The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Lonegranger on July 07, 2019, 11:51:37 PM
-
It would appear that some flat earth groups appear to think the earth is an infinite plane as apposed to just being flat.
I find this thought astonishing as the world has been mapped and been shown to be pretty finite, with its diameter, circumferences all being known pretty accurately.
Like it or like it not thousands of satellites whizz around the planet beaming back all sorts of data and it all confirms the earth is certainly not infinite but very much finite.
I’m at a total loss to imagine why anyone, maths or no maths, could put forward such a clearly ridiculous idea. Though I did read a pretty cool sci-fi book recently where it allowed people to walk between planets using some kind of inter dimensional pathways, very cool, but fiction none the less.
The question is what proof is there that we live on an infinite plane?
-
I don't know what flat earth group you mean. but I don't think these groups exist here.
proof is an ambitious word. if there was really complete proof, all flat earth believers would accept it. because those who believe in the flat earth are intelligent, rational, virtuous and knowledgeable. some of them have adopted the infinite model and some have adopted the finite model. however, since there is no conclusive evidence, I have not seen anyone who has reached a definite judgment on this. if you see someone who thinks so and has certain proof, please let us know.
-
I don't know what flat earth group you mean. but I don't think these groups exist here.
proof is an ambitious word. if there was really complete proof, all flat earth believers would accept it. because those who believe in the flat earth are intelligent, rational, virtuous and knowledgeable. some of them have adopted the infinite model and some have adopted the finite model. however, since there is no conclusive evidence, I have not seen anyone who has reached a definite judgment on this. if you see someone who thinks so and has certain proof, please let us know.
The WGS-84 model is universally accepted as correct.
-
I don't know what flat earth group you mean. but I don't think these groups exist here.
proof is an ambitious word. if there was really complete proof, all flat earth believers would accept it. because those who believe in the flat earth are intelligent, rational, virtuous and knowledgeable. some of them have adopted the infinite model and some have adopted the finite model. however, since there is no conclusive evidence, I have not seen anyone who has reached a definite judgment on this. if you see someone who thinks so and has certain proof, please let us know.
Ask John Davis or look up this in the FAQ in General:Why doesn't gravity pull the earth into a spherical shape?
The earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity exists in a greatly diminished form compared to what is commonly taught. The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There are also other theories of flat earth thought that maintain that the earth sits on an infinite plane, with the sun moving overhead. Gravity works much like it does in a round-earth model, and the earth will never form into a sphere because the plane is endless.
Or in the main FAQ: What Is Gravity?
Others make use of traditional mathematics, such as the infinite plane model.
-
If there is an infinite plane it will be very dark and cold, trending towards absolute zero as you move away from the warm, sunlit part enclosing the known flat earth.
At temperatures well above zero K most gases freeze to a solid, so there would be no atmospheric pressure over the infinite plane. The warm sunlit air over the flat earth would expand out over the infinite plane, cool down, freeze and fall to the ground. Repeat until the is no air left over the flat earth.
We are still here, breathing so that hasn't happened. The obvious conclusion, given the weight of all other evidence as well, is that the earth isn't flat, but to entertain the flat earth theory we must consider what stops the air leaking away over the infinite plane.
The most common FE idea which would address this is a dome, though this is falls down in many other ways.
The next idea would be an "open dome", ie, a wall so high that the air can't leak over the top, but if it was that high we would be able to see it.
Some FEers have proposed that the infinite plane is heated thus keeping the infinite atmosphere in a gaseous state... yet one more evidenceless FE claim.
-
It’s strange when discussing things like the finite plane as all rationality disappears out the window.
With over million flights every year flying over every part of our finite world you may have thought someone may have seen something worth reporting!......that’s aside from all the satellites whizzing around the finite globe.
If we however suspend reality fora moment what proof is there that the earth is not finite?
-
I don't know what flat earth group you mean. but I don't think these groups exist here.
proof is an ambitious word. if there was really complete proof, all flat earth believers would accept it. because those who believe in the flat earth are intelligent, rational, virtuous and knowledgeable. some of them have adopted the infinite model and some have adopted the finite model. however, since there is no conclusive evidence, I have not seen anyone who has reached a definite judgment on this. if you see someone who thinks so and has certain proof, please let us know.
Wow your English has remarkably improved!
Are you saying you believe all you believe without proof?
-
I don't know what flat earth group you mean. but I don't think these groups exist here.
proof is an ambitious word. if there was really complete proof, all flat earth believers would accept it. because those who believe in the flat earth are intelligent, rational, virtuous and knowledgeable. some of them have adopted the infinite model and some have adopted the finite model. however, since there is no conclusive evidence, I have not seen anyone who has reached a definite judgment on this. if you see someone who thinks so and has certain proof, please let us know.
The WGS-84 model is universally accepted as correct.
What is the WGS-84 model and what evidence do you have that supports your claim that this is universally accepted as being correct.
-
I don't know what flat earth group you mean. but I don't think these groups exist here.
proof is an ambitious word. if there was really complete proof, all flat earth believers would accept it. because those who believe in the flat earth are intelligent, rational, virtuous and knowledgeable. some of them have adopted the infinite model and some have adopted the finite model. however, since there is no conclusive evidence, I have not seen anyone who has reached a definite judgment on this. if you see someone who thinks so and has certain proof, please let us know.
The WGS-84 model is universally accepted as correct.
What is the WGS-84 model and what evidence do you have that supports your claim that this is universally accepted as being correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System. with links to further information. A world standard.
-
I don't know what flat earth group you mean. but I don't think these groups exist here.
proof is an ambitious word. if there was really complete proof, all flat earth believers would accept it. because those who believe in the flat earth are intelligent, rational, virtuous and knowledgeable. some of them have adopted the infinite model and some have adopted the finite model. however, since there is no conclusive evidence, I have not seen anyone who has reached a definite judgment on this. if you see someone who thinks so and has certain proof, please let us know.
The WGS-84 model is universally accepted as correct.
What is the WGS-84 model and what evidence do you have that supports your claim that this is universally accepted as being correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System. with links to further information. A world standard.
That’s all very interesting but I’m not quite sure what relevance it has with the infinite plane some flat earth believers are promoting. The whole point of this thread is to look at what evidence there is for such a belief, and as yet none has been forthcoming.
-
I don't know what flat earth group you mean. but I don't think these groups exist here.
proof is an ambitious word. if there was really complete proof, all flat earth believers would accept it. because those who believe in the flat earth are intelligent, rational, virtuous and knowledgeable. some of them have adopted the infinite model and some have adopted the finite model. however, since there is no conclusive evidence, I have not seen anyone who has reached a definite judgment on this. if you see someone who thinks so and has certain proof, please let us know.
Wow your English has remarkably improved!
Are you saying you believe all you believe without proof?
Nope. I clearly said your point its being finitive or infinitive is not the issue we are dwelling on. So you have opened this issue to manipulate our answers, right?
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Rob Skiba kicks their ass.
Since we have not enough possibilities to make such experiments, so you are forcing us to adress government backed agents. You shoult to shame on you.
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Who can refute this?
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html)
-
Who can refute this?
Loads of people.
All it takes is an image showing an object obscured by the horizon, like the plenty that have already been posted on this forum.
The fact that they always appear to do their measurements at night so all you see is the glow of the laser should tell you all you need to know.
-
What about that dude from the documentary, "Behind the curve"? Didn't he refute it?
-
After all these controversial disputes ... I had such an impression that the light rays bend along the surface of the earth. Someone did not think about this? Just the same as radio waves. But then you will have to admit much more that will contradict the current science! And to recognize that the land is not quite as we are told, or rather, as many people think. After all, the light rays passing near the sun are not at all bent! Since the sun does not have a gravity well.
