The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: dyno on June 24, 2008, 09:07:26 PM
-
For a finite flat Earth, what is the mechanism behind long period comets? Such as Halley's comet which has a period of 75 years. Surely it's path around a FE sun takes it beyond the influence of the UA? Ditto with even longer period comets.
-
An interesting question. I wonder what the FE answer will be?
-
Probably "comets don't exist, it's a conspiracy".
-
I live in a bad generation :(
Halley visited 1986, I was born in 1991 and I'll be 70 years old when it comes by again :/
-
Here is my guess as to there response...
You don't have any proof that the comet observed by Halley and subsequent astronomers is the same comet reappearing over and over on a highly predictable schedule mandated by the laws of gravitation as defined by Newton and quantified by Keppler.
As more interesting question, I would like to know what the mechanism for comets are in flat Earth physics. I would question how a small sun would have enough energy to give the observable effects to comets.
-
Don't forget Shoemaker-Levi 9. That was the comet that broke up and collided with Jupiter. There were some really good ground-based observations of that phenomenon.
-
Awaiting FE response
-
Bumping this because I was wondering about comets as well and did a search figuring someone else must have asked already.
-
Yup...asked and for the most part have been ignored. Although there was some attempt. Something about the electromagnetic thingy that keeps all the stars, and suns, and moons, and comets, and meteors, and asteroids, aloft by the universal accelerator, sometimes wears out, or gets turned off or something causing them to stop being accelerated and then the earth comes to meet them. The problem with that is the impact speed. The math doesn't come out right.
-
Yeah I was mainly wondering about a comet like Halley's, which can be seen over more than 1 night by people all around the world. What is it's trajectory in the FE model?
-
I think we're still waiting for a FE response here, or do the FE'ers just respond selectively :(
Might be another RE wins again thread.
-
i've been wondering about this one too...
-
Good question!! I'd like to hear the answer from FE as well!
-
They'll most likely answer:
I haven't seen a comet yet, the pictures and video's are all fake and part of the conspiracy.
-
Deep in the lollipop forest, they get a lollipop and put it in a huge tube (a hollowed out candy cane) filled with the fruit of hte poprock tree. This then fires the lollipop into the sky, where it explodes into flame, with a trail of sherbert out hte back. This is done 30 times every second, thus making a smoothly moving image like on a TV set. Luckily, there are plenty of lollys in the forest and they regrow quickly, so they can sustain an image for a long time.
-
Comets orbit the centre of mass at the North Celestial Pole, just like the rest of the cosmos. They just happen to have a much longer orbital period, and when they approach the North Celestial Pole the sun's mass warps their path so they appear to be orbiting the sun.
-
Comets orbit the centre of mass at the North Celestial Pole, just like the rest of the cosmos. They just happen to have a much longer orbital period, and when they approach the North Celestial Pole the sun's mass warps their path so they appear to be orbiting the sun.
And why do they appear closer at this time if they are only 30000 miles away?
-
And why do they appear closer at this time if they are only 30000 miles away?
Learn to articulate yourself in a less ambiguous way if you expect me to answer your questions.
-
And why do they appear closer at this time if they are only 30000 miles away?
Learn to articulate yourself in a less ambiguous way if you expect me to answer your questions.
In a helicentric model they move from up to 50,000 AU away to less that 1 AU, this is why they cannot be seen for hundreds or thousands of years, then appear huge in hte sky, so how does a model with a tiny sun and all stars just 30 000 miles up explain this appearance?
-
In a helicentric model they move from up to 50,000 AU away to less that 1 AU, this is why they cannot be seen for hundreds or thousands of years, then appear huge in hte sky, so how does a model with a tiny sun and all stars just 30 000 miles up explain this appearance?
The orbit of long period comets extends far out over the icy plain beyond the ice wall, at which point they become invisible to us.
-
In a helicentric model they move from up to 50,000 AU away to less that 1 AU, this is why they cannot be seen for hundreds or thousands of years, then appear huge in hte sky, so how does a model with a tiny sun and all stars just 30 000 miles up explain this appearance?
The orbit of long period comets extends far out over the icy plain beyond the ice wall, at which point they become invisible to us.
and to have the gradual appearance and increase is size we see uniformly, what path do they take? Why don't they always appear in the south first?
-
and to have the gradual appearance and increase is size we see uniformly, what path do they take? Why don't they always appear in the south first?
