does not. Like I say, make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit and I will agree with you that I am wrong.
If the Earth can't be a tennis ball, then it can't be a yo-yo, either. Try again.
-
I have a dream, that one day, InFlatEarth will rise up and post something in the thread it belongs to, and not in five different threads all over the board!
We all have dreams
My dream is the scientist will tell the truth about the flat earth
Well, your dream came true. Actually it would appear that it came true quite some time ago. The earth isn't flat, the flat earth idea is wrong.
You must be happy about that, right? :)
And just on a completely unrelated side-note, demanding to be told the truth and to be told what you want to hear are not really the same thing.
-
The numbers don't lie...
Again, stop spamming the same shit all over the place. Deal with it in one thread.
It has been refuted there.
-
I have a dream, that one day, InFlatEarth will rise up and post something in the thread it belongs to, and not in five different threads all over the board!
We all have dreams
My dream is the scientist will tell the truth about the flat earth
They do, and have done for recorded history.
The Sumerians, Babylonians and early Chinese "scientisrs" (astronomers/astrologers) might have believed the earth was flat, but they told the truth as they saw it.
And I have not seen any evidence that any real scientist believes the earth flat, yet claims it to be a Globe.
If you are going to quote historical books, then you also have to quote the bible which contradict the heliocentric fair-tail.
As for the scientist, you only publish the material that supports your hypothesis, never research that goes against it!!
But thank God for the internet, where people can bypass the scientific journals and reach the people directly, just like Trump does!!!
This will be my last post for the day on this thread!!!
-
If you are going to quote historical books, then you also have to quote the bible which contradict the heliocentric fair-tail.
The Bible is the fairy tale, not a historical book.
As for the scientist, you only publish the material that supports your hypothesis, never research that goes against it!!
No. As a scientist you publish your findings, regardless of if they support your hypothesis or not. You try to reformulate your hypothesis if it was shown to be wrong.
If a scientist had serious evidence against the RE model or in favour of the FE model they would publish it, and likely get a Nobel prize for it.
But thank God for the internet, where people can bypass the scientific journals and reach the people directly, just like Trump does!!!
You means spouting pure bullshit without any system of peer review to point out it is bullshit.
-
What you can't explain in your Heliocentric fair-tail, you call it laughable.
What on earth is a Heliocentric fair-tail?
Little hint! When you indulge in copy-pasta, make sure you error-check the copy-source before you plaster your rubbish everywhere.
Bottom line you are always adding second to the clock, because the earth is slowing down.
Only slightly correct! If you want to see why your sums are all totally wrong,
read Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!! « Reply #79 on: Today at 09:22:29 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71415.msg1935000#msg1935000)
Your Hypothesis has been busted!!!
What a joke! You say that over and over as though it means something.
The Heliocentric Globe has survived for over 300 years so far, so there's not much you can do about busting the it.
All you do is put up your own totally false straw-man arguments, the try to debunk you own argument.
That's what so many Flatists do and it proves nothing more that they don't understand the Heliocentric Globe.
-
I have a dream, that one day, InFlatEarth will rise up and post something in the thread it belongs to, and not in five different threads all over the board!
We all have dreams
My dream is the scientist will tell the truth about the flat earth
They do, and have done for recorded history.
The Sumerians, Babylonians and early Chinese "scientisrs" (astronomers/astrologers) might have believed the earth was flat, but they told the truth as they saw it.
And I have not seen any evidence that any real scientist believes the earth flat, yet claims it to be a Globe.
If you are going to quote historical books, then you also have to quote the bible which contradict the heliocentric fair-tail.
As for the scientist, you only publish the material that supports your hypothesis, never research that goes against it!!
But thank God for the internet, where people can bypass the scientific journals and reach the people directly, just like Trump does!!!
This will be my last post for the day on this thread!!!
Do you have any faith left? You keep trying to prove that the bible contradicts science and therefore science must be wrong. You are not understanding the message at all. You are getting faith confused with facts. Religion require faith. Religious faith is believing in a religion when there is no proof to support it, perhaps a lot of proof to deny it.
I guess you do not have faith that God can do the impossible? Oh that's right, your faith is in the book, told word of mouth for hundreds, a few stories in the thousands, of years then written and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten by man. You keep bringing up God and the bible, it is rather disgusting how you are trying to wield them as some form of weapons out of context.
You do know it is people like you that give Christians a bad name right? Sitting on a fake moral throne, passing judgement.
Actually scientist do tons of research with the express intent to contradict a former finding. To test it. It's an integral part of the scientific process.
-
The numbers don't lie...
True. Also true: you don't understand what they're saying.
Their is a linear line in the graph between Leap seconds added and the number of years that have passed
(https://preview.ibb.co/duRK9k/Leap_Seconds_trend.jpg)[/url]
The data
<removed to save space, see here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71402.msg1934861#msg1934861) if desired>
OK. So? A straight line means the earth's rate of rotation isn't changing. The line would be curved upward if the earth's rotation were slowing, but over the 44.5 years between the first and last data points, the rate hasn't changed enough to see that amongst the noise. This graph suggests that the definition of the second is a little too short.
Here's a better plot, without the extraneous data points.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/CumulLeapSecs_zpsmvf5wzhg.png)
Plotted data from here: https://www.timeanddate.com/time/leap-seconds-future.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/time/leap-seconds-future.html)
This plot also shows the formula for the regression line. Since X = 0 is the beginning of Dec 31, 1899, the intercept is kinda meaningless, but the slope is what we're interested in. Excel reckons time in days, so 0.0016x means the earth's rotation averages 1.6 millisecond longer than the nominal civil day (neglecting leap seconds), accumulating to a full second of error every 625 days, on average (1/0.0016 = 625).
There's no direct evidence in these plots that the earth's rotation is slowing. If anything, it vaguely suggests that it's speeding up, but there too much noise in the data to draw definitive conclusions from this data alone.