-
After all, the light rays passing near the sun are not at all bent! Since the sun does not have a gravity well.
What ever gave you that idea? :o
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Who can refute this?
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html)
Isaac Newton:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Who can refute this?
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html)
Isaac Newton:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Relevance?
-
After all these controversial disputes ... I had such an impression that the light rays bend along the surface of the earth. Someone did not think about this? Just the same as radio waves. But then you will have to admit much more that will contradict the current science! And to recognize that the land is not quite as we are told, or rather, as many people think. After all, the light rays passing near the sun are not at all bent! Since the sun does not have a gravity well.
Yes, under the right conditions light bends along the curve.
Rowbotham was conducting his Bedford Level Experiment using the "mirage behavior" of the light on the water of the Bedford canal.
Then Wallace installed poles 13 feet above the water and moved viewing line into region with more even temperatures among air layers.
Away from water the curvature was observed through the telescope.
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I went through the whole presentation of experiments. The greatest variance they found with their laser tests (8 in total) was 562 MM from what the WGS-84 states. That's millimeters. Most were in the 2 MM or less. Based upon FECORE's fine work, I would say they corroborated the WGS-84 and therefore a curved planet. Well done.
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Who can refute this?
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html)
Isaac Newton:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Relevance?
According to Issac Newton the picture posted of a planetoid Earth and Moon lit by the Sun is only possible if God was holding the Sun-Earth-Moon system together, as it cannot stay together with the laws of gravity.
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Who can refute this?
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html)
Isaac Newton:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Relevance?
According to Issac Newton the picture posted of a planetoid Earth and Moon lit by the Sun is only possible if God was holding the Sun-Earth-Moon system together, as it cannot stay together with the laws of gravity.
There have been one or two teeny weeny advances in physics since Isaac Newton.
-
Isaac Newton:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
The only significance of that is that there is no analytic solution to the general problem.
But for the Sun, Earth, Moon system we do need an analytic solution. It is an existing system that has been observed for millenia.
Not only that but the Sun's mass is about 333,000 times the Earth's mass and the Earth's mass is about 81 times the Moon's mass.
So in the Sun, Earth, Moon system the Sun is so huge that it can be considered stationary with almost negligible error.
The moon is well inside the Earth's Hill Sphere of the Earth, Sun system and hence:
The Earth, Moon system can then be analysed as a two-bodied system and that two-bodied system and the Sun can be looked on as another two-bodied system.
The approximations mean that the precise orbits are slightly chaotic and so not exactly periodic but history proves that this is small.
The Babylonians were able to predict Solar eclipses using their Saros cycle, which is very good but not a precise prediction of times and locations.
So even the Sun, Earth, Moon system is not perfectly periodic but the rest of the planets, especially Jupiter and Saturn perturb motions still further.
But all this needs a topic of its own.
-
Even if one assumes that there are only two bodies and that the third mass-less body is in orbit around one of them, it's still chaotic: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Hill.27s_Region
It doesn't work. There are no stable solutions, even with such simplification.
-
According to Issac Newton the picture posted of a planetoid Earth and Moon lit by the Sun is only possible if God was holding the Sun-Earth-Moon system together, as it cannot stay together with the laws of gravity.
While I don't doubt that Newton may have written that, would you care to post the source so his wording and the context can be examined.
-
Don't take the bait. The "Bishop N-Body Problem" is a red herring and has no relevance to this topic and no relevance to most. It's a classic diversionary tactic which he believes nullifies modern astronomy and astrophysics which it doesn't and again, has zero relevance to the topic at hand.
All he is doing is spreading TFES links in posts as clickbait and SEO. Do not bite.
-
Even if one assumes that there are only two bodies and that the third mass-less body is in orbit around one of them, it's still chaotic: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Hill.27s_Region
It doesn't work. There are no stable solutions, even with such simplification.
There might be no periodic solution but the type of orbit is heavily dependent on the initial conditions.
And even with the two-bodied system the type of orbit can vary from a finite straight line (ellipse with eccntricity=1) to circular, parabolic, hyperbolic to an infinite straight line (a limiting hyperbola) - all depending on the initial conditions.
In the three body system the solution depends again on the initial conditions and some can readily drive the small body outside the Hill Sphere.
But with suitable initial conditions, while the solutions might not be exactly periodic (hence not classed as stable), they can remain bounded.
In the Sun, Earth, Moon system the Sun is so much more massive than the earth and the Moon's orbit well inside the Hill Sphere that the moon's orbit can be nearly elliptical though with a significant precession.
-
I don't know what flat earth group you mean. but I don't think these groups exist here.
proof is an ambitious word. if there was really complete proof, all flat earth believers would accept it. because those who believe in the flat earth are intelligent, rational, virtuous and knowledgeable. some of them have adopted the infinite model and some have adopted the finite model. however, since there is no conclusive evidence, I have not seen anyone who has reached a definite judgment on this. if you see someone who thinks so and has certain proof, please let us know.
Wow your English has remarkably improved!
Are you saying you believe all you believe without proof?
Nope. I clearly said your point its being finitive or infinitive is not the issue we are dwelling on. So you have opened this issue to manipulate our answers, right?
How can I manipulate what you say? It appears that the infinite flat earth brigade have a belief in something for which there appears to be no evidence.......do you have any, is so, please share.
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Who can refute this:-
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/25/18108807/nasa-esa-timelapse-international-space-station-alexander-gerst
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Who can refute this?
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html)
Isaac Newton:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
You just love going off topic Tom. The topic here is to examine proof for the infinite earth. If you wish to talk about your red herring, start another thread.
So Tom what are your thoughts on the infinite earth?
-
Even if one assumes that there are only two bodies and that the third mass-less body is in orbit around one of them, it's still chaotic: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Hill.27s_Region
It doesn't work. There are no stable solutions, even with such simplification.
Sorry, but it does "work" over a time scale far longer than need concern you and I.
Please note that I never claimed any "stable solutions" but you failed to even comment.
First you need to define exactly what YOU mean by stable solutions because Astronomy Stack Exchange has this to say:There's no clearly defined definition of what a stable orbit is. Orbits can last for hundreds or thousands of years, millions, billions or even trillions of years. There's no neat and tidy definition between stable and unstable.
Then you might read: Scholarpedia: Stability of the solar system by Dr Jacques Laskar, Astronomie et Systèmes Dynamiques, Paris, France. (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Stability_of_the_solar_system)
Most papers on this topic are overly mathematical but Dr Jacques Laskar's is reasonably easy to read.
But the topic is "The infinite plane" not orbital stability.
So if you wish to keep on with orbital stability start your own thread!.
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Who can refute this?
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html)
Isaac Newton:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Hahaha, Tom, that article is so laughably ridiculously wrong I can't believe you had the nerve to post the link, knowing the ridicule it would draw.
Whoever wrote the article seems to think (though I suspect deliberate disinformation) that the three body problem means you can't have a system of three masses gravitationally bound! That's crazy. The three body problem is a mathematical problem where it is difficult to calculate the positions of those three masses.
If that's the quality of articles on wiki.tfes.org you really need to stop linking to it, it's not helping your cause in any way.
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Who can refute this?
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html)
Isaac Newton:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Hahaha, Tom, that article is so laughably ridiculously wrong I can't believe you had the nerve to post the link, knowing the ridicule it would draw.
Whoever wrote the article seems to think (though I suspect deliberate disinformation) that the three body problem means you can't have a system of three masses gravitationally bound! That's crazy. The three body problem is a mathematical problem where it is difficult to calculate the positions of those three masses.