Most of their orbit is beyond the plane of stars, where the effect of the EA reduces the intensity of the light to a degree that makes them almost invisible to even our most powerful telescopes. As they approach the centre of mass over the North Celestial Pole, the Sun's gravitation causes them to swing recklessly off their orbital path and pass through the plane of stars, where they reach their largest size as they loop around the Sun itself. By now they have enough momentum to carry them back upwards through the plane of stars, away from the Sun's gravitational influence, and back out over the icy plain.
-
and to have the gradual appearance and increase is size we see uniformly, what path do they take? Why don't they always appear in the south first?
Most of their orbit is beyond the plane of stars, where the effect of the EA reduces the intensity of the light to a degree that makes them almost invisible to even our most powerful telescopes. As they approach the centre of mass over the North Celestial Pole, the Sun's gravitation causes them to swing recklessly off their orbital path and pass through the plane of stars, where they reach their largest size as they loop around the Sun itself. By now they have enough momentum to carry them back upwards through the plane of stars, away from the Sun's gravitational influence, and back out over the icy plain.
That does not work.
-
That does not work.
Prove it.
-
That does not work.
Prove it.
it would still appear larger in the south first. it would need to decend verticly to appear at hte same time in the north.
-
And I want to know how everyone in the South can see it, if we cannot view the same stars because we are on the opposite side of the earth?
And while I'm thinking about it, is it vital to the FE model that the earth disc does not rotate? Wouldn't that help explain a lot with regards to the movements/observations of objects in space?
-
And I want to know how everyone in the South can see it, if we cannot view the same stars because we are on the opposite side of the earth?
And while I'm thinking about it, is it vital to the FE model that the earth disc does not rotate? Wouldn't that help explain a lot with regards to the movements/observations of objects in space?
If the disc rotated at a fast enough rate to explain star movements, then the centripedal force could be measured and the ocean surface would be concave.
-
Most of their orbit is beyond the plane of stars, where the effect of the EA reduces the intensity of the light to a degree that makes them almost invisible to even our most powerful telescopes. As they approach the centre of mass over the North Celestial Pole, the Sun's gravitation causes them to swing recklessly off their orbital path and pass through the plane of stars, where they reach their largest size as they loop around the Sun itself. By now they have enough momentum to carry them back upwards through the plane of stars, away from the Sun's gravitational influence, and back out over the icy plain.
Are you saying that comets have their own ability to generate their own light (star-like)? What is the cause of their tail then? Why does every other body stay on a level plane over the surface of the Earth, but comets are free to move over and under this plane? Just trying to clarify what you are suggesting.
-
Are you saying that comets have their own ability to generate their own light (star-like)? What is the cause of their tail then? Why does every other body stay on a level plane over the surface of the Earth, but comets are free to move over and under this plane? Just trying to clarify what you are suggesting.
No, they reflect sunlight, as in RET. Here is a depiction of what I am talking about:
(http://i36.tinypic.com/335e2h2.png)
-
Most of their orbit is beyond the plane of stars, where the effect of the EA reduces the intensity of the light to a degree that makes them almost invisible to even our most powerful telescopes. As they approach the centre of mass over the North Celestial Pole, the Sun's gravitation causes them to swing recklessly off their orbital path and pass through the plane of stars, where they reach their largest size as they loop around the Sun itself. By now they have enough momentum to carry them back upwards through the plane of stars, away from the Sun's gravitational influence, and back out over the icy plain.
OK, if there is a "centre of mass" that provides the gravitational point of orbit for the sun and moon, why aren't comets orbiting that "centre of mass" rather than the much less massive sun? The comet should orbit this "centre of mass" in a similar fashion to all of the other celestial bodies. The sun might be able to deflect a body away from the straight line path, but that would probably just change its impact point on the Earth rather than completely change it's direction of travel.
This model doesn't fit with the observed behavior of comets in comparison to other celestial bodies.
How is the sun able to affect this change on a comet at a much greater distance than it does the moon?
Why doesn't the sun effect the stars or planets in a similar fashion?
Why are comets the only bodies that violates the vertical plane of celestial bodies? What prevents stars from being at this greater vertical height?
-
How is the sun able to affect this change on a comet at a much greater distance than it does the moon?
The comet is in orbit about the celestial pole. The celestial pole is at one focus of its elliptical orbit; it is only the end of the orbit closest to the Earth where it gets nudged slightly so that it appears to be in orbit about the sun.
Why doesn't the sun effect the stars or planets in a similar fashion?
