This video is probably faked.Why would anyone bother to fake a video that proved nothing about the shape of the earth.
Hollywood produces thousands of these every year. Ever heard of studios like ILM?So? Is that any evidence that ILM Studios did produce that video?
So no takers on the time zone issue huh. Thats a tough one to explain
Photographic evidence is not valid evidence.
Time zones are explained by Shenton via the spotlight sun.
Also certain activities of scientists make this hard; its is a well known practice to sometimes exclude data that disagrees with your premise, or to use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result. Einstein and Newton both come to mind, let alone the studies that show this is common practice.You often make unsupported claims like this.
RE have repeatedly measured it over many years to be 238,855 miles away using lasers and radar.No, they have measured it over many years and found it to vary significantly, by roughly 50 000 km if I recall correctly.
we can never be sure that we have attained the correct law.I find it is almost always an approximation or simplification.
Also certain activities of scientists make this hard; its is a well known practice to sometimes exclude data that disagrees with your premise, or to use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result. Einstein and Newton both come to mind, let alone the studies that show this is common practice.You often make unsupported claims like this.
Would you please give examples with reliable references where "Einstein and Newton" made "use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result"?
Yes, both explanations seem to work within their domain.
In my experience, the raw data is seldom if ever published in journals and handbooks. As long as I can reproduce the data, I'm fine with it being considered "evidence." ...
I doubt there is any method to this madness folks call science. Define it for me such that it doesn't exclude legitimate progress that would never have been made but did via science that does not fit said method and I'll gladly concede this point.Yes, both explanations seem to work within their domain.
In my experience, the raw data is seldom if ever published in journals and handbooks. As long as I can reproduce the data, I'm fine with it being considered "evidence." ...
Oh so like if two different people follow a set procedure using a method, they should get the same results?
And it is well known that so-called "well-known facts" often turn out to not be quite so factual.Also certain activities of scientists make this hard; its is a well known practice to sometimes exclude data that disagrees with your premise, or to use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result. Einstein and Newton both come to mind, let alone the studies that show this is common practice.You often make unsupported claims like this.
Would you please give examples with reliable references where "Einstein and Newton" made "use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result"?
These are well known facts. One related by a biographer of Newton, Richard Westfall, who said some of his work is "nothing short of deliberate fraud" and that "no one can manipulate the fudge factor quite so effectively as the master mathematician himself"
) and the other by Einstien himself who said "So much the worse for the experiment" (https://books.google.com/books?id=EIruic7_Ph8C&pg=PT203&lpg=PT203&dq=%22so+much+the+worse+for+the+experiment%22+einstein&source=bl&ots=EsZLJ0noev&sig=ACfU3U3HbPfN2UoJ5qy9JPCPLkn6tyiVsw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfgYTbx_XnAhW4JzQIHV0eDkIQ6AEwAnoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22so%20much%20the%20worse%20for%20the%20experiment%22%20einstein&f=false)
Sir Isaac Newton: . . . . . . . (https://www.csmonitor.com/1987/0717/znewt.html)And on the speed of sound Newton was wrong because at the time the difference between isothermal and adiabatic expansion was not known.
But sometimes the precision reached is far higher than the original data justify. In the case of Newton's manipulations to make his calculation of the speed of sound agree with the measured speed, Professor Westfall accuses the master of ``nothing short of deliberate fraud.''
As Westfall explains, ``Newton consolidated and confirmed the quantitative character of modern science.'' But, he adds: ``Successful polemics [arguments] are the necessary condition of every intellectual revolution. ... Newton comprehended perfectly the nature of the polemic he deployed.'' Thus, in Westfall's judgment, among the reasons for the success of the ``Principia'' was ``the fudge factor, manipulated with unparalleled skill by the unsmiling Newton.''
To keep this in perspective, Westfall notes that, in spite of Newton's peccadilloes, publication of the ``Principia'' was ``one of the major events of Western history.'' Indeed, Newton's work transcended science to permeate Western thought in general.
Flat Earth Believers / Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory « Message by sandokhan » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg972186;topicseen#msg972186)
GRAVITY IS CAUSED BY THE NEGATIVE COMPONENT OF PRAKRITI, THE TERRESTRIAL RADIATION, ALSO KNOWN AS INERTIA, AND BY THE CONSTANT PRESSURE OF THE VAYU PARTICLES EMITTED BY NIBIRU/TIAMAT.
ANY AND ALL RADIATION TRAVELS THROUGH VAYU, WHICH MAKES UP THE FOUR KINDS/DENSITIES OF AETHER:
http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image003.jpg
E1 = VAYU / memory/imagination
E2 = TEJAS/PRANA / senses
E3 = APAS / reproduction
E4 = PRAKRITI / metabolism
The positive component of Prakriti is called Assimilation, the process whereby the different nutritive elements of food are incorporated into the body of plant, animal and man.
N. Tesla used Prakriti to send his electrical currents above the flat earth, and also to cause artificial earthquakes.
The human body functions on three levels called octaves: THE OCTAVE OF IMPRESSIONS/THE DIVINE OCTAVE (we receive ojas/ABL+- , prana and generative force through the pineal gland, which IS NOT the third eye of the occultists; the third eye is actually the thalamus gland), THE OCTAVE OF BREATH, and THE OCTAVE OF FOOD.
. . . . . . .
W. Reich, in addition to discovering the biggest secret of the nuclear industry (namely, that there is no nuclear industry to begin with, the nuclear reactors are nothing more than aether accumulators), found that the negative component of Prakriti, inertia, also causes the storms in the atmosphere and causes corrosion/decay.
All major discoveries of the 20th Century in quantum mechanics (quark/antimatter/superstring theory), were copied from the most formidable book ever published on this subject:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/pdfindex.htm
http://www.innerpath.com.au/besant/1Occult%20Chemistry.htm
On the fundamental discoveries from Occult Chemistry:
http://www.esotericscience.org/article5a.htm
www.iiyp.org/The_Amazing_Phenomenon.doc
<< etc, etc >>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FARCE OF MODERN PHYSICS: http://davidpratt.info/farce.htm (http://davidpratt.info/farce.htm)
OCCULT CHEMISTRY, the work copied by Dirac, Gell-Mann, Higgs and many others: http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/pdfindex.htm (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/pdfindex.htm)
As for the lizard thread, all of you now know exactly what is going on: the reptilian bloodline descendants are the ones who invented the round earth theory, who falsified the entire history prior to 1825 ad, and who currently run Nasa.
Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual. You asked for the 'well knowness' of my facts. I gave them. Next time ask a better question.Is it fair to call it "deliberate fraud" when he simply hypothesised explanations to explain his theory differing from observations.
Yes, we agree Newton committed deliberate fraud.
Did you have any other points to make?Yes.
I'm simply quoting his biography. Is it fair? Perhaps. I think it is. It's really not for me to judge.Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual. You asked for the 'well knowness' of my facts. I gave them. Next time ask a better question.Is it fair to call it "deliberate fraud" when he simply hypothesised explanations to explain his theory differing from observations.
Yes, we agree Newton committed deliberate fraud.
But this is exactly what flat Earthers do today to explain things that do not fit their model.
Just take a look at Tom Bishop's Electromagnetic Acceleration (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration) where he postulates "bendy light" to ecplains sunrises, sunsets etc.Quote from: John DavisDid you have any other points to make?Yes.
First, remember that Isaac Newton lived in a time when alchemy and the occult were widely accepted and to just him by modern standards is being a little harsh.
But none of this detracts from the proven accuracy of his Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.
Then scientists of today have discarded the ideas of alchemy and the occult.
It does, however, seem that the most knowledgable flat Earth Scientist among us still bases some of his theories (including gravitation) on the occult.
Nobody is banging on about alchemy and the occult but you.So you didn't even to bother reading who I was writing about.
markjo, read this thread again: the RE want an A-10 gravimeter.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were published several years before physicists even suspected that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discovering the neutron in 1932, twenty-four years after the first edition of Occult Chemistry appeared. No normal or alternative paranormal explanation of the correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old observations of subatomic particles appears to exist other than that Besant and Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf)
. . . . .
So, if we could describe a microscopic standing wave pattern that appeared particle-like and incorporated a vortex within its structure, we might have the basis for a theory that could unite all the current variants in modern physics. Figure 1 appears to meet these criteria – it is a drawing of a subatomic particle reproduced from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, which was first published in 1909, although a similar diagram was published in a journal in 1895. Leadbeater explains that each subatomic particle is composed of ten loops which circulate energy from higher dimensions. Back in 1895, he knew that physical matter was composed from "strings" – 10 years before Einstein's theory of relativity and 80 years before string theory.