If that's the quality of articles on wiki.tfes.org you really need to stop linking to it, it's not helping your cause in any way.
Except for the parts where it says directly and explicitly that the first thing that Newton did when he came up with his theory of gravity was to try and apply it to the planets and solar system, with failing results.
-
Except for the parts where it says directly and explicitly that the first thing that Newton did when he came up with his theory of gravity was to try and apply it to the planets and solar system, with failing results.
Except that Newton hasn't been around for almost 3 centuries and astronomy, physics, orbital mechanics and mathematics have advanced greatly since then.
Besides in Newton's day there was no possibility of long period numerical simulations of orbital problems.
But I'm still curious as to what this has to do with the topic "The infinite plane."
-
You folks are falling for it. The N-Body Problem has nothing, ZERO, to do with this topic and you will find that when Mr. Bishop brings it up elsewhere it has nothing to do with that topic either.
It's his thing. His way of injecting the notion that modern astronomy/astrophysics is a farce. So if the subjects like eclipses, equinoxes, lunar phases, even sunset/sunrises arise, invariably, Mr. Bishop will swoop in and drop the N-Body Problem to derail the entire mix. Don't let it happen.
It is a red herring dangled for you to bite and leads mercilessly nowhere.
-
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Who can refute this?
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html)
Isaac Newton:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Hahaha, Tom, that article is so laughably ridiculously wrong I can't believe you had the nerve to post the link, knowing the ridicule it would draw.
Whoever wrote the article seems to think (though I suspect deliberate disinformation) that the three body problem means you can't have a system of three masses gravitationally bound! That's crazy. The three body problem is a mathematical problem where it is difficult to calculate the positions of those three masses.
If that's the quality of articles on wiki.tfes.org you really need to stop linking to it, it's not helping your cause in any way.
Except for the parts where it says directly and explicitly that the first thing that Newton did when he came up with his theory of gravity was to try and apply it to the planets and solar system, with failing results.
So he didn't solve the three body problem. That's why it's a "problem".
Really, don't try and support that article, you're making yourself look stupid.
-
According to Issac Newton the picture posted of a planetoid Earth and Moon lit by the Sun is only possible if God was holding the Sun-Earth-Moon system together, as it cannot stay together with the laws of gravity.
Pure garbage.
It can easily stay together with the laws of gravity. There just isn't a simple solution for it.
The absence of a simple solution doesn't make it impossible.
If you would like to assert it is impossible, feel free to provide actual evidence to show that.
And no, it being chaotic doesn't mean it is impossible. It just means the outcome is highly dependent upon the initial conditions.
-
After all, the light rays passing near the sun are not at all bent! Since the sun does not have a gravity well.
What ever gave you that idea? :o
I spread my wings. I think you need to more carefully study the "scientific" works. All have long been proven that the sun does not bend light from the stars. And all who say the opposite - says nonsense. Since this is already a proven fact that Einstein’s followers simply faked the official results. Fit them under the theory of gravity! To be unsubstantiated, find photographs of a solar eclipse published in the newspapers of that time. The one for which this was done and you yourself will be convinced of the forgery of the results. Which were later published in scientific circles (when they simply erased all the "objectionable" stars from duplicate photos). I congratulate you all who have a double standard. We see and say that it is not so ...
-
Respect - JackBlack and rabinoz. For their integrity and consistency. They explore the topic, and try not just to speak, but give a full explanation. Sometimes they speak from a purely practical side, forcing them to look at the facts differently.
Therefore, such statements Stash
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I went through the whole presentation of experiments. The greatest variance they found with their laser tests (8 in total) was 562 MM from what the WGS-84 states. That's millimeters. Most were in the 2 MM or less. Based upon FECORE's fine work, I would say they corroborated the WGS-84 and therefore a curved planet. Well done.
as you do not even want to read.
I did not speak for nothing about the curvature of light.
I will try to convey my position on the basis of those studies that many researchers have done. Moreover, the topic is just appropriate - about the surface of the earth.
1. Light moves only relative to the space in which it flies.
2. The force of "gravity" does not act on the light, or as it is more correct to speak of mutual attraction in the uniform field of the ether.
3. The photon, once emitted, flies at an ever-increasing speed, and at the same time it reduces its rotation around its axis (which is perceived by the scientific world as a wave). Therefore, with the distance traveled, he slows down his rotation, changes his spectrum and eventually turns into a radio wave.
And now let's remember what radio science is saying. Short waves do not bend the ground. Hence, the light can not bend from any "gravity" - this is proved by experiments with solar eclipses. So, the sun does not have such a well, since the space around it is NOT bent! All this taken together shows that all experiments with any light and radio waves will be unambiguous, light and wave will pass through a homogeneous space located around us. Since the earth will not change the space around us. At the same time, there is a lot of evidence and experiments showing that we can fully see objects located far beyond the horizon. This also applies to the reception of television broadcasts on short waves from other regions hidden behind the curvature of the earth. Antenna-directional antennas, signal geography is confirmed that they are emitted by television towers in the direction the antennas are directed, but the television towers are already hidden hundreds of meters of earth! This paradox can not be explained by amateurs.
In view of all this, one should not simply say that all this is fiction and forgery, since the earth is a ball and this cannot be. I agree with the fact that flat earthlings bent the stick in many ways, but ... in what, they are right. Whoever remembers, I initially said that our land is not a ball, but at the same time it is not a plane. It is oversimplified. Everything is much more complicated. It is both a ball and a plane, it can drive you crazy if you do not understand the laws by which all this happens.
You will not be able to refute second-tier satellite GPS. Which gives three-dimensional positioning on the ground, and in which the satellites communicate with each other. Hatch, Ronald Ray was one of the first to encounter this phenomenon. In order to decide in practice this behavior of space, he had to write algorithms in which the earth is stationary and, most importantly, flat! Chase now with Hatch, Ronald Ray, and try to prove to him that he corrected the algorithms so that they use a spherical earth. I think you lose without even starting.
It was a practical approach to the position that we observe our land. Standing on it and seeing how the endless flat horizon closes on itself. No matter how much you walk, you will always go on a plane. which is a ball! Because satellites fly above us, and we can even see beyond the horizon. For a greater understanding of how this can be - read the Vedas and the Apocrypha. They describe the earth as a plane around which the sun flies. Not above which, but precisely around which — what cannot be, if the earth were such as it is represented by flat earthlings. That's why I say let's understand together and not beat their foreheads ...
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H8UzUS.jpg)
-
You folks are falling for it. The N-Body Problem has nothing, ZERO, to do with this topic and you will find that when Mr. Bishop brings it up elsewhere it has nothing to do with that topic either.
It's his thing. His way of injecting the notion that modern astronomy/astrophysics is a farce. So if the subjects like eclipses, equinoxes, lunar phases, even sunset/sunrises arise, invariably, Mr. Bishop will swoop in and drop the N-Body Problem to derail the entire mix. Don't let it happen.
It is a red herring dangled for you to bite and leads mercilessly nowhere.
I think that’s what happens when one refers to the bible for an insight into cosmology.
-
After all, the light rays passing near the sun are not at all bent! Since the sun does not have a gravity well.
What ever gave you that idea? :o
I spread my wings. I think you need to more carefully study the "scientific" works. All have long been proven that the sun does not bend light from the stars. And all who say the opposite - says nonsense. Since this is already a proven fact that Einstein’s followers simply faked the official results. Fit them under the theory of gravity! To be unsubstantiated, find photographs of a solar eclipse published in the newspapers of that time. The one for which this was done and you yourself will be convinced of the forgery of the results. Which were later published in scientific circles (when they simply erased all the "objectionable" stars from duplicate photos). I congratulate you all who have a double standard. We see and say that it is not so ...