It does; that is why Mercury and Venus orbit the sun. The stars are too far away from the sun to feel a significant effect, and perhaps the same is true of the moon and other planets - there is no evidence to suggest that they orbit in the same plane as the sun.
Why are comets the only bodies that violates the vertical plane of celestial bodies? What prevents stars from being at this greater vertical height?
Nothing, they just aren't.
-
Are you saying that comets have their own ability to generate their own light (star-like)? What is the cause of their tail then? Why does every other body stay on a level plane over the surface of the Earth, but comets are free to move over and under this plane? Just trying to clarify what you are suggesting.
No, they reflect sunlight, as in RET. Here is a depiction of what I am talking about:
(http://i36.tinypic.com/335e2h2.png)
There are so many things wrong with your pic.
-
There are so many things wrong with your pic.
Okay.
-
The comet is in orbit about the celestial pole. The celestial pole is at one focus of its elliptical orbit; it is only the end of the orbit closest to the Earth where it gets nudged slightly so that it appears to be in orbit about the sun.
Sorry, it appeared that they were orbiting the sun in your diagram.
It does; that is why Mercury and Venus orbit the sun. The stars are too far away from the sun to feel a significant effect, and perhaps the same is true of the moon and other planets - there is no evidence to suggest that they orbit in the same plane as the sun.
The same math that is used to show the height of the sun gives the same results for any celestial body (45° observation of a body located over the equator at a bearing of due south) whether that is a planet, star, moon or the sun. If you accept that math, then you have to accept the fact that it shows that all celestial objects are the same height over the Earth. Of course, this shows the same results for a comet because the math won't show a difference in altitude between the comet and the surrounding stars.
Nothing, they just aren't.
Come on, there has to be a reason. You can't just come out and say "that is just the way it is" and expect people to just accept it.
-
But the sun isn't sitting in that stationary position during the visit of a comet, is it? Isn't the sun circling around the equator though, at about 1600 miles an hour?
-
It does; that is why Mercury and Venus orbit the sun. The stars are too far away from the sun to feel a significant effect, and perhaps the same is true of the moon and other planets - there is no evidence to suggest that they orbit in the same plane as the sun.
The same math that is used to show the height of the sun gives the same results for any celestial body (45° observation of a body located over the equator at a bearing of due south) whether that is a planet, star, moon or the sun. If you accept that math, then you have to accept the fact that it shows that all celestial objects are the same height over the Earth. Of course, this shows the same results for a comet because the math won't show a difference in altitude between the comet and the surrounding stars.
The mathematics of which you speak assumes that light travels in a straight line. If, as I have supposed, it travels in a parabolic arc instead, then the angle of elevation at which objects appear in the sky is not in linear correlation with their actual positions.
Nothing, they just aren't.
Come on, there has to be a reason. You can't just come out and say "that is just the way it is" and expect people to just accept it.
Why is the expansion of the Universe accelerating in RET?
But the sun isn't sitting in that stationary position during the visit of a comet, is it? Isn't the sun circling around the equator though, at about 1600 miles an hour?
Yes, and so is the comet, being at perihelion.
-
The mathematics of which you speak assumes that light travels in a straight line. If, as I have supposed, it travels in a parabolic arc instead, then the angle of elevation at which objects appear in the sky is not in linear correlation with their actual positions.
Sorry, I took the math from Earth is not a Globe, I thought that it explained everything.
Light does travel in straight lines. The Michelson-Morley experiment set-up also shows that light travels in straight lines.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg/400px-Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg.png)
No matter how the apparatus is rotated, the light continues to hit the detector.
Why is the expansion of the Universe accelerating in RET?
I personally don't know, but there are numerous articles on astronomy sites by people that are much more knowledgeable than me that give explanations. Of course, they also assume that light travels in straight lines and are based on RET of the universe.
Here is a site that discusses some of the possible explanations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space)
There are links at the bottom of that page that go to other sites with more in depth information.
-
The current thinking is that the expansion of the universe occurs 'because it does'. I think that is Robosteve's point.
-
Good post Rig Navigator I had previously tried to find that same picture, I shall be eagerly awaiting for a response from FoolE.
-
intelligent debate is one thing, name calling is just unnecessary.
-
The mathematics of which you speak assumes that light travels in a straight line. If, as I have supposed, it travels in a parabolic arc instead, then the angle of elevation at which objects appear in the sky is not in linear correlation with their actual positions.