(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a1-Subatomic-Particle.jpg)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 7 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom (in the 1:3 gaseous phase) and its decomposition through four etheric phases:
•The 1:4-molecules are baryons.
•The large 1:5-molecules are unstable mesons.
•The small 1:5-molecules and the 1:6-phase molecules are quarks.
•The 1:7-atoms (or 1-atoms) are preons.
Leadbeater did not state what the membranes surrounding the molecular structures are composed of, but they are probably 2-atoms or 3-atoms.
(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a7-Baryon-Meson-Quark-Preon.jpg)
Figures 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are extracted from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. The book depicts the subatomic structure of every element in the periodic table from Hydrogen to Uranium, including various isotopes (atoms with the same atomic number but different mass numbers). Leadbeater knew that isotopes existed in 1907 – five years before conventional science discovered them.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual.
Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual. You asked for the 'well knowness' of my facts. I gave them. Next time ask a better question.Is it fair to call it "deliberate fraud" when he simply hypothesised explanations to explain his theory differing from observations.
Yes, we agree Newton committed deliberate fraud.
But this is exactly what flat Earthers do today to explain things that do not fit their model.
Just take a look at Tom Bishop's Electromagnetic Acceleration (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration) where he postulates "bendy light" to ecplains sunrises, sunsets etc.Quote from: John DavisDid you have any other points to make?Yes.
First, remember that Isaac Newton lived in a time when alchemy and the occult were widely accepted and to just him by modern standards is being a little harsh.
But none of this detracts from the proven accuracy of his Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.
Then scientists of today have discarded the ideas of alchemy and the occult.You admit Newton did this, want us to accept his science (us depending strictly on your ability to judge what is correct and incorrect), yet decry others who do?
It does, however, seem that the most knowledgable flat Earth Scientist among us still bases some of his theories (including gravitation) on the occult.
Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?
They have, numerous times.Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?Did you have any other points to make?Yes.
First, remember that Isaac Newton lived in a time when alchemy and the occult were widely accepted and to just him by modern standards is being a little harsh.
But none of this detracts from the proven accuracy of his Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.
Not odd at all because:Then scientists of today have discarded the ideas of alchemy and the occult.You admit Newton did this, want us to accept his science (us depending strictly on your ability to judge what is correct and incorrect), yet decry others who do?
It does, however, seem that the most knowledgable flat Earth Scientist among us still bases some of his theories (including gravitation) on the occult.
Seems rather odd...
Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual. You asked for the 'well knowness' of my facts. I gave them. Next time ask a better question.Is it fair to call it "deliberate fraud" when he simply hypothesised explanations to explain his theory differing from observations.
Yes, we agree Newton committed deliberate fraud.
But this is exactly what flat Earthers do today to explain things that do not fit their model.
Just take a look at Tom Bishop's Electromagnetic Acceleration (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration) where he postulates "bendy light" to ecplains sunrises, sunsets etc.Quote from: John DavisDid you have any other points to make?Yes.
First, remember that Isaac Newton lived in a time when alchemy and the occult were widely accepted and to just him by modern standards is being a little harsh.
But none of this detracts from the proven accuracy of his Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.Then scientists of today have discarded the ideas of alchemy and the occult.You admit Newton did this, want us to accept his science (us depending strictly on your ability to judge what is correct and incorrect), yet decry others who do?
It does, however, seem that the most knowledgable flat Earth Scientist among us still bases some of his theories (including gravitation) on the occult.
Seems rather odd...
Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?
Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.
Now I’m not a great reader of the bible...That, among other things...but, I will try not to nitpick...
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;Hey, not fair...I just wrote I will not nitpick...
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Flat earthers like yourself love to nit pick away...
...at the tiniest discrepancies in conventional theory while ignoring the gaping holes all over your own ill thought out random individual ideas.Like what?
The more one looks into flat earth belief what becomes very clear is that rather than there being one overarching concept every flat earther appears to have their own version. The bottom line is you flat earthers can’t even agree among yourself. Ask them a simple question, like the one I asked John Davis,on how far the moon is from earth and how big is it and all you will get is evasion. The funny thing is he like others don’t even agree with what they have on the flat earth wiki, as it’s not their own flat earth wiki! The real question you should be asking is what the hell do flat earth believers believe?You just like to fall in lock step...nothing wrong with that boring, dull life...have at it.
Ps.
This is the reason why flat earthers love to nit pick away at conventional science as they haven’t a clue about what they actually believe and why they believe it and are too scared to actually spend time scrutinising their own beliefs.
Nobody, but YOU, mentioned "the one Hamzah uses in his icon" so it is disingenuous in the extreme to go on and on about that!Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?
Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.
Unfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.Stop accusing others of what you wrote! You said "the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus" and nobody else!
So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.
Why don't we have one using Newton's laws?There are numerous such simulations ranging from ones that you can run on your home computer to high precision ones needing extremely fast computers to get the speed and precision necessary.
Because, according to you, even the ones we do have (not to scale) are just fine...even though not valid science...according to Newton...
You are so in love with hocus pocus, abracadabra, and allahkazaam...LOL!!!You do so love to build your straw-men than burn them down - unfortunately for you, it proves nothing, is useless and dishonest!
And you guys have the nerve to call Sandokhan an alchemist...That's right, because he bases much of his current theories on occult chemistry, etc and even writes this sort of thing:
Really? ::) ::) ::)"reptilian bloodline descendants who currently run NASA" ::) ::) ::)There is a reptilian blood line.As for the lizard thread, all of you now know exactly what is going on: the reptilian bloodline descendants are the ones who invented the round earth theory, who falsified the entire history prior to 1825 AD, and who currently run NASA.
This is not open source but is intended for somewhat more serious applications.But that is just one that runs on a PC, not a professional one that astronomers and those working on orbital mechanics might use for there final planning.
Though it would hardly be up to the standard needed by those working on predicting planetary positions for space missions, etc:QuoteAstroGrav Astronomy Software (http://www.astrograv.co.uk)
AstroGrav for Windows and Mac is a full-featured, high precision solar system simulator that calculates the gravitational interactions between all astronomical bodies, so that the motions of asteroids and comets are simulated much more accurately than with planetarium applications. The effects of general relativity and radiation pressure can be taken into account, and superb interactive 3D viewing allows you to easily rotate and zoom your view while the solar system evolves.
Multi-Purpose
Because it calculates the motions of bodies from their gravitational interactions, AstroGrav is not restricted to just the solar system. Any situation in which gravity is the only significant force can be simulated, and the illustrative sample files that are included with AstroGrav include many examples. Systems that can be simulated include:
- Exoplanet systems
- Protoplanets that evolve into planetary systems
- Rubble piles and their interactions with massive bodies
- Complex star systems, including colliding globular clusters
- Projectiles and bouncing balls
No it's not.Nobody, but YOU, mentioned "the one Hamzah uses in his icon" so it is disingenuous in the extreme to go on and on about that!Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?
Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.
Are we to take it you subscribe to the idea the model above is legit?Quote from: totallackeyUnfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.Stop accusing others of what you wrote! You said "the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus" and nobody else!
So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.
No there isn't.Quote from: totallackeyWhy don't we have one using Newton's laws?There are numerous such simulations ranging from ones that you can run on your home computer to high precision ones needing extremely fast computers to get the speed and precision necessary.
Because, according to you, even the ones we do have (not to scale) are just fine...even though not valid science...according to Newton...
Bogus.Quote from: totallackeyYou are so in love with hocus pocus, abracadabra, and allahkazaam...LOL!!!You do so love to build your straw-men than burn them down - unfortunately for you, it proves nothing, is useless and dishonest!Quote from: totallackeyAnd you guys have the nerve to call Sandokhan an alchemist...That's right, because he bases much of his current theories on occult chemistry, etc and even writes this sort of thing:Really? ::) ::) ::)"reptilian bloodline descendants who currently run NASA" ::) ::) ::)There is a reptilian blood line.As for the lizard thread, all of you now know exactly what is going on: the reptilian bloodline descendants are the ones who invented the round earth theory, who falsified the entire history prior to 1825 AD, and who currently run NASA.
Why did you totally ignore Explain this to me......... « Reply #42 on: Today at 08:27:55 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84934.msg2238474#msg2238474)?
Here is a "high precision solar system simulator that calculates the gravitational interactions between all astronomical bodies":This is not open source but is intended for somewhat more serious applications.But that is just one that runs on a PC, not a professional one that astronomers and those working on orbital mechanics might use for there final planning.
Though it would hardly be up to the standard needed by those working on predicting planetary positions for space missions, etc:QuoteAstroGrav Astronomy Software (http://www.astrograv.co.uk)
AstroGrav for Windows and Mac is a full-featured, high precision solar system simulator that calculates the gravitational interactions between all astronomical bodies, so that the motions of asteroids and comets are simulated much more accurately than with planetarium applications. The effects of general relativity and radiation pressure can be taken into account, and superb interactive 3D viewing allows you to easily rotate and zoom your view while the solar system evolves.