I think it would really help the debate if you stayed on track and stopped distorting the truth. Spreading your wings is fine, misrepresenting the facts is not, but please stay on topic, remember we are debating the infinite plane!
-
Respect - JackBlack and rabinoz. For their integrity and consistency. They explore the topic, and try not just to speak, but give a full explanation. Sometimes they speak from a purely practical side, forcing them to look at the facts differently.
Therefore, such statements Stash
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I went through the whole presentation of experiments. The greatest variance they found with their laser tests (8 in total) was 562 MM from what the WGS-84 states. That's millimeters. Most were in the 2 MM or less. Based upon FECORE's fine work, I would say they corroborated the WGS-84 and therefore a curved planet. Well done.
as you do not even want to read.
I did not speak for nothing about the curvature of light.
I will try to convey my position on the basis of those studies that many researchers have done. Moreover, the topic is just appropriate - about the surface of the earth.
1. Light moves only relative to the space in which it flies.
2. The force of "gravity" does not act on the light, or as it is more correct to speak of mutual attraction in the uniform field of the ether.
3. The photon, once emitted, flies at an ever-increasing speed, and at the same time it reduces its rotation around its axis (which is perceived by the scientific world as a wave). Therefore, with the distance traveled, he slows down his rotation, changes his spectrum and eventually turns into a radio wave.
And now let's remember what radio science is saying. Short waves do not bend the ground. Hence, the light can not bend from any "gravity" - this is proved by experiments with solar eclipses. So, the sun does not have such a well, since the space around it is NOT bent! All this taken together shows that all experiments with any light and radio waves will be unambiguous, light and wave will pass through a homogeneous space located around us. Since the earth will not change the space around us. At the same time, there is a lot of evidence and experiments showing that we can fully see objects located far beyond the horizon. This also applies to the reception of television broadcasts on short waves from other regions hidden behind the curvature of the earth. Antenna-directional antennas, signal geography is confirmed that they are emitted by television towers in the direction the antennas are directed, but the television towers are already hidden hundreds of meters of earth! This paradox can not be explained by amateurs.
In view of all this, one should not simply say that all this is fiction and forgery, since the earth is a ball and this cannot be. I agree with the fact that flat earthlings bent the stick in many ways, but ... in what, they are right. Whoever remembers, I initially said that our land is not a ball, but at the same time it is not a plane. It is oversimplified. Everything is much more complicated. It is both a ball and a plane, it can drive you crazy if you do not understand the laws by which all this happens.
You will not be able to refute second-tier satellite GPS. Which gives three-dimensional positioning on the ground, and in which the satellites communicate with each other. Hatch, Ronald Ray was one of the first to encounter this phenomenon. In order to decide in practice this behavior of space, he had to write algorithms in which the earth is stationary and, most importantly, flat! Chase now with Hatch, Ronald Ray, and try to prove to him that he corrected the algorithms so that they use a spherical earth. I think you lose without even starting.
It was a practical approach to the position that we observe our land. Standing on it and seeing how the endless flat horizon closes on itself. No matter how much you walk, you will always go on a plane. which is a ball! Because satellites fly above us, and we can even see beyond the horizon. For a greater understanding of how this can be - read the Vedas and the Apocrypha. They describe the earth as a plane around which the sun flies. Not above which, but precisely around which — what cannot be, if the earth were such as it is represented by flat earthlings. That's why I say let's understand together and not beat their foreheads ...
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H8UzUS.jpg)
You really are at it again. If you wish to discuss gravity and how it bends light, as observed in many many solar eclipses, please start another thread. This one is to do with the infinite plane.
Please dispense with opinions and stick to the facts.
-
Except for the parts where it says directly and explicitly that the first thing that Newton did when he came up with his theory of gravity was to try and apply it to the planets and solar system, with failing results.
Yes, it failed for the planet Mercury, but in general:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/y0yb5e.png)
(from: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Kepler-s-Three-Laws (https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Kepler-s-Three-Laws)
-
Those are two body problems. Attempting to simulate a three-body situation, such as the Earth-Sun-Moon system fails utterly.
See the following quote from Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems (https://books.google.com/books?id=w-PlAAAAIAAJ&q=%22three+body+problem+cannot%22&dq=%22three+body+problem+cannot%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRxrLe36jjAhXOuVkKHYsRADkQ6AEITDAG) by Professor Robert Rosen (bio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rosen_(theoretical_biologist))):
“ Let us give a very simple example. It is well-known that the three-body problem cannot be solved in closed form, and hence we cannot answer any asymtotic questions regarding such a system (e.g., we cannot tell whether such a system, like the earth-sun-moon system, is stable or not). ”
The above implies that the due to the issues of the three body problem we cannot answer questions such as whether the earth-sun-moon system is stable or not. This suggests that it cannot be simulated.
On p.189 of Neoclassical Physics by theoretical physicist Mark A. Cunningham (bio (https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319106465#aboutAuthors)) we read the following: (https://books.google.com/books?id=ayxgBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT1Yjx56jjAhXukOAKHYs9C90Q6AEIWDAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Classical Mechanics
“ Issac Newton's notable success in providing a theoretical explanation for the motion of planets around the sun was followed quickly by his realization that the gravitational problem involving three bodies was immensely more difficult than the two-body problem. Where the two-body problem, as we have seen in Chapter 2, can be solved exactly, Newton's attempts to provide a concise mathematical description of the earth-sun-moon system were not successful.1 This, of course, is not due to Newton's lack of mathematical skills. Indeed, a series of notable mathematicians all applied their skills to the problem but without success, although it depends somewhat on how one defines success. It is true that no general solutions of the three-body problem have been constructed but the assault on the problem led to powerful new mathematical methods for understanding dynamical systems.2 ”
See the bolded.
Yet again, we find direct statements telling us that the venture of describing or simulating the earth-sun-moon system has been unsuccessful, from the time of Newton up to present. Numerous and notable mathematicians over the years have attempted to simulate the earth-sun-moon system without success, telling us everything that we need to know about the systems of Newton and Copernicus.
-
Those are two body problems. Attempting to simulate a three-body situation, such as the Earth-Sun-Moon system fails utterly.
Then why do simulations of the solar system work so well?
The above implies that the due to the issues of the three body problem we cannot answer questions such as whether the earth-sun-moon system is stable or not. This suggests that it cannot be simulated.
Yet you come on here and claim it is impossible to be held together by gravity.
Thanks for showing your dishonesty.
All it suggests is that it doesn't have a simple solution which is periodic, which means you need to simulate it stepwise and thus to see how it is in the future you need to simulate from now until then, and all that tells you is that it will be stable till then or not.
Even if it shows it is stable, it could then at some point after that become unstable.
It doesn't mean it can't be held together with gravity. It doesn't mean it can't be stable.
“ Issac Newton's notable success in providing a theoretical explanation for the motion of planets around the sun was followed quickly by his realization that the gravitational problem involving three bodies was immensely more difficult than the two-body problem. Where the two-body problem, as we have seen in Chapter 2, can be solved exactly, Newton's attempts to provide a concise mathematical description of the earth-sun-moon system were not successful.1 This, of course, is not due to Newton's lack of mathematical skills. Indeed, a series of notable mathematicians all applied their skills to the problem but without success, although it depends somewhat on how one defines success. It is true that no general solutions of the three-body problem have been constructed but the assault on the problem led to powerful new mathematical methods for understanding dynamical systems.2 ”
See the bolded.
No, you see the bolded.
All he was unable to do was provide a concise mathematical solution.
Stop lying about what it says.
-
No, you see the bolded.