Sorry, I took the math from Earth is not a Globe, I thought that it explained everything.
Light does travel in straight lines. The Michelson-Morley experiment set-up also shows that light travels in straight lines.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg/400px-Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg.png)
No matter how the apparatus is rotated, the light continues to hit the detector.
So light travels in a straight line to within the accuracy that the Michelson-Morley apparatus can measure.
The current thinking is that the expansion of the universe occurs 'because it does'. I think that is Robosteve's point.
Yes.
-
So light travels in a straight line to within the accuracy that the Michelson-Morley apparatus can measure.
Michelson-Morley interferometers are extremely precise and can measure path length differences down to fractions of a wavelength, so for optical frequencies even for a relatively simple laser-pointer based setup this could be just a few nanometres... If light is curving (which RE in combination with GR predicts anyway, although the effect is extremely small and certainly smaller than some of the FE suggestions) then by performing a series of these experiments you should be able to determine which is the more accurate description. If I wasn't only a few months from finishing my thesis I'd go into the lab right now and do the experiment myself :)
-
Michelson-Morley interferometers are extremely precise and can measure path length differences down to fractions of a wavelength, so for optical frequencies even for a relatively simple laser-pointer based setup this could be just a few nanometres... If light is curving (which RE in combination with GR predicts anyway, although the effect is extremely small and certainly smaller than some of the FE suggestions) then by performing a series of these experiments you should be able to determine which is the more accurate description. If I wasn't only a few months from finishing my thesis I'd go into the lab right now and do the experiment myself :)
I still don't consider this sufficient proof that light does not bend.
-
Why not?
Also, your orbit doesn't work, or make sense, please show it with the movement of the sun included.
-
I still don't consider this sufficient proof that light does not bend.
Would you like to quantify your argument by suggesting an optical experiment to test it? To keep it fair, do not tell me you predicted result, I would just like to be able to perform the experiment and show you the data. I work in a laser lab so I can tell you whether it can easily be performed, and whether I have the time to do it (if I don't then I'm sure someone else on here does).
I do not see why a Michelson-Morley experiment is unsuitable, however, or for that matter why even a simple Fabry-Perot cavity is unsuitable (if light bent by as much as FE would seem to require, the cavity mode would be unstable over anything but a very narrow range of lengths, as corrected by the angle of the end mirrors). Scanning F-P cavities are used in laser physics all the time and do not experience these issues.
-
Would you like to quantify your argument by suggesting an optical experiment to test it? To keep it fair, do not tell me you predicted result, I would just like to be able to perform the experiment and show you the data. I work in a laser lab so I can tell you whether it can easily be performed, and whether I have the time to do it (if I don't then I'm sure someone else on here does).
I do not see why a Michelson-Morley experiment is unsuitable, however, or for that matter why even a simple Fabry-Perot cavity is unsuitable (if light bent by as much as FE would seem to require, the cavity mode would be unstable over anything but a very narrow range of lengths, as corrected by the angle of the end mirrors). Scanning F-P cavities are used in laser physics all the time and do not experience these issues.
Perhaps I shall. This matter requires some consideration, I shall get back to you.
-
Perhaps I shall. This matter requires some consideration, I shall get back to you.
Excellent, I need more ways of procrastinating since I've finished making my thesis look pretty and have filled in all the section headings... ;D
-
Light would need to be perfectly straight for that experiment to work, if there was any bend at all in light it just would not work. Even if it was conducted over a series of centimetres!
-
To give you some useful background information to consider when designing your experiment, you may or may not find this useful:
Traditionally there are 3 experiments that together provide a complete test of special relativity - Michelson-Morley types [8] for testing the isotropy of the speed of light c, Kennedy-Thorndike types [9] for testing the frame independence of c and Ives-Stilwell types [10] that test the frame independence of the time dilation factor. Ives-Stilwell tests currently have the largest uncertainties by several orders of magnitude1 due to the difficulty in testing the time dilation factor in isolation from length-contracting effects.
1 - At the time of writing the current best Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike experiments
have both been performed by M¨uller et al. [11] which confirmed the predictions of
relativity in both cases to within 10−16 in ([delta]c/c). This compares to the Ives-Stilwell experiment
of Reinhardt et al. [12] which has shown agreement with relativity to within 10−8.
[8] A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley. On the relative motion of the earth and
the luminiferous ether. American Journal of Science, 34:333–345, 1887.