Multi-Purpose
Because it calculates the motions of bodies from their gravitational interactions, AstroGrav is not restricted to just the solar system. Any situation in which gravity is the only significant force can be simulated, and the illustrative sample files that are included with AstroGrav include many examples. Systems that can be simulated include:
- Exoplanet systems
- Protoplanets that evolve into planetary systems
- Rubble piles and their interactions with massive bodies
- Complex star systems, including colliding globular clusters
- Projectiles and bouncing balls
No one in this thread claimed that the depiction in Hamzah's signature was a simulation based on Newton's Laws!No it's not.Nobody, but YOU, mentioned "the one Hamzah uses in his icon" so it is disingenuous in the extreme to go on and on about that!Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?
Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.
Here, let me post it here for you...
(https://image.ibb.co/d8otAT/ezgif_com_resize_2.gif)Are we to take it you subscribe to the idea the model above is legit?Quote from: totallackeyUnfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.Stop accusing others of what you wrote! You said "the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus" and nobody else!
So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.
No, you haven't.No one in this thread claimed that the depiction in Hamzah's signature was a simulation based on Newton's Laws!No it's not.Nobody, but YOU, mentioned "the one Hamzah uses in his icon" so it is disingenuous in the extreme to go on and on about that!Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?
Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.
Here, let me post it here for you...
(https://image.ibb.co/d8otAT/ezgif_com_resize_2.gif)Are we to take it you subscribe to the idea the model above is legit?Quote from: totallackeyUnfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.Stop accusing others of what you wrote! You said "the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus" and nobody else!
So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.
I have given you a couple of examples of those that do.
Post a link to one that will render a Solar System in motion.
Ok, no it's not...QuotePost a link to one that will render a Solar System in motion.
OK here's one...
https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem
Does that show the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?
That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...
Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?
Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.
Unfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.
So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.
Why don't we have one using Newton's laws?
Because, according to you, even the ones we do have (not to scale) are just fine...even though not valid science...according to Newton...
You are so in love with hocus pocus, abracadabra, and allahkazaam...LOL!!!
And you guys have the nerve to call Sandokhan an alchemist...
Please note Hamzah’s avatar is from a debunked video/model.Please post a non-debunked one.
What is the angle between the north celestial pole and the north galactic pole? I will give you a clue, the north galactic pole is in the constellation of Coma Berenices. What does that tell you about the actual motion of the planets in relation to the galactic plane? The Sun orbits the Galaxy every 230 million years or so.Who cares?
If it doesn't show the sun in motion, then it does not show the full motion of the planets.QuoteDoes that show the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?
It certainly show the planets in motion around the Sun. No doubt about that!
If you want a link that backs up what is shown in the animation previous posted, here is one...Who cares?
https://www.space.com/3801-solar-system-sails-sideways-milky.html
It says it doesn't when it doesn't say it does.QuoteThat model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...
Where does it say it doesn't?
Now setting aside for the moment whose 'laws' the planets are or are not 'obeying' , you show me some links which evidence that none of this is true.Stop the spam...
I’m referring to this.Please note Hamzah’s avatar is from a debunked video/model.Please post a non-debunked one.
One that shows the solar system traipsing about the galaxy...
One that uses Newton's laws and universal gravitation and Kepler and Einstein...you know?
The "all-sciency" one...
LOL!!!
Celestia doesn't show the solar system in motion.I’m referring to this.Please note Hamzah’s avatar is from a debunked video/model.Please post a non-debunked one.
One that shows the solar system traipsing about the galaxy...
One that uses Newton's laws and universal gravitation and Kepler and Einstein...you know?
The "all-sciency" one...
LOL!!!
https://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/
celestia is a good working model.
Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.Just because one that you have seen doesn't mean we don't have any that do.
Unfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.
So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.
Why don't we have one using Newton's laws?
Doesn't depict the Solar System in motion.Did you even bother reading what it says?
Doesn't use the math of Newton, or GR, or even Keplar.
It says it doesn't when it doesn't say it does.QuoteThat model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...Where does it say it doesn't?
There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.Ok, no it's not...QuotePost a link to one that will render a Solar System in motion.OK here's one...
https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem
Does that show the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?
No...it doesn't.
Try again...
That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...
Try again...How do you know that The Sky 3D Solar System Simulator (https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem) doesn't use "use math by Newton"? Have you examined the code?
That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...
Building jsOrrery, a Javascript / WebGL Solar System (http://lab.la-grange.ca/en/building-jsorrery-a-javascript-webgl-solar-system)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Velocity
The goal of the project was to simulate the Solar System by calculating the gravitational forces, so the results given by the orbital elements were just the original state of the system at the start of simulation. Now that I had the right positions for the planets, I had to find what their velocities were at that position. The gravitational forces constantly influence the velocity vector of each planet, which makes them have a curved trajectory instead of going straight, so in order to start an animation, I had to know what was the velocity vector to act upon.
My first instinct was to calculate velocity by differentiating positions at different times. After all, velocity is exactly that : the difference between the positions of an object at the start and end of a time interval. If the calculations of orbital elements gave an accurate position, there is no reason why I couldnt get an accurate difference between two positions, even with a small time increment. I figured that a single one second interval would get me a reasonably accurate velocity reading, no need to perform a complex integration. One second at that scale is small enough to be considered instantaneous.
The result was satisfactory, except for one thing. In my Solar Sytem, I included the orbit of Halley's comet. As you may know, its orbit is in the shape of an elongated ellipse: it is highly eccentric. Eccentricity is the parameter that describes the shape of the orbit, with 0 being circular and augmenting towards 1 for flatter ellipses. One of the effects of having an eccentric orbit is that the calculations of the orbital elements become less accurate. It's not a big problem when you want an approximate position, but velocities cannot be inferred from inacurrate positions. So Halley's comet wasn't giving a damn about its trajectory, getting the hell out away in the universe.
Fortunately, there is a principle of physics that was on my side, and permits the calculation of the speed of an orbiting body from its position only : the vis-viva equation. But speed is a scalar, whereas velocity is a vector, so with vis-viva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation) I had the length of the velocity, not its orientation. Further calculations were needed to get the orientation as well, and I ended up with a pretty good system for calculating all the initial parameters to launch the simulation.
Going 3d
Up to that point, I had displayed the simulation only in 2d, with the canvas through Create.js. Doing it 2d was my original intention when starting the project. I did not want a complex visualisation, just the basics to observe the orbits. Due to the nature of the calculations of the orbital elements, I did not have the choice but to use 3d vectors to compute the positions. I chose to use Three.js's Vector3 for the calculations, as I did not want to reinvent the wheel, but did not think further than that. I did my calculations and used the x and y component to display the system from above, occasionally switching to x and z to see it from the side. I was so absorbed in getting the numbers right that it did not even occur to me that I could do better with the visualisation.
Then one day, like a friggin genius, I realized that I had everything I need to display the simulation in 3d. I had all the numbers in 3d, why not use the 3 components all at once? Instead of creating the scene in Create.js, I'd just create the scene in Three, add a camera and some lightning, and voilà! You can't imagine how the geek in me was thrilled when, in 2 hours, he passed from having no idea that he was going to do his visualisation in 3d to having it before his eyes. All the work was already done, and I hadn't realized it. I mean, I could see the Solar System in my browser in 3d, what's not exciting about that? I almost had tears of joy in my eyes.
<< And much more >>
If you actually care to do just about 30 seconds of research, you would see that model is Newtonian/Kelparian. Just click on the 'about' link.
I didn't object to models using Newton's laws (or more accurate versions).Youi can't object to something that doesn't exist.
I objected to the to-scale part, as it wouldn't let you see anything.Look above...you see something that is not to scale, but shows movement.
If you tried to put a to-scale model of the solar system, just out to Neptune, on a 4K screen, the sun would be less than a pixel.Never asked for a scale model...stop strawmanning.
If you had a to-scale model like that, you wouldn't see anything.
You know this.
Yet you keep complaining.
Math is math.Doesn't depict the Solar System in motion.Did you even bother reading what it says?
Doesn't use the math of Newton, or GR, or even Keplar.
It seems now you are just in pathetic denial mode where even if something indicates it does use gravity, you will just dismiss it as not using it.
I demand that these so-called "scientists" (if they're that good) provide me with an animated CGI model of the solar system that not only is to scale, but is 1:1 on a distance scale AND doesn't have that speeded up nonsense that fools everyone and must RUN IN REAL TIME. If they can't, they're clearly incapable and incompetent and are just lying.You are lying.