All he was unable to do was provide a concise mathematical solution
Yes, his 'imprecise solution' was that divine influence kept the celestial systems held together.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190408023907/https://books.google.com/books?id=hy48DQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false
" At the beginning of the 18th century, Newton famously wrote that the solar system needed occasional divine intervention (presumably a nudge here and there from the hand of God) in order to remain stable.11 This was interpreted to mean that Newton believed his mathematical model of the solar system—the ''n'' body problem—did not have stable solutions. Thus was the gauntlet laid down, and a proof of the stability of the ''n'' body problem became one of the great mathematical challenges of the age.
11Newton's remarks about divine intervention appear in Query 23 of the 1706 (Latin) edition of ''Opticks'', which became Query 31 of the 1717 (2nd Edition) edition see Quote Q[New] in Appendix E). Similar 'theological' remarks are found in scholia of the 2nd and 3rd editions of ''Principia'', and in at least one of Newton's letters. In a 1715 letter to Caroline, Princess of Wales, Leibniz observed sarcastically that Newton had not only cast the Creator as a clock-maker, and a faulty one, but now as a clock-repairman (see [Klo73], Part XXXIV, pp. 54-55). "
Then why do simulations of the solar system work so well?
See the accompanying article to the Three Body Problem article: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns)
-
Those are two body problems. Attempting to simulate a three-body situation, such as the Earth-Sun-Moon system fails utterly.
Ah right, so you've changed your tune! You now agree that the three body problem is a mathematical problem and not, as your link to that silly article claimed, an impossibility for three masses to be gravitationally bound and stable.
See the following quote from Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems (https://books.google.com/books?id=w-PlAAAAIAAJ&q=%22three+body+problem+cannot%22&dq=%22three+body+problem+cannot%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRxrLe36jjAhXOuVkKHYsRADkQ6AEITDAG) by Professor Robert Rosen (bio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rosen_(theoretical_biologist))):
“ Let us give a very simple example. It is well-known that the three-body problem cannot be solved in closed form, and hence we cannot answer any asymtotic questions regarding such a system (e.g., we cannot tell whether such a system, like the earth-sun-moon system, is stable or not). ”
The above implies that the due to the issues of the three body problem we cannot answer questions such as whether the earth-sun-moon system is stable or not. This suggests that it cannot be simulated.
No no no, it suggests that it can not be calculated. It can be simulated, even I have written gravitational simulators which can model a planetary system.
On p.189 of Neoclassical Physics by theoretical physicist Mark A. Cunningham (bio (https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319106465#aboutAuthors)) we read the following: (https://books.google.com/books?id=ayxgBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT1Yjx56jjAhXukOAKHYs9C90Q6AEIWDAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Classical Mechanics
“ Issac Newton's notable success in providing a theoretical explanation for the motion of planets around the sun was followed quickly by his realization that the gravitational problem involving three bodies was immensely more difficult than the two-body problem. Where the two-body problem, as we have seen in Chapter 2, can be solved exactly, Newton's attempts to provide a concise mathematical description of the earth-sun-moon system were not successful.1 This, of course, is not due to Newton's lack of mathematical skills. Indeed, a series of notable mathematicians all applied their skills to the problem but without success, although it depends somewhat on how one defines success. It is true that no general solutions of the three-body problem have been constructed but the assault on the problem led to powerful new mathematical methods for understanding dynamical systems.2 ”
See the bolded.
Yet again, we find direct statements telling us that the venture of describing or simulating the earth-sun-moon system has been unsuccessful, from the time of Newton up to present. Numerous and notable mathematicians over the years have attempted to simulate the earth-sun-moon system without success, telling us everything that we need to know about the systems of Newton and Copernicus.
Newton didn't have the computers I've got to run simulations. Stop fixating on Newton's lack of success in solving a very difficult mathematical problem.
-
No no no, it suggests that it can not be calculated. It can be simulated, even I have written gravitational simulators which can model a planetary system.
Quite wrong. No one has solved the n-body problems.
Newton didn't have the computers I've got to run simulations. Stop fixating on Newton's lack of success in solving a very difficult mathematical problem.
It says that the mathematicians after him were also unsuccessful.
-
No no no, it suggests that it can not be calculated. It can be simulated, even I have written gravitational simulators which can model a planetary system.
Quite wrong. No one has solved the n-body problems.
Hmmmm, how many more different ways can I say this....it is possible to simulate a two or more body system of masses. Note that word, simulate. Not calculate.
Newton didn't have the computers I've got to run simulations. Stop fixating on Newton's lack of success in solving a very difficult mathematical problem.
It says that the mathematicians after him were also unsuccessful.
Yes, at "calculating" a solution.
-
Quite wrong. No one has solved the n-body problems.
i.e. no one has found a simple solution.
That doesn't mean it is impossible.
That doesn't mean it needs divine intervention.
All it means is that we don't have simple solutions.
Stop acting like the lack of a simple solution means is is impossible.
The simple fact is we can and do simulate n-body problems, just not with simple, periodic solutions.
-
No no no, it suggests that it can not be calculated. It can be simulated, even I have written gravitational simulators which can model a planetary system.
Quite wrong. No one has solved the n-body problems.
Newton didn't have the computers I've got to run simulations. Stop fixating on Newton's lack of success in solving a very difficult mathematical problem.
It says that the mathematicians after him were also unsuccessful.
How does the N-Body Problem address the OP question: The question is what proof is there that we live on an infinite plane?
-
The simple fact is we can and do simulate n-body problems, just not with simple, periodic solutions.
Take a look at the three body problem solutions. They look NOTHING like the systems of Copernicus. They are highly symmetrical, require at least two bodies of equal mass, and fall apart at the slightest touch.
From 'Mathematics Applied to Deterministic Problems in Natural Sciences' we read another account of Poincaré's discoveries:
“ As Poincaré experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial 2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further experimentation was a shock. Poincaré discovered that even in some of the smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together. ”
See this online Three Body Problem simulator that uses the simplest possible figure eight pattern, which requires three identical bodies of equal mass which move at very specific momentum and distance in relation to each other.
Demo: Figure-Eight Three Body Problem
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/6/6c/Three_body_sim.png/525px-Three_body_sim.png) (https://cloud.anylogic.com/model/f1999d97-8de2-4804-9940-5ae261d7ad86?mode=SETTINGS&tab=GENERAL)
Adjust the slider values in the upper left of the simulation to something very slight to find what happens. What you will see is a demonstration of Poincaré's Chaos Theory. Any slight modification to a perfect system creates a chain reaction of random chaos.
This is the issue of modeling the Heliocentric System, and why its fundamental system cannot exist. Only very specific, sensitive, and highly symmetrical configurations may exist. The slightest deviation, such as with a system with unequal masses, or the minute influence from a gravitating body external to the system, will cause the entire system to fly apart.
-
No no no, it suggests that it can not be calculated. It can be simulated, even I have written gravitational simulators which can model a planetary system.
Quite wrong. No one has solved the n-body problems.
Newton didn't have the computers I've got to run simulations. Stop fixating on Newton's lack of success in solving a very difficult mathematical problem.
It says that the mathematicians after him were also unsuccessful.
Who claimed to have "solved the n-body problems"? Not I!
A series type solution has been devised but it is too slowly converging to be useful.
But we do have very high performance computers now that can simulate the n-body problem both forward and backwards.
And these simulations can use either Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation or Einstein's General Relativity.
But why is the lack of and analytic solution any argument against a heliocentric solar system?
-
But we do have very high performance computers now that can simulate the n-body problem both forward and backwards.
Are you talking about these simulations from supercomputers?