[9] Roy J. Kennedy and Edward M. Thorndike. Experimental establishment
of the relativity of time. Physical Review, 42(3):400+, November 1932.
[10] Herbert E. Ives and G. R. Stilwell. An experimental study of the rate of a
moving atomic clock. J. Opt. Soc. Am., 28(7):215–226, July 1938.
[11] Holger Mueller, Paul L. Stanwix, Michael E. Tobar, Eugene Ivanov, Peter
Wolf, Sven Herrmann, Alexander Senger, Evgeny Kovalchuk, and Achim
Peters. Relativity tests by complementary rotating michelson-morley experiments,
Jun 2007.
[12] Sascha Reinhardt, Guido Saathoff, Henrik Buhr, Lars A. Carlson, Andreas
Wolf, Dirk Schwalm, Sergei Karpuk, Christian Novotny, Gerhard Huber,
Marcus Zimmermann, Ronald Holzwarth, Thomas Udem, Theodor W.
Hansch, and Gerald Gwinner. Test of relativistic time dilation with fast
optical atomic clocks at different velocities. Nat Phys, 3(12):861–864, December
2007.
I have all of the cited papers (I think) in .pdf format for anyone that's interested.
EDIT: relevant material
-
idiot^
-
idiot^
I don't think that was very nice.
-
idiot^
???
-
idiot^
???
He's not very nice is he?
-
He's not very nice is he?
I wouldn't mind being called an idiot if he actually had a reason for doing so. Robosteve said he wanted to design and experiment, and so the easiest resource I had for him as reference material was my thesis, which was already written (so I quoted it). Does that make me an idiot, funkcmc?
-
I still don't consider this sufficient proof that light does not bend.
You should.
If there was the slightest amount of bending produced it would be detectable, especially at the accuracies of measurement that are achievable (nanometers) with this experimental setup. This setup has been used for almost a century and no bending has been detected.
-
So you are saying that refraction is a myth?
-
So you are saying that refraction is a myth?
No, I am saying that his concept of EA that bends light whether it is in a vacuum or air is flawed.
-
Light can bend in a vacuum if a celestial body is nearby.
-
Light can bend in a vacuum if a celestial body is nearby.
Correct.
And this effect is observable in the apparent position of celestial observations made from the surface of the Earth how? Certainly not enough to make the apparent observed altitude vary by more than fractions of an arc second.
-
I don't know for sure, but wouldn't gravitational lensing not be possible if the change in trajectory was so slight?
-
I don't know for sure, but wouldn't gravitational lensing not be possible if the change in trajectory was so slight?
Have no clue, ask someone with an astrophysics background.
-
The Earth doesn't make a very good gravitational lens since it just isn't massive enough. Even the Sun only deflects the apparent position of stars near it's observed rim by a couple of arcseconds - one of the 'original' GR experiments observed the magnitude of the Sun's lensing effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity) although later observations were needed to clear up a controversy about the analysis.
My point was that the FE model demands a much larger curvature of light than gravitational effects of the Earth can produce in an RE model (and they are of the opposite sign). You make a valid point that refraction is a problem for interferometers, although it's not as bad as you might think in a cotrolled lab environment. If all else fails there are giant Michelson interferometers with kilometre-long baselines that run in evacuated tubes as part of the LIGO experiment (amazing setup - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligo) which have not been troubled by the alleged FE light bending.
-
The Earth doesn't make a very good gravitational lens since it just isn't massive enough. Even the Sun only deflects the apparent position of stars near it's observed rim by a couple of arcseconds - one of the 'original' GR experiments observed the magnitude of the Sun's lensing effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity) although later observations were needed to clear up a controversy about the analysis.
That was what I figured, but my physics and astrophysics background is not up to this level of knowledge.
My point was that the FE model demands a much larger curvature of light than gravitational effects of the Earth can produce in an RE model (and they are of the opposite sign). You make a valid point that refraction is a problem for interferometers, although it's not as bad as you might think in a cotrolled lab environment. If all else fails there are giant Michelson interferometers with kilometre-long baselines that run in evacuated tubes as part of the LIGO experiment (amazing setup - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligo) which have not been troubled by the alleged FE light bending.
It seems that if there was an "Electromagnetic Acceleration" effect, it would be visible when you observe a beam of coherent light after a "trip" of 300 km since it is supposed to be a significantly visible effect at much shorter distances. Science is helping to study FE theories in the laboratory.