You provide the fact the model even depicts a solar system traipsing about the galaxy and then come back and write some more...It says it doesn't when it doesn't say it does.QuoteThat model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...Where does it say it doesn't?
If you actually care to do just about 30 seconds of research, you would see that model is Newtonian/Kelparian. Just click on the 'about' link.
The ephemeris provided by this site (which include coordinates, distances from Earth and Sun, estimated magnitude and, for comets, time to perihelion) are obtained from the JPL Horizons service.
Then go check out the JPL Horizons service, it's all there in the documentation.
So when you make a claim "That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein..." please try and back it up with some facts. A step you often skip over.
There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...
Why would anyone want an accurate simulation "that shows the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?"
Funny...
If you want one, YOU get the code for an "open-source" planetary motion simulator and modify it to allow for the Solar System's motion around the supermassive black hole, SagA*.Quote from: totallackeyTry again...How do you know that The Sky 3D Solar System Simulator (https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem) doesn't use "use math by Newton"? Have you examined the code?
That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...
But it wouldn't use and "math by Kepler" because Kepler's laws only apply to a two-body system.
I doubt that a freebie like that would use Einstein's GR because on the screen you could never tell the difference between using Newton's Laws and GR.
But here is an "open-source" simulator for you:
A brief introduction: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator, introduction (https://open.nasa.gov/data-stories/solar-system-simulator/)
An example of jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator (http://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/)
And a brief description of how it works:Quote from: Martin VézinaBuilding jsOrrery, a Javascript / WebGL Solar System (http://lab.la-grange.ca/en/building-jsorrery-a-javascript-webgl-solar-system)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Velocity
The goal of the project was to simulate the Solar System by calculating the gravitational forces, so the results given by the orbital elements were just the original state of the system at the start of simulation. Now that I had the right positions for the planets, I had to find what their velocities were at that position. The gravitational forces constantly influence the velocity vector of each planet, which makes them have a curved trajectory instead of going straight, so in order to start an animation, I had to know what was the velocity vector to act upon.
My first instinct was to calculate velocity by differentiating positions at different times. After all, velocity is exactly that : the difference between the positions of an object at the start and end of a time interval. If the calculations of orbital elements gave an accurate position, there is no reason why I couldnt get an accurate difference between two positions, even with a small time increment. I figured that a single one second interval would get me a reasonably accurate velocity reading, no need to perform a complex integration. One second at that scale is small enough to be considered instantaneous.
The result was satisfactory, except for one thing. In my Solar Sytem, I included the orbit of Halley's comet. As you may know, its orbit is in the shape of an elongated ellipse: it is highly eccentric. Eccentricity is the parameter that describes the shape of the orbit, with 0 being circular and augmenting towards 1 for flatter ellipses. One of the effects of having an eccentric orbit is that the calculations of the orbital elements become less accurate. It's not a big problem when you want an approximate position, but velocities cannot be inferred from inacurrate positions. So Halley's comet wasn't giving a damn about its trajectory, getting the hell out away in the universe.
Fortunately, there is a principle of physics that was on my side, and permits the calculation of the speed of an orbiting body from its position only : the vis-viva equation. But speed is a scalar, whereas velocity is a vector, so with vis-viva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation) I had the length of the velocity, not its orientation. Further calculations were needed to get the orientation as well, and I ended up with a pretty good system for calculating all the initial parameters to launch the simulation.
Going 3d
Up to that point, I had displayed the simulation only in 2d, with the canvas through Create.js. Doing it 2d was my original intention when starting the project. I did not want a complex visualisation, just the basics to observe the orbits. Due to the nature of the calculations of the orbital elements, I did not have the choice but to use 3d vectors to compute the positions. I chose to use Three.js's Vector3 for the calculations, as I did not want to reinvent the wheel, but did not think further than that. I did my calculations and used the x and y component to display the system from above, occasionally switching to x and z to see it from the side. I was so absorbed in getting the numbers right that it did not even occur to me that I could do better with the visualisation.
Then one day, like a friggin genius, I realized that I had everything I need to display the simulation in 3d. I had all the numbers in 3d, why not use the 3 components all at once? Instead of creating the scene in Create.js, I'd just create the scene in Three, add a camera and some lightning, and voilà! You can't imagine how the geek in me was thrilled when, in 2 hours, he passed from having no idea that he was going to do his visualisation in 3d to having it before his eyes. All the work was already done, and I hadn't realized it. I mean, I could see the Solar System in my browser in 3d, what's not exciting about that? I almost had tears of joy in my eyes.
<< And much more >>
But if you want the "all bells and whistles" you must go to those that need such things, for example NASA or the ESA.
You are just throwing out random numbers, because you do not have any CGI representation of what you claim to be happening that is based on the "sciency stuff."QuoteIf you actually care to do just about 30 seconds of research, you would see that model is Newtonian/Kelparian. Just click on the 'about' link.
I rest my case.
To Totallackey I would respond to your 'Who cares' comments, you should care. But, because you refuse to open your mind to any possibility other than what your narrow minded beliefs tell you is true or not you are missing my point entirely. The fact is that the Sun is orbiting the centre of the Galaxy (taking about 230 million years each time) while the planets are orbiting the Sun at an angle of 63 degrees to the plane of the Suns Galactic orbital plane. So if you trace out the true paths of the planets through space relative to the Sun you will find they follow a spiral shape.
I am not just throwing random, plucked out of the air numbers at you, I am telling you the facts. The south galactic pole lies in the constellation Sculptor which is also 63 degrees from the south celestial pole.
But if you don't "care" about any of that and don't want to learn something based on reality for a change then that's up to you.
But no benefit would be gained for one simulation of the planets orbiting the Sun and then the whole Solar System orbiting SagA* sp no one would bother doing it.There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...
Why would anyone want an accurate simulation "that shows the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?"
Bye alchemist...Who doesn't have what?Funny...
If you want one, YOU get the code for an "open-source" planetary motion simulator and modify it to allow for the Solar System's motion around the supermassive black hole, SagA*.Quote from: totallackeyTry again...How do you know that The Sky 3D Solar System Simulator (https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem) doesn't use "use math by Newton"? Have you examined the code?
That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...
But it wouldn't use and "math by Kepler" because Kepler's laws only apply to a two-body system.
I doubt that a freebie like that would use Einstein's GR because on the screen you could never tell the difference between using Newton's Laws and GR.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An example of jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator (http://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/)
And a brief description of how it works:Quote from: Martin VézinaBuilding jsOrrery, a Javascript / WebGL Solar System (http://lab.la-grange.ca/en/building-jsorrery-a-javascript-webgl-solar-system)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Velocity
The goal of the project was to simulate the Solar System by calculating the gravitational forces, so the results given by the orbital elements were just the original state of the system at the start of simulation.
<< And much more >>
But if you want the "all bells and whistles" you must go to those that need such things, for example NASA or the ESA.
they don't have it...
And it won't show up on a computer screen as CGI...
Bye again, alchemist...
LOL!!!But no benefit would be gained for one simulation of the planets orbiting the Sun and then the whole Solar System orbiting SagA* sp no one would bother doing it.There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...
Why would anyone want an accurate simulation "that shows the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?"
Capture a screen shot of it showing the sun, along with the planets dutifully in tow, traipsing about the galaxy...Quote from: totallackeyBye alchemist...Who doesn't have what?Funny...
If you want one, YOU get the code for an "open-source" planetary motion simulator and modify it to allow for the Solar System's motion around the supermassive black hole, SagA*.Quote from: totallackeyTry again...How do you know that The Sky 3D Solar System Simulator (https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem) doesn't use "use math by Newton"? Have you examined the code?
That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...
But it wouldn't use and "math by Kepler" because Kepler's laws only apply to a two-body system.
I doubt that a freebie like that would use Einstein's GR because on the screen you could never tell the difference between using Newton's Laws and GR.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An example of jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator (http://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/)
And a brief description of how it works:Quote from: Martin VézinaBuilding jsOrrery, a Javascript / WebGL Solar System (http://lab.la-grange.ca/en/building-jsorrery-a-javascript-webgl-solar-system)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Velocity
The goal of the project was to simulate the Solar System by calculating the gravitational forces, so the results given by the orbital elements were just the original state of the system at the start of simulation.
<< And much more >>
But if you want the "all bells and whistles" you must go to those that need such things, for example NASA or the ESA.
they don't have it...
And it won't show up on a computer screen as CGI...
Bye again, alchemist...
Stop being a useless waste of time!
Of course the jsOrrery, WebGL Solar System "shows up on a computer screen as CGI"
I gave you the direct link to the jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator: jsOrrery: Solar System Simulator (http://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/)
And it does use Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation to calculate the motions of the planets.