Infamous three-body problem has over a thousand new solutions (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2148074-infamous-three-body-problem-has-over-a-thousand-new-solutions)
For more than 300 years, mathematicians have puzzled over the three-body problem – the question of how three objects orbit one another according to Newton’s laws. Now, there are 1223 new solutions to the conundrum, more than doubling the current number of possibilities.
...The new solutions were found when researchers at Shanghai Jiaotong University in China tested 16 million different orbits using a supercomputer.
...Perhaps the most important application of the three-body problem is in astronomy, for helping researchers figure out how three stars, a star with a planet that has a moon, or any other set of three celestial objects can maintain a stable orbit.
But these new orbits rely on conditions that are somewhere between unlikely and impossible for a real system to satisfy. In all of them, for example, two of the three bodies have exactly the same mass and they all remain in the same plane.
Knot-like paths
In addition, the researchers did not test the orbits’ stability. It’s possible that the tiniest disturbance in space or rounding error in the equations could rip the objects away from one another.
“These orbits have nothing to do with astronomy, but you’re solving these equations and you’re getting something beautiful,” says Vanderbei.
...Aside from giving us a thousand pretty pictures of knot-like orbital paths, the new three-body solutions also mark a starting point for finding even more possible orbits, and eventually figuring out the whole range of winding paths that three objects can follow around one another.
...“This is kind of the zeroth step. Then the question becomes, how is the space of all possible positions and velocities filled up by solutions?” says Richard Montgomery at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “These simple orbits are kind of like a skeleton to build the whole system up from.”
As suggested, the field of Celestial Mechanics is still on step zero—the stone age. The found orbits are nothing like heliocentric astronomy and there will be an attempt to use them as a skeleton to "build the whole system up from."
-
Take a look at the three body problem solutions. They look NOTHING like the systems of Copernicus. They are highly symmetrical, require at least two bodies of equal mass, and fall apart at the slightest touch.
Again, no one is talking about a solution.
We are talking about simulations.
Having specific 3 body systems be unstable doesn't mean all are.
Now can you show that the Earth-moon-sun system is unstable?
If not, bringing up the 3 body problem is irrelevant.
-
Take a look at the three body problem solutions. They look NOTHING like the systems of Copernicus. They are highly symmetrical, require at least two bodies of equal mass, and fall apart at the slightest touch.
Again, no one is talking about a solution.
We are talking about simulations.
See above. The Three Body Problem has been simulated in a super computer and the solutions required two of the three bodies to have the same mass and produced crazy loopy knot-like orbits. The results will be used as a "skeleton to build the whole system up from". It is admitted that it's "kind of the zeroth step".
-
But we do have very high performance computers now that can simulate the n-body problem both forward and backwards.
Are you talking about these simulations from supercomputers?
Infamous three-body problem has over a thousand new solutions (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2148074-infamous-three-body-problem-has-over-a-thousand-new-solutions)
For more than 300 years, mathematicians have puzzled over the three-body problem – the question of how three objects orbit one another according to Newton’s laws. Now, there are 1223 new solutions to the conundrum, more than doubling the current number of possibilities.
...The new solutions were found when researchers at Shanghai Jiaotong University in China tested 16 million different orbits using a supercomputer.
...Perhaps the most important application of the three-body problem is in astronomy, for helping researchers figure out how three stars, a star with a planet that has a moon, or any other set of three celestial objects can maintain a stable orbit.
But these new orbits rely on conditions that are somewhere between unlikely and impossible for a real system to satisfy. In all of them, for example, two of the three bodies have exactly the same mass and they all remain in the same plane.
Knot-like paths
In addition, the researchers did not test the orbits’ stability. It’s possible that the tiniest disturbance in space or rounding error in the equations could rip the objects away from one another.
“These orbits have nothing to do with astronomy, but you’re solving these equations and you’re getting something beautiful,” says Vanderbei.
...Aside from giving us a thousand pretty pictures of knot-like orbital paths, the new three-body solutions also mark a starting point for finding even more possible orbits, and eventually figuring out the whole range of winding paths that three objects can follow around one another.
...“This is kind of the zeroth step. Then the question becomes, how is the space of all possible positions and velocities filled up by solutions?” says Richard Montgomery at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “These simple orbits are kind of like a skeleton to build the whole system up from.”
As suggested, the field of Celestial Mechanics is still on step zero—the stone age. The found orbits are nothing like heliocentric astronomy and there will be an attempt to use them as a skeleton to "build the whole system up from."
How does FET solve and/or simulate the N-Body Problem? And what does the N-Body Problem have to do with an infinite plane earth?
-
After all, the light rays passing near the sun are not at all bent! Since the sun does not have a gravity well.
What ever gave you that idea? :o
I spread my wings. I think you need to more carefully study the "scientific" works. All have long been proven that the sun does not bend light from the stars. And all who say the opposite - says nonsense. Since this is already a proven fact that Einstein’s followers simply faked the official results. Fit them under the theory of gravity! To be unsubstantiated, find photographs of a solar eclipse published in the newspapers of that time. The one for which this was done and you yourself will be convinced of the forgery of the results. Which were later published in scientific circles (when they simply erased all the "objectionable" stars from duplicate photos). I congratulate you all who have a double standard. We see and say that it is not so ...
I think it would really help the debate if you stayed on track and stopped distorting the truth. Spreading your wings is fine, misrepresenting the facts is not, but please stay on topic, remember we are debating the infinite plane!
I am a pony, and therefore I have wings and a tail! And spread the wings, it is in the literal sense! As well as the fact that the solar eclipses are directly related to this topic, I have already explained how it is related.
There is no distortion of facts! I see no reason to argue about the reliable fact of forgery of the results of observations. Scientists fear that the sun does not have a gravity well. I spread my hooves. And it makes no sense to start a branch from scratch. This is how to say that the water is wet.
-
See this online Three Body Problem simulator that uses the simplest possible figure eight pattern, which requires three identical bodies of equal mass which move at very specific momentum and distance in relation to each other.
Demo: Figure-Eight Three Body Problem
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/6/6c/Three_body_sim.png/525px-Three_body_sim.png) (https://cloud.anylogic.com/model/f1999d97-8de2-4804-9940-5ae261d7ad86?mode=SETTINGS&tab=GENERAL)
Adjust the slider values in the upper left of the simulation to something very slight to find what happens. What you will see is a demonstration of Poincaré's Chaos Theory. Any slight modification to a perfect system creates a chain reaction of random chaos.
That is nothing like the Heliocentric Solar System where the Sun has a mass of over 99.8% of the whole system!
Throw away toys like that and get a numerical solution with mass ratios somewhere approaching reality and where the initial conditions can be set.
But it might be applied to your Flat Earth Model where the Sun and Moon are of about equal size and the planets are "small".
-
Respect - JackBlack and rabinoz. For their integrity and consistency. They explore the topic, and try not just to speak, but give a full explanation. Sometimes they speak from a purely practical side, forcing them to look at the facts differently.
Therefore, such statements Stash
Who can refute this?
https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/ (https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I went through the whole presentation of experiments. The greatest variance they found with their laser tests (8 in total) was 562 MM from what the WGS-84 states. That's millimeters. Most were in the 2 MM or less. Based upon FECORE's fine work, I would say they corroborated the WGS-84 and therefore a curved planet. Well done.
as you do not even want to read.
I did not speak for nothing about the curvature of light.
I will try to convey my position on the basis of those studies that many researchers have done. Moreover, the topic is just appropriate - about the surface of the earth.
1. Light moves only relative to the space in which it flies.
2. The force of "gravity" does not act on the light, or as it is more correct to speak of mutual attraction in the uniform field of the ether.
3. The photon, once emitted, flies at an ever-increasing speed, and at the same time it reduces its rotation around its axis (which is perceived by the scientific world as a wave). Therefore, with the distance traveled, he slows down his rotation, changes his spectrum and eventually turns into a radio wave.
And now let's remember what radio science is saying. Short waves do not bend the ground. Hence, the light can not bend from any "gravity" - this is proved by experiments with solar eclipses. So, the sun does not have such a well, since the space around it is NOT bent! All this taken together shows that all experiments with any light and radio waves will be unambiguous, light and wave will pass through a homogeneous space located around us. Since the earth will not change the space around us. At the same time, there is a lot of evidence and experiments showing that we can fully see objects located far beyond the horizon. This also applies to the reception of television broadcasts on short waves from other regions hidden behind the curvature of the earth. Antenna-directional antennas, signal geography is confirmed that they are emitted by television towers in the direction the antennas are directed, but the television towers are already hidden hundreds of meters of earth! This paradox can not be explained by amateurs.
In view of all this, one should not simply say that all this is fiction and forgery, since the earth is a ball and this cannot be. I agree with the fact that flat earthlings bent the stick in many ways, but ... in what, they are right. Whoever remembers, I initially said that our land is not a ball, but at the same time it is not a plane. It is oversimplified. Everything is much more complicated. It is both a ball and a plane, it can drive you crazy if you do not understand the laws by which all this happens.
You will not be able to refute second-tier satellite GPS. Which gives three-dimensional positioning on the ground, and in which the satellites communicate with each other. Hatch, Ronald Ray was one of the first to encounter this phenomenon. In order to decide in practice this behavior of space, he had to write algorithms in which the earth is stationary and, most importantly, flat! Chase now with Hatch, Ronald Ray, and try to prove to him that he corrected the algorithms so that they use a spherical earth. I think you lose without even starting.
It was a practical approach to the position that we observe our land. Standing on it and seeing how the endless flat horizon closes on itself. No matter how much you walk, you will always go on a plane. which is a ball! Because satellites fly above us, and we can even see beyond the horizon. For a greater understanding of how this can be - read the Vedas and the Apocrypha. They describe the earth as a plane around which the sun flies. Not above which, but precisely around which — what cannot be, if the earth were such as it is represented by flat earthlings. That's why I say let's understand together and not beat their foreheads ...
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H8UzUS.jpg)
You really are at it again. If you wish to discuss gravity and how it bends light, as observed in many many solar eclipses, please start another thread. This one is to do with the infinite plane.
Please dispense with opinions and stick to the facts.
See Lonegranger - even though I’m the most common weather pegasus, I read everything you write here. And even though you are a man, you cannot even read everything to the end ... Read carefully what I am writing, I'm not going to talk about gravity! This is what you say. I explained how “gravity” is related to our space. People - learn to think not according to a pattern, and there will be peace on earth ...
-
See Lonegranger - even though I’m the most common weather pegasus, I read everything you write here. And even though you are a man, you cannot even read everything to the end ... Read carefully what I am writing, I'm not going to talk about gravity! This is what you say. I explained how “gravity” is related to our space. People - learn to think not according to a pattern, and there will be peace on earth ...
For me, personally, you're totally creeping me out. If you can't directly address the topic, then don't. Keep your wings and weather to yourself unless you can actually add to the OP. Jesus, what's it take around here to get a simple non-fantasmagoric response?
-
See above. The Three Body Problem has been simulated in a super computer and the solutions required two of the three bodies to have the same mass and produced crazy loopy knot-like orbits.
Yes, those SPECIFIC solutions have those requirements.
Finding these solutions doesn't mean no other solutions exist. If it did, they wouldn't have been able to find any more solutions.
Even if they were the only solutions, that doesn't mean every other option is unstable. It just means other options aren't periodic.
So again, do you have any evidence or justification for your claim that all other options are impossible?
-
After all, the light rays passing near the sun are not at all bent! Since the sun does not have a gravity well.
What ever gave you that idea? :o
I spread my wings. I think you need to more carefully study the "scientific" works. All have long been proven that the sun does not bend light from the stars. And all who say the opposite - says nonsense. Since this is already a proven fact that Einstein’s followers simply faked the official results. Fit them under the theory of gravity! To be unsubstantiated, find photographs of a solar eclipse published in the newspapers of that time. The one for which this was done and you yourself will be convinced of the forgery of the results. Which were later published in scientific circles (when they simply erased all the "objectionable" stars from duplicate photos). I congratulate you all who have a double standard. We see and say that it is not so ...
I think it would really help the debate if you stayed on track and stopped distorting the truth. Spreading your wings is fine, misrepresenting the facts is not, but please stay on topic, remember we are debating the infinite plane!
I am a pony, and therefore I have wings and a tail! And spread the wings, it is in the literal sense! As well as the fact that the solar eclipses are directly related to this topic, I have already explained how it is related.
There is no distortion of facts! I see no reason to argue about the reliable fact of forgery of the results of observations. Scientists fear that the sun does not have a gravity well. I spread my hooves. And it makes no sense to start a branch from scratch. This is how to say that the water is wet.
Just as you are not a pony nor have wings, the earth is neither flat nor infinite. I have explained why in this and other threads. You could care to ponder the neutrino problem or why the moon is the way it is when viewed from the northern or Southern Hemispheres which is completely what one would expect from a spherical earth. This is something that can’t be faked. You could ponder both these points next time you go out for a quick canter.
Hi ho silver away!
-
Just as you are not a pony nor have wings, the earth is neither flat nor infinite. I have explained why in this and other threads. You could care to ponder the neutrino problem or why the moon is the way it is when viewed from the northern or Southern Hemispheres which is completely what one would expect from a spherical earth. This is something that can’t be faked. You could ponder both these points next time you go out for a quick canter.
Hi ho silver away!
Here one more there …. Show me kind Lonegranger where I say that the earth flat? And what moon false? You what you have a plot not to read my letters? Or at you, as at bulls on a red rag if there is a word "flat". You at once it will betray inquisitions! Now I very much will upset you with Lonegranger, I also consider the earth the spinning sphere around which satellites fly! About the earth a sphere it is written both to the Bibles and in apocryphal stories, and in the Veda. Here only an ill luck... the earth has no curve in side-altars of the visible horizon, it in practice is flat. What is proved by all observations and experiments, and also about it is again written to the Bibles (do not confuse with that flat earth which is propagandized here. Another means absolutely. It is the boundless plane surrounding our sphere). I ask you Lonegranger from it not to move down from a roof, you are not able to fly.
You say that you explained everything, but alas you even not a jot did not give though any reasonable explanation why in programs of satellites of an echelon two, the flat earth but not a sphere is used! Waved the tail. Learn Lonegranger to read messages, and then be secured. Follow an example with - JackBlack and rabinoz which do attempts everything to inform with a scientific accuracy...
Though you are Lonegranger and began this subject from interest, but is not interesting to you at all as you to everything take a jaundiced view. I will consider that you just troll if you do not read the message completely (I do not know English, I can send in Russian).
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/W62JRe.png)
And yes - I am a pony! Also I have both wings and a tail. And if you do not understand it, then will not understand why the earth being a sphere has no horizon curves. I think that I do not have sense to you any more what to tell as for you this subject the farce.
-
Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.
It sounds like Rab is now trying to work within a restricted 3 body system, ignoring the mass of one or more bodies. While this might have some experimental success in prediction, the patently wrong system of the Aztecs could predict heavenly motions as well. This highlights that man with his greatness for invention can create spurious systems that at first seem to solve the problem at hand, but in the end fail due to their lack of rigor.