Your denying everything proves nothing!
How about showing what would be gained by a single simulation of all of that?LOL!!!But no benefit would be gained for one simulation of the planets orbiting the Sun and then the whole Solar System orbiting SagA* sp no one would bother doing it.There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...
Why would anyone want an accurate simulation "that shows the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?"
Sheer hilarity!!!
"But no benefit..."
How's about, "WE CAN"T USE A MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION BECAUSE IT ALL FALLS APART!!!"
How about I only show the planets around the Sun as that is what it simulates.Quote from: totallackeyBye alchemist...Your denying everything proves nothing!Capture a screen shot of it showing the sun, along with the planets dutifully in tow, traipsing about the galaxy...
Post it here...
Think of the billions of believers that would be comforted by the truth of the matter...How about showing what would be gained by a single simulation of all of that?LOL!!!But no benefit would be gained for one simulation of the planets orbiting the Sun and then the whole Solar System orbiting SagA* sp no one would bother doing it.There are numerous simulations of the planetary motion relative to the Sun.Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...
Why would anyone want an accurate simulation "that shows the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?"
Sheer hilarity!!!
"But no benefit..."
How's about, "WE CAN"T USE A MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION BECAUSE IT ALL FALLS APART!!!"
How about I only show the planets around the Sun as that is what it simulates.[/quote]Quote from: totallackeyBye alchemist...Your denying everything proves nothing!Capture a screen shot of it showing the sun, along with the planets dutifully in tow, traipsing about the galaxy...
Post it here...
And, Mr Totallackey, your "Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo) just makes YOU look ridiculous!It is not an APPEAL to ridicule at this point...
The billions have no problem! It's you few flat-Earthers who still would not believe it if they saw it anyway!How about showing what would be gained by a single simulation of all of that?Think of the billions of believers that would be comforted by the truth of the matter...
View of the Earth as seen by the Apollo 17 crew -- astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, commander;
astronaut Ronald E. Evans, command module pilot; and scientist-astronaut
Harrison H. Schmitt lunar module pilot -- traveling toward the moon.
This translunar coast photograph extends from the Mediterranean Sea area to the
Antarctica South polar ice cap. This is the first time the Apollo trajectory made it possible
to photograph the South polar ice cap.
Note the heavy cloud cover in the Southern Hemisphere. Almost the entire coastline of Africa is clearly visible.
The Arabian Peninsula can be seen at the Northeastern edge of Africa. The large island off the coast of
Africa is the Malagasy republic. The Asian mainland is on the horizon toward the Northeast.
Image Credit: NASA(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/images/135918main_bm1_high.jpg?itok=2I8-uSUB)
You are just throwing out random numbers, because you do not have any CGI representation of what you claim to be happening that is based on the "sciency stuff."
Don't you just love the dutiful and compliant...The billions have no problem! It's you few flat-Earthers who still would not believe it if they saw it anyway!How about showing what would be gained by a single simulation of all of that?Think of the billions of believers that would be comforted by the truth of the matter...
Please allow me to shift the subject...No...
You are an alchemist...you follow Newton...QuoteYou are just throwing out random numbers, because you do not have any CGI representation of what you claim to be happening that is based on the "sciency stuff."
Your name seems to be quite appropriate here because you seem to have a total lack of ability to accept anything else as true and real other than what your narrow beliefs tell you. If you'd care to do some investigation of your own for a moment (which I understand is what zeteticists are supposed to be good at) rather than simply slagging off those who actually know what they are talking about you would discover quite quickly that nothing that I say is ever 'plucked out of thin air'.
I can confirm that I am not an alchemist, never have been never will be.
No my friend, I follow what my instincts tell me. How about you?Nobody gives two freaking !@#$ about what you post here...
Which number or numbers are you saying I have plucked out of thin air anyway? If you mean 63 degrees for the difference between the NGP and the NCP then just look on any star chart for the location of the NGP. You will find it at a declination of +27degrees in the constellation Coma Berenices. Now do a simple subtraction sum 90d - 27d and you will get the angular separation (i.e. inclination) of the galactic equatorial plane relative to the equatorial plane. 63 degrees.
It's not made up, you just need to know your way around the night sky. Equally the southern galactic pole lies at -27degrees declination and so you can see already that means the same 63 degrees applies to the southern sky as well.
We can take things a stage further if you want. If you look at the points +/- 27degrees declination you will find that these points on the sky are as far away as you can get from the milky way. Also if you trace out the galactic equator (90 degrees from the galactic poles) you will see that this line passes through a clearly visible dark rift which bisects the milky way in the N/S direction. This rift is visible evidence that supports the view that our Galaxy is a spiral galaxy. How? because we can look out at other edge on spiral galaxies and see a similar dark rift. Take M104, MGC4565 and NGC 895 as three classic examples.
The fact that the galactic equator is so far out of line with the ecliptic (Suns passage through the sky) is a directly visible clue that the plane of the solar system is highly inclined (almost perpendicular to) the galactic plane. No CGI involved in that at all.
I can JUST about see my house from there, silly clouds are in the way though.Quote
View of the Earth as seen by the Apollo 17 crew -- astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, commander;
astronaut Ronald E. Evans, command module pilot; and scientist-astronaut
Harrison H. Schmitt lunar module pilot -- traveling toward the moon.
This translunar coast photograph extends from the Mediterranean Sea area to the
Antarctica South polar ice cap. This is the first time the Apollo trajectory made it possible
to photograph the South polar ice cap.
Note the heavy cloud cover in the Southern Hemisphere. Almost the entire coastline of Africa is clearly visible.
The Arabian Peninsula can be seen at the Northeastern edge of Africa. The large island off the coast of
Africa is the Malagasy republic. The Asian mainland is on the horizon toward the Northeast.
Image Credit: NASA(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/images/135918main_bm1_high.jpg?itok=2I8-uSUB)
Good night, loser!
Nobody gives two freaking !@#$ about what you post here...
I demand that these so-called "scientists" (if they're that good) provide me with an animated CGI model of the solar system that not only is to scale, but is 1:1 on a distance scale AND doesn't have that speeded up nonsense that fools everyone and must RUN IN REAL TIME. If they can't, they're clearly incapable and incompetent and are just lying.You are lying.
I never demanded a scale model.
Like: celestial dome or celestial plane?Flat earthers like yourself love to nit pick away...Hey, not fair...I just wrote I will not nitpick......at the tiniest discrepancies in conventional theory while ignoring the gaping holes all over your own ill thought out random individual ideas.Like what?
Youi can't object to something that doesn't exist.And you wanting to pretend they don't exist doesn't mean they don't.
Something similar, based on the laws and math of Newton/Kepler/Einstein could be done too...Then go away and do it yourself, as you clearly have no interest in accepting the models which already do exist.
Never asked for a scale model...stop strawmanning.Follow your own advice.
So I will take that as a no, you didn't bother reading it and are just in pathetic denial mode.Did you even bother reading what it says?Math is math.
It seems now you are just in pathetic denial mode where even if something indicates it does use gravity, you will just dismiss it as not using it.
No such model utilizing Newton/Kepler/Einstein can be made because the math doesn't work.That's a nice baseless claim of yours. How about you prove it?
Probably because that is what heliocentrists claim is happening...Where?
Think of the billions of believers that would be comforted by the truth of the matter...What billions?
I have only stated facts, as evidenced by your failure to produce...No, you have made baseless claims.
I already gave you a freebie simple Solar System that "does use Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation to calculate the motions of the planets."The billions have no problem! It's you few flat-Earthers who still would not believe it if they saw it anyway!How about showing what would be gained by a single simulation of all of that?Think of the billions of believers that would be comforted by the truth of the matter...Please allow me to shift the subject...No...
No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex” (https://slate.com/technology/2013/03/vortex-motion-viral-video-showing-suns-motion-through-galaxy-is-wrong.html)
(https://compote.slate.com/images/4bdd183c-dae7-4019-9842-b6991a2d9577.jpg)
A still frame from DJ Sadhu’s video claiming the solar system moves through the galaxy along a vortex.
This claim is—to be charitable—incorrect. Image credit: DJ Sadhu, from the video (https://www.youtube.com/embed/0jHsq36_NTU).
I’ve been getting lots of tweets and email from folks linking to a slick-looking video, a computer animation showing the motion of the planets around the Sun as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way Galaxy. It’s a very pretty video with compelling music and well-done graphics.
However, there’s a problem with it: It’s wrong. And not just superficially; it’s deeply wrong, based on a very wrong premise. While there are some useful visualizations in it, I caution people to take it with a galaxy-sized grain of salt.