Either that or he doesn't realize that it doesn't matter if you have the mass of each body to any degree of accuracy. The problem is not solvable, or at least has not been solved in the general sense.
The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident. More than this, it has held the attention of greats like myself, Rowbotham, Shenton, and Johnson.
The infinite flat earth is one of the strongest gravitational models I know of in regards to a flat earth.
-
Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.
But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.
The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.
Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.
-
Either that or he doesn't realize that it doesn't matter if you have the mass of each body to any degree of accuracy. The problem is not solvable, or at least has not been solved in the general sense.
Nobody has to "solve it"!
All Tom Bishop's simulations show is that for similar mass objects there are unstable orbits and no one doubts that.
But none of the simulations he showed has the mass ratios anything like the Sun, Earth, Moon mass ratio of 333,000:1:0.0123.
In addition, for multi-bodied systems, it is well known that the orbits are extremely sensitive to the initial conditions so Tom Bishop's simulations prove nothing.
The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident. More than this, it has held the attention of greats like myself, Rowbotham, Shenton, and Johnson.
The structure of the infinite flat earth might be stable.
But, in the infinite flat earth model, what hold the celestial objects above the earth and keeps them stable on their orbits?
The infinite flat earth is one of the strongest gravitational models I know of in regards to a flat earth.
Yes, it certainly is because it simply uses Newtonian Gravitation.
-
Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.
But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.
The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.
Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.
Not to mention the gravitational pull of an infinite mass on every other object in the Universe and its effects on the fabric of space-time.
-
It's very weird to say "we can't solve the maths for how this works, so therefore it can't actually work in real life.... even though we can see it working"
-
Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.
But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.
The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.
Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.
What? Space can't expand at increasing rates like it does in RE? :D
And tell me. What would the curvature of an infinite sphere be?
-
Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.
But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.
The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.
Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.
Not to mention the gravitational pull of an infinite mass on every other object in the Universe and its effects on the fabric of space-time.
What exactly do you think would happen to every other object in the Universe and the "Fabric of Space-Time"?
-
It's very weird to say "we can't solve the maths for how this works, so therefore it can't actually work in real life.... even though we can see it working"
Has this been said? On the other hand its odder to say "We believe this theory is accurate, in spite of being unable to define it." As far as it being what we "see", I have to disagree. Its but one interpretation of what we see.
-
Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.
But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.
The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.
Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.
Not to mention the gravitational pull of an infinite mass on every other object in the Universe and its effects on the fabric of space-time.
What exactly do you think would happen to every other object in the Universe and the "Fabric of Space-Time"?
Have you ever divided by zero?
-
Gravity would be absolutely constant regardless of distance.
-
Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.
But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.
The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.
Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.
Not to mention the gravitational pull of an infinite mass on every other object in the Universe and its effects on the fabric of space-time.
What exactly do you think would happen to every other object in the Universe and the "Fabric of Space-Time"?
Have you ever divided by zero?
Of course I have. Last time I did it I tried 1/0 and got ∞ using a riemann sphere. Another time I using IEEE floats I tried 10/0 and got ∞ and for 0/0 I got that it wasn't a number. In fact, to find the slope of a tangent to a point on an arbitrary curve, I can divide by zero.
Luckily for us, every other object in the universe didn't explode. Why do you think division by zero is relevant?
I suspect some high school teacher or uni professor is to blame here. Of course, they also think the earth is round, so its hard to fault them and their cute little religion.
-
What? Space can't expand at increasing rates like it does in RE? :D
And be incredibly unstable.
If an object is at just the right height to remain in place, what happens if it gets any closer or any further?
Well if it gets closer then the expansion is no longer sufficient and thus it gets closer and closer and closer until it eventually collides with Earth.
If it is any further then the expansion is more than sufficient and thus it gets further and further and further until it disappears.
And tell me. What would the curvature of an infinite sphere be?
1/infinity?
Where would the surface of such a sphere be?
Would would be the acceleration due to gravity on such a sphere?
It's very weird to say "we can't solve the maths for how this works, so therefore it can't actually work in real life.... even though we can see it working"
Has this been said?
Yes, repeatedly.
That has been Tom's main argument.
He is claiming that because we can't have a nice simple solution to the three body problem, that means that the Earth-Moon-Sun system is unstable and needs a god to hold it together.
See these quotes from Tom:
According to Issac Newton the picture posted of a planetoid Earth and Moon lit by the Sun is only possible if God was holding the Sun-Earth-Moon system together, as it cannot stay together with the laws of gravity.
This is the issue of modeling the Heliocentric System, and why its fundamental system cannot exist. Only very specific, sensitive, and highly symmetrical configurations may exist. The slightest deviation, such as with a system with unequal masses, or the minute influence from a gravitating body external to the system, will cause the entire system to fly apart.
There are also plenty more instances where he implies it while avoiding saying it directly.
-
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.
What? Space can't expand at increasing rates like it does in RE? :D
Why not? Of course you can assume that space can "expand at increasing rates like it does in RE".
The Heliocentric Solar System (presumably what you call RE) does not have space expanding at all.
Even if you insist on dragging modern Cosmology into the mix you should first check just how fast space is hypothesised to expand.
How fast is the universe expanding? (https://m.phys.org/news/2015-02-fast-universe.html)
When astronomers talk about the expansion of the Universe, they usually express it in terms of the Hubble parameter. . . . . . The best measurements for this parameter gives a value of about 68 km/s per megaparsec.
Though later values might be 71 km/s per megaparsec (a megaparsec is about 3.3 million light years).
So if my sums are right space might be expanding at the rate of 0.0378 mm/sec between your flat earth and the sun, 5000 km above.
Do you seriously suggest that this might be "something holding it all up" ::)?
But there's a fly in the ointment!
Modern Cosmology asserts that gravitationally bound object are not "dragged apart" by the "expansion of the Universe". Andromeda, for example, is moving towards our galaxy.Is Everything in the Universe Expanding? (https://www.universetoday.com/107142/is-everything-in-the-universe-expanding/)
The Universe is expanding. Distant galaxies are moving away from us in all directions. It’s natural to wonder, is everything expanding? Is the Milky Way expanding? What about the Solar System, or even objects here on Earth.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Andromeda Galaxy is actually moving towards the Milky Way, and will collide with us in about 4 billion years.In this case, the pull of gravity between the Milky Way and Andromeda is so strong that it overcomes the expansion of the Universe on a local level.
Within the Milky Way, gravity holds the stars together, and same with the Solar System. The nuclear force holding atoms together is stronger than this expansion at a local scale.
More in: Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model". (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81669.msg2174620;topicseen#msg2174620)
So if "gravity between the Milky Way and Andromeda is so strong that it overcomes the expansion of the Universe" your sun doesn't stand a chance!
-
Even if you insist on dragging modern Cosmology into the mix you should first check just how fast space is hypothesised to expand.
It still has expanding space, the difference is the magnitude.
The Heliocentric Solar System (presumably what you call RE) does not have space expanding at all.
Modern Cosmology asserts that gravitationally bound object are not "dragged apart" by the "expansion of the Universe".
Space is still expanding, however the gravitational attraction (or other forces) between the objects overcomes that expansion, holding it together or causing it to collapse. Kind of like how tidal forces should destroy objects within the roche limit, but electrostatics can hold it together. That doesn't mean it doesn't experience tidal forces.
However one of the speculated end of the universe options is the big rip, where the ever increasing expansion of space eventually starts apart smaller and smaller objects until it eventually overcomes gravity even at the small scale of a planetary system/planet, the electrostatic force holding most materials together and even atoms together, the nuclear force holding atoms together and potentially even the strong force holding quarks together in nucleons.