Why? The basis of the claim is that the planets aren’t orbiting the Sun heliocentrically, but are instead a vortex going around the galaxy.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But let’s not argue over semantics. Look at the video again: Sadhu shows the Sun leading the planets, ahead of them as it goes around the galaxy (he makes this even more obvious in a second video; see below). This is not just misleading, it’s completely wrong. Sometimes the planets really are ahead of the Sun as we orbit in the Milky Way, and sometimes trail behind it (depending on where they are in their orbit around the Sun). This is plainly true to anyone who actually observes the planets in the sky; they can commonly be seen in the part of the sky ahead of the Earth and Sun in the direction of our orbit around the Milky Way galaxy.
Again, I’m not arguing some small detail here. The idea that the planets trail behind the Sun as it moves through the galaxy is fundamental to what Sadhu is saying about the helix—as I’ll explain below (in the section “Where Do All These Ideas Come From?”). But first, there’s a bit more to see.
<< It's a long article and I'll not quote any more here >>
I already gave you a freebie simple Solar System that "does use Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation to calculate the motions of the planets."The video does have catchy music.
And you won't find and Galactic Simulators that go into the detail of planetary motion in the one simulator for a few reasons:But that silly "vortex video" of the Solar System's motion through the Galaxy might be eye-catching but it's is just plain wrong!
- It would provide no extra useful information.
- For the Solar System the Sun's mass is 99.8 per cent of total mass the solar system, so lumping all the mass into the Sun is quite adequate.
- Numerical precision is always a problem with even long term planetary simulation. It would become an almost impossible problem to simulate an entire galaxy down to the planetary level.
- And the list goes on.
One major point is that (at present) the ecliptic (the orbital plane of the planets) is tilted at about 60° to the direction of motion.
As a result, the planets do not lag behind the Sun in that helical motion each planet is sometimes leading the Sun and sometimes trailing it - something like this, with the Solar System moving from left to right:
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Ecliptic-vs-Galactic-Plane.png)
From: UNIVERSE TODAY: Is the Solar System Really a Vortex? The short answer? No. (https://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/) - that's worth reading too.
Credit : Science Minus Details
And that is discussed at length in here:Quote from: Phil PlaitNo, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex” (https://slate.com/technology/2013/03/vortex-motion-viral-video-showing-suns-motion-through-galaxy-is-wrong.html)
(https://compote.slate.com/images/4bdd183c-dae7-4019-9842-b6991a2d9577.jpg)
A still frame from DJ Sadhu’s video claiming the solar system moves through the galaxy along a vortex.
This claim is—to be charitable—incorrect. Image credit: DJ Sadhu, from the video (http://).
A single screenshot is not too bad but the video, with its direction of travel swinging all over the place is my main issue.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The video does have catchy music.
But that silly "vortex video" of the Solar System's motion through the Galaxy might be eye-catching but it's is just plain wrong!
One major point is that (at present) the ecliptic (the orbital plane of the planets) is tilted at about 60° to the direction of motion.
As a result, the planets do not lag behind the Sun in that helical motion each planet is sometimes leading the Sun and sometimes trailing it - something like this, with the Solar System moving from left to right:
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Ecliptic-vs-Galactic-Plane.png)
From: UNIVERSE TODAY: Is the Solar System Really a Vortex? The short answer? No. (https://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/) - that's worth reading too.
Credit : Science Minus Details
And that is discussed at length in here:Quote from: Phil PlaitNo, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex” (https://slate.com/technology/2013/03/vortex-motion-viral-video-showing-suns-motion-through-galaxy-is-wrong.html)
(https://compote.slate.com/images/4bdd183c-dae7-4019-9842-b6991a2d9577.jpg)
A still frame from DJ Sadhu’s video claiming the solar system moves through the galaxy along a vortex.
This claim is—to be charitable—incorrect. Image credit: DJ Sadhu, from the video (https://www.youtube.com/embed/0jHsq36_NTU).
I dont actually find the video so far off. If you pause the video it does show the planets orbit in a flat plane. Although it seemed that Neptune was a bit off and the solar systems incline is way wrong.
with the Solar System moving from left to right:
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Ecliptic-vs-Galactic-Plane.png)
From: UNIVERSE TODAY: Is the Solar System Really a Vortex? (https://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/) Credit : Science Minus Details
But beyond that, its a nice visual demonstration of how we move through the solar system.I guess my "hang up" springs from the way flat-Earthers use it to ridicule the heliocentric system when it's simply an aspect of Cosmology that they can't swallow.
The solar systems rotation can be thought the same way a helicopters blades move the air
Do they rotate or "vortex" (is that even a fucking word!)
Mainly me.QuoteNobody gives two freaking !@#$ about what you post here...
O I wouldn't say that.. there are some people here who are actually interested in what is real and true.
Some are obviously only driven by their tunnel-vision like beliefs and you have made it quite clear that you belong to the latter group.I think we have established who is in blind belief here.
In fact reading back through many of the responses to your own posts, it seems that what you say about me is more applicable to what others think about you.Appeal to numbers.
You've obviously got a thing in your head about CGI at the moment. Not quite the style of a flat Earther is it? That said CGI is about the only way you will be able to create anything that looks like a flat Earth. And repeatedly callling me an alchemist is not going to change anything. But if it makes you happy then feel free.Calling you other things would probably make me happier, but I am constricted by the rules of the forum.
BTW isn't it amazing how a question that was originally about how time zones relate to FE theory can get gradually transformed into slagging off match about whether or not the solar system is orbiting around the Galaxy effectively on its side?!?Yeah, a topic that was originally derailed by a RE-adherent...as is typical here at the flatearthsociety...here
snippedand here...
snipped
Trust me, the models do exist even though I can't prove it.Nope.
Certainly not you, as you have zero interest in gaining a CGI depiction of the solar system in full motion using Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.
Yep.QuoteCertainly not you, as you have zero interest in gaining a CGI depiction of the solar system in full motion using Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.
Why are you so obsessed with a CGI depiction of the solar sytem? I would have thought that even you would realise that using CGI you can create pretty much anything you want.
Hell you can even create a film showing dinosaurs running around and make it seem real. The film Avatar was made entirely using CGI. I'm sure you could even create a flat Earth using CGI but what would that prove?Yeah, there certainly is no heliocentric solar system either.
In reality there ain't no dinosaurs running around in the 21st century and there certainly isn't a flat Earth either.
If there was, you could model the real deal utilizing Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.
The astronomy.js library by Don Cross is used to compute approximate position of the Solar System objects given their keplerian elements.
Certainly not you, as you have zero interest in gaining a CGI depiction of the solar system in full motion using Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.What bearing does a CGI model have on the truth?
I think we have established who is in blind belief here.Yes, you.
Nope.Don't lie about what I say.
Toodle pip, alchemist.
If you have such an "interest in gaining a CGI depiction of the solar system in full motion using Newton/Kepler/Einstein math" you do it!Mainly me.QuoteNobody gives two freaking !@#$ about what you post here...
O I wouldn't say that.. there are some people here who are actually interested in what is real and true.
Certainly not you, as you have zero interest in gaining a CGI depiction of the solar system in full motion using Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .You might note that my post was in reply to John Davis! Do you suggest that I ignore John Davis?BTW isn't it amazing how a question that was originally about how time zones relate to FE theory can get gradually transformed into slagging off match about whether or not the solar system is orbiting around the Galaxy effectively on its side?!?Yeah, a topic that was originally derailed by a RE-adherent...as is typical here at the flatearthsociety...heresnipped
And it is well known that so-called "well-known facts" often turn out to not be quite so factual.Also certain activities of scientists make this hard; its is a well known practice to sometimes exclude data that disagrees with your premise, or to use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result. Einstein and Newton both come to mind, let alone the studies that show this is common practice.You often make unsupported claims like this.
Would you please give examples with reliable references where "Einstein and Newton" made "use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result"?
These are well known facts. One related by a biographer of Newton, Richard Westfall, who said some of his work is "nothing short of deliberate fraud" and that "no one can manipulate the fudge factor quite so effectively as the master mathematician himself"
) and the other by Einstien himself who said "So much the worse for the experiment" (https://books.google.com/books?id=EIruic7_Ph8C&pg=PT203&lpg=PT203&dq=%22so+much+the+worse+for+the+experiment%22+einstein&source=bl&ots=EsZLJ0noev&sig=ACfU3U3HbPfN2UoJ5qy9JPCPLkn6tyiVsw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfgYTbx_XnAhW4JzQIHV0eDkIQ6AEwAnoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22so%20much%20the%20worse%20for%20the%20experiment%22%20einstein&f=false)
and here...That is the SAME post! Look Quote from: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 12:22:23 PM and Quote from: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 12:22:23 PMsnipped
<< snipped >>Try again! De-railer extraordinaire!
Post an animated gif.QuoteIf there was, you could model the real deal utilizing Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.
So referring back to the link I provided earlier, and to the contents of the 'about' link where it statesQuoteThe astronomy.js library by Don Cross is used to compute approximate position of the Solar System objects given their keplerian elements.
How does this not meet with your demands of a model of the 'real deal' utilizing Kepler math?
Got a reference where I can start?If you have such an "interest in gaining a CGI depiction of the solar system in full motion using Newton/Kepler/Einstein math" you do it!Mainly me.QuoteNobody gives two freaking !@#$ about what you post here...
O I wouldn't say that.. there are some people here who are actually interested in what is real and true.
Certainly not you, as you have zero interest in gaining a CGI depiction of the solar system in full motion using Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.
That's your problem.If you have such an "interest in gaining a CGI depiction of the solar system in full motion using Newton/Kepler/Einstein math" you do it!Got a reference where I can start?
Post an animated gif.QuoteIf there was, you could model the real deal utilizing Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.
So referring back to the link I provided earlier, and to the contents of the 'about' link where it statesQuoteThe astronomy.js library by Don Cross is used to compute approximate position of the Solar System objects given their keplerian elements.
How does this not meet with your demands of a model of the 'real deal' utilizing Kepler math?
Your ability/inability to do so will answer your question.
Good enough for you?Not for totallackey!
Because it cant be modelled it cant exist?It's worse than that!
Show me a working model of the human brain how every cell interacts in a dynamic model.That I'd believe but I'd be satisfied with a working model (or even simulation) of totallackey's flat Earth model that obeys whatever physic's laws he subscribes to - assuming he subscribes to any.
Cant?
Then i believe that Lackless has no brain.
Good enough for you?Not for totallackey!
He wants it the show all of that moving through the Milky Way galaxy.
Then I guess he'll want it to include the Milky Way's movement through our local group, etc etc.
Got a reference where I can start?You have already been provided with computer programs which use the laws you demand. I would say that is a good place to start.
Nope.
But all totallackey is trying to do is to make "modern cosmology" look ridiculous even though he cannot make such a simulation of his flat Earth model - what model?Good enough for you?Not for totallackey!
He wants it the show all of that moving through the Milky Way galaxy.
Then I guess he'll want it to include the Milky Way's movement through our local group, etc etc.
Well that’s just a stupid requirement. The movement of the solar system through the galaxy won’t affect the orbits by any remotely detectable amount. Showing it in an animation serves no purpose other than making it harder to see the orbits that have been calculated.
Probably why it’s hard to find one. Why would anyone waste their time on it?
Is the sun moving there, sparky?Post an animated gif.QuoteIf there was, you could model the real deal utilizing Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.
So referring back to the link I provided earlier, and to the contents of the 'about' link where it statesQuoteThe astronomy.js library by Don Cross is used to compute approximate position of the Solar System objects given their keplerian elements.
How does this not meet with your demands of a model of the 'real deal' utilizing Kepler math?
Your ability/inability to do so will answer your question.
Here’s a gif of calculated orbits. Not just the planets and moons, but also 18000 asteroids.
(https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/asteroid/20180723/main-animation-16.gif)
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7194
Good enough for you?
Well that’s just a stupid requirement. The movement of the solar system through the galaxy won’t affect the orbits by any remotely detectable amount. Showing it in an animation serves no purpose other than making it harder to see the orbits that have been calculated.Yeah, not only is it hard to find...it is...impossible...
Probably why it’s hard to find one. Why would anyone waste their time on it?
Can you point us towards a similar working simulation of the solar system in action as flat Earthers believe it to be?There is no solar system...
No...? Ok Toodle Pip flat Earthers.
We're all waiting with bated breath for the simulation of your flat Earth. Remember this!Can you point us towards a similar working simulation of the solar system in action as flat Earthers believe it to be?There is no solar system...
No...? Ok Toodle Pip flat Earthers.
The earth is the center of the universe.
But here's a little task for you.Time to put up of shut up Mr. Totallackey.
Please show a simulation on your flat Earth model using whatever laws of physics that you accept.
You must specify just what these laws of physics that you accept are.
Your simulation should show at least the detailed movement of the Sun, Moon and planets and predict:
Sunrise and sunset times and directions at any place requested.
The phases of the Moon and the times the Moon rises and sets.
If you have a good flat-Earth model that should be easy.
Rab, the moderator strikes again...We're all waiting with bated breath for the simulation of your flat Earth. Remember this!Can you point us towards a similar working simulation of the solar system in action as flat Earthers believe it to be?There is no solar system...
No...? Ok Toodle Pip flat Earthers.
The earth is the center of the universe.But here's a little task for you.Time to put up of shut up Mr. Totallackey.
Please show a simulation on your flat Earth model using whatever laws of physics that you accept.
You must specify just what these laws of physics that you accept are.
Your simulation should show at least the detailed movement of the Sun, Moon and planets and predict:
Sunrise and sunset times and directions at any place requested.
The phases of the Moon and the times the Moon rises and sets.
If you have a good flat-Earth model that should be easy.
The earth is the center of the universe.
ou guys claim to have all the right math, correct?
If you have the right math, you should be able to render a CGI moving image of the sun traipsing about the Milky Way with all the planets dutifully in tow...Quoteou guys claim to have all the right math, correct?
Which I would say is a little bit more than you have done up to now. Slagging off anyone that has different views to you is what you are good at. Providing any real and evidenced reasons to back up what you belief in is something that you are not so good at.
Perhaps if FE could come up with some strong, verifiable and coherent evidence for why their beliefs should be adopted as the mainstream over RE then attitudes would change. But so far they haven't. They can't even agree a single model among themselves.
If you have the right math, you should be able to render a CGI moving image of the sun traipsing about the Milky Way with all the planets dutifully in tow...When are you going to do the math and show us a CGI simulation of your favorite FE model?
You can't.
Because it is impossible.
Because the math doesn't work.
I am not a hypocrite:If you have the right math, you should be able to render a CGI moving image of the sun traipsing about the Milky Way with all the planets dutifully in tow...When are you going to do the math and show us a CGI simulation of your favorite FE model?
You can't.
Because it is impossible.
Because the math doesn't work.
You don't want to be a hypocrite, do you?
I will grant you I haven't done any of the math in order to render a CGI version of anything that FET claims...
I am not a hypocrite:Yet you demand that we to the math for a CGI version of what RET claims.
I will grant you I haven't done any of the math in order to render a CGI version of anything that FET claims...
I doubt it, since the earth is flat.I am not a hypocrite:Yet you demand that we to the math for a CGI version of what RET claims.
I will grant you I haven't done any of the math in order to render a CGI version of anything that FET claims...
This is the Flat Earth Society.
Why should we do the math and create a CGI RE model if you aren't willing to do the math and create a CGI FE model?
Could it be that FE models are impossible?
Then a decent model shouldn't be a problem.Could it be that FE models are impossible?I doubt it, since the earth is flat.
And that is all we are concerned with, in the end.Is it?
I just like pointing out the fact there is no CGI moving image of what the heliocentrist alchemists claim to be reality, when all you need to do is use the math you hold so dear...And I'm just pointing out that there is no such equivalent CGI image of what flatists claim to be reality, when all you need to do is figure out the math that you're so terrified of.
Think of the "billions and billions," to be made Opus!!!Yes, just imagine the billions that could be made by having a model that shows the reality of the flat earth.
Get on it! QUICK!!!
I doubt it, since the earth is flat.
I doubt it, since the earth is flat.I am not a hypocrite:Yet you demand that we to the math for a CGI version of what RET claims.
I will grant you I haven't done any of the math in order to render a CGI version of anything that FET claims...
This is the Flat Earth Society.
Why should we do the math and create a CGI RE model if you aren't willing to do the math and create a CGI FE model?
Could it be that FE models are impossible?
And that is all we are concerned with, in the end.
I just like pointing out the fact there is no CGI moving image of what the heliocentrist alchemists claim to be reality, when all you need to do is use the math you hold so dear...
Think of the "billions and billions," to be made Opus!!!
Get on it! QUICK!!!
Funded in part by NASA...
Is the sun moving there, sparky?Post an animated gif.QuoteIf there was, you could model the real deal utilizing Newton/Kepler/Einstein math.
So referring back to the link I provided earlier, and to the contents of the 'about' link where it statesQuoteThe astronomy.js library by Don Cross is used to compute approximate position of the Solar System objects given their keplerian elements.
How does this not meet with your demands of a model of the 'real deal' utilizing Kepler math?
Your ability/inability to do so will answer your question.
Here’s a gif of calculated orbits. Not just the planets and moons, but also 18000 asteroids.
(https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/asteroid/20180723/main-animation-16.gif)
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7194
Good enough for you?
Nope?
Try again, hipster doofus...
Well that’s just a stupid requirement. The movement of the solar system through the galaxy won’t affect the orbits by any remotely detectable amount. Showing it in an animation serves no purpose other than making it harder to see the orbits that have been calculated.Yeah, not only is it hard to find...it is...impossible...
Probably why it’s hard to find one. Why would anyone waste their time on it?
So, yeah, hipster doofus...
Even though you can find plenty of fakes that show the sun moving with planets circling about, you can't find the real one...because the MATH IS FAKE!!!
Toodle pip alchemists...
because the MATH IS FAKE!!!Again, PROVE IT!
I doubt it, since the earth is flat.I am not a hypocrite:Yet you demand that we to the math for a CGI version of what RET claims.
I will grant you I haven't done any of the math in order to render a CGI version of anything that FET claims...
This is the Flat Earth Society.
Why should we do the math and create a CGI RE model if you aren't willing to do the math and create a CGI FE model?
Could it be that FE models are impossible?
And that is all we are concerned with, in the end.
I just like pointing out the fact there is no CGI moving image of what the heliocentrist alchemists claim to be reality, when all you need to do is use the math you hold so dear...
Think of the "billions and billions," to be made Opus!!!
Get on it! QUICK!!!
No, they are no necessary in the slightest and you have given no reason that they should be.Time to put up or shut up Mr. Totallackey.Yet. all you can do is drone on and on about how real mathematical constructs of what you claim to be reality that could be so easily rendered in a CGI ... are not necessary.
You are one big hypocrite rab.No, Mr. Totallackey, I'm no hypocrite I've shown you detailed simulations of the Solar System now it's your turn!
Please show a simulation on your flat Earth model using whatever laws of physics that you accept.
You must specify just what these laws of physics that you accept are.
Your simulation should show at least the detailed movement of the Sun, Moon and planets and predict:
Sunrise and sunset times and directions at any place requested.
The phases of the Moon and the times the Moon rises and sets.
If you have a good flat-Earth model that should be easy.
Incorrect, you are a hypocrite of the worst kind! You demand that others do what you cannot do yourself.When are you going to do the math and show us a CGI simulation of your favorite FE model?I am not a hypocrite:
You don't want to be a hypocrite, do you?I will grant you I haven't done any of the math in order to render a CGI version of anything that FET claims...
Run away and enrol in Flat Earthism 101 at your favourite Flat Earth Indoctrination College or at the FECU Entrance Exam, Flat Earth Community University, FECU (https://www.youtube.com/embed/CJdPxyzOjHU).
I've no idea. I answered that Mark Sargent and Steve were the Illuminati and was failed and thrown out.
Run away and enrol in Flat Earthism 101 at your favourite Flat Earth Indoctrination College or at the FECU Entrance Exam, Flat Earth Community University, FECU (https://www.youtube.com/embed/CJdPxyzOjHU).
Clarification needed on question 1-
Is actor David Schwimmer Illuminati? Or is his character in Friends Illuminati? Or do they mean the DJ/producer Ross from Friends?
No idea about the actor, but the character is a dick. The DJ seems nice though.
Mr Totallackey has obviously got his mind made up about what he believes to be true and nothing will change that. That is fine since everyone is entitled to their opinion."Everyone is entitled to their opinion".
Alchemists huddling, wondering how they can deny what they see in front of their eyes everyday, ascribing something beyond 6 miles to fictional fantasy about a supposed curve.Mr Totallackey has obviously got his mind made up about what he believes to be true and nothing will change that. That is fine since everyone is entitled to their opinion."Everyone is entitled to their opinion".
What makes totallackey a hypocritical, however, is his demand that we show a demonstration of something totally irrelevant to either the shape of the Earth or whether it rotates or not,
yet he refuses to show a similar demonstration of his Earth "model" so that we might evaluate it.
Alchemists huddling, wondering how they can deny what they see in front of their eyes everydayYep, coming up with pathetic excuses like "THE MATH IS FAKE" "IT CAN'T WORK" and so on, without actually providing any evidence or showing a problem with any evidence provided against their beliefs.
Please keep it civil, Mr Totallackey, your insults, insinuations and accusations don't impress anybody and only indicate how uncertain you are of you own position!Alchemists huddling, wondering how they can deny what they see in front of their eyes everyday, ascribing something beyond 6 miles to fictional fantasy about a supposed curve.Mr Totallackey has obviously got his mind made up about what he believes to be true and nothing will change that. That is fine since everyone is entitled to their opinion."Everyone is entitled to their opinion".
What makes totallackey a hypocritical, however, is his demand that we show a demonstration of something totally irrelevant to either the shape of the Earth or whether it rotates or not,
yet he refuses to show a similar demonstration of his Earth "model" so that we might evaluate it.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/igmdb1pr4nor5az/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20%20risen.jpg?dl=1) Video of Sunrise over Black Sea HD by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s) |
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1) Sunset Karumba on Aug 8, 2007 at 6:25:02 PM | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1) Sunset Karumba on Aug 8, 2007 at 6:25:29 PM | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/cyd7gg5jriln73b/LHG-0698%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.57%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1) Sunset Karumba on Aug 8, 2007 at 6:25:57 PM |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1) Video of Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft on the left and from 6 ft on the right (https://www.youtube.com/embed/hMvcJK1IrSM) |
| And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible: (https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg) | And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something: (https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg) |
So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera. [/size]
MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible.
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm, that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera location was 34.347°S 150.921°E and 10m above sea-level on Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
Needing a model of flat when reality of flat is in front of them each and everyday.Totally incorrect Mr Totallackey! You sure need a model because a flat Earth certainly does not fit with reality.
Mr Totallackey has obviously got his mind made up about what he believes to be true and nothing will change that. That is fine since everyone is entitled to their opinion.He's entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Needing a model of flat when reality of flat is in front of them each and everyday.
Lackless will never give up any more info beyond "looks flat".
QuoteNeeding a model of flat when reality of flat is in front of them each and everyday.
Is that really the best you can come up with? Why do you think there is a sharply defined horizon all around you? Do you really think it would be like that if the Earth was flat?
Yes, the horizon is flat. If you had a clear view of the horizon through 360 degrees and you are just a few tens or hundred of metres up from the ground then the horizon will look flat because it is an equal distance from you in all directions and because the rate of curvature of the surface (which gives us the horizon in the first place) is the same. So it will look flat.
Alchemists huddling, wondering how they can deny what they see in front of their eyes everyday, ascribing something beyond 6 miles to fictional fantasy about a supposed curve.Mr Totallackey has obviously got his mind made up about what he believes to be true and nothing will change that. That is fine since everyone is entitled to their opinion."Everyone is entitled to their opinion".
What makes totallackey a hypocritical, however, is his demand that we show a demonstration of something totally irrelevant to either the shape of the Earth or whether it rotates or not,
yet he refuses to show a similar demonstration of his Earth "model" so that we might evaluate it.
Needing a model of flat when reality of flat is in front of them each and everyday.
"THE MATH IS RIGHT AND ADDS UP, AND YES, WE KNOW WHEN IT IS ENTERED TO RENDER AN OUTPUT, THE WHOLE THING BLOWS UP!", so...
it isn't necessary...
Toodle pip alchemists...
WHAT IS THE GLOBAL PRECISE GEODETIC INFRASTRUCTURE?(from: https://www.nap.edu/read/12954/chapter/3#12 (https://www.nap.edu/read/12954/chapter/3#12))
Geodesy is the science of measuring and understanding three fundamental parameters of the Earth
its shape,
rotation and orientation,
and gravity field
and their change over time.
These parameters carry fundamental information about the planet and its workings.
Today this is no longer a three-dimensional problem, but really a four-dimensional
problem in which temporal changes in these quantities are tracked. Geodesists do
this using an infrastructure based on precisely located positions of a set of reference
(“fiducial”) points on the Earth’s surface. Using these reference points, geodesists
create a terrestrial reference system (or spatial reference system)—a common
coordinate framework for which scientists have determined, by calculation, all
the reference points’ exact coordinates at a given time. The primary realization of
the global spatial reference system is the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF).
The ITRF and other terrestrial reference frames are established by equipping selected
reference points with some combination of radio telescopes, laser ranging systems,
Global Navigational Satellite Systems receivers (GNSS, a general term for systems like
the Global Positioning System, or GPS) and radio beacons, and sometimes gravimeters.
In addition, data from observations of Earth-orbiting satellites, the moon, and distant
extragalactic objects known as quasars are incorporated. This combination of ground-based
instruments and satellites constitutes the precise, global geodetic infrastructure.