The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Nucleosynthesis on October 27, 2019, 01:39:06 PM

Title: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 27, 2019, 01:39:06 PM
In FE theory the stars are described as 'luminous elements' which are apparently a lot closer than RE theory maintains. I would like to ask the FE side what the term 'luminous element' actually means, what causes them to be luminous (because I'm assuming you don't attribute it to nuclear fusion), and just how far away do you think these luminous elements are.

What is your evidence?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 27, 2019, 10:48:27 PM
Earth-Sirius distance, under 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: JackBlack on October 28, 2019, 12:09:02 AM
Earth-Sirius distance, under 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662
The only thing in those links to indicate that 50 km is the assertion at the start.

How did you arrive at the value of 50 km?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 28, 2019, 12:43:27 AM
So if Sandokhan is correct and Sirius is just 50km from Earth, then why is it then that after typing in 'Sirius distance' into Google I get over 400,000 results (non of which are links to the Flat Earth Society) which tell me that Sirius is actually around 8.6 lightyears from Earth?

If its 3 against over 400,000 the laws of statistics say I should go with the 8.6 lightyears distance.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: JackBlack on October 28, 2019, 01:44:31 AM
If its 3 against over 400,000 the laws of statistics say I should go with the 8.6 lightyears distance.
Truth isn't decided by popular vote.

What you need to focus on is the evidence and justification for it.

We know Sirius is 8.6 light years away from Earth due to the observed stellar parallax.

However, FEers typically claim that celestial objects are 5000 km above Earth, as if you go 5000 km away from a point directly below, it appears at an altitude of 45 degrees.
However that relies upon assuming Earth is flat.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 02:00:57 AM
'Since mainstream physics doesn't know what composes 95% of the universe, you would expect them to be at least 95% wrong about any given question."

M. Mathis
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 28, 2019, 03:06:10 AM
Quote
We know Sirius is 8.6 light years away from Earth due to the observed stellar parallax.
So those 400,000+ websites are right for a reason then. 

I don't see what the composition of 95% of the Universe has got to do with knowing the distances of the nearest stars. I understand that many on the FE side will say that there is no way that the stars can be so distant if the Earth was flat.  But it isn't and we know that.  We have done for many centuries and long before any Societies for FE theory were formed. So that is one reason that rather negates any argument that the FE side have about how near they say the stars are.  You can make yourself believe in anything if you try hard enough, but you cannot change the truth.

Sirius is an A0 type main sequence star which is larger than the Sun. Using my own spectroscopic equipment I have recorded the spectrum of Sirius myself and confirmed it.

Just to add, dark matter (whose physical properties are currently a topic of research) is only thought to comprise 85%, not 95% of the Universe. Not knowing something in science is not a sign of weakness is it.  It is the unknown that forms the motivation for study. Just because mainstream science/cosmology/astronomy does not agree with the view of FE Theory, that is no reasons to conclude it is wrong. We are allowed to have different opinions about the Universe aren't we?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Unconvinced on October 28, 2019, 03:47:23 AM
Earth-Sirius distance, under 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

Wow. Sirius is in the stratosphere (stratoplane?)?

How has no one but you noticed this?  It should be pretty easy to work out even from the ground by triangulating from locations only a few miles apart.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 04:23:34 AM
triangulation

Then, you'd be making the same mistake that many other FE have committed (using triangulation to find the distance to some heavenly body).

An allowance must be made for ether refraction, however.

The experiment carried out by Martin Ruderfer proved the first NULL RESULT in ether drift theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

The density of ether increases greatly at higher altitudes.


Spectroscopy methods errors:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489346.html#msg1489346

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html


If you do not know what 95% of the universe consists of, then you have no idea about any of the distances to the stars commonly quoted: the redshift could be caused by tired light, or by the ether drift.


Positively Sirius must be very near to Earth, since it is IMMUNE to the acceleration of the rate of precession:


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662


In FE theory that would be under 50 km.

In RE theory the distance is under 150,000,000 km.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: JackBlack on October 28, 2019, 04:44:23 AM
'Since mainstream physics doesn't know what composes 95% of the universe, you would expect them to be at least 95% wrong about any given question."

M. Mathis
So I'll take that as you have absolutely no justification for your claim and are just pulling numbers out of thin air.

If you do not know what 95% of the universe consists of, then you have no idea about any of the distances
That is not how anything works, and is a blatant misrepresentation of what is known.
Just because you don't know everything, that doesn't mean that you can't know anything.

P.S. The distance to Sirius doesn't use redshift.

Positively Sirius must be very near to Earth
I agree, at an astronomical scale.
8.6 light years is very near. Especially when you realise that the milky way is over 100 000 light years across.

So that agrees with a RE quite well.

In FE theory that would be under 50 km.

In RE theory the distance is under 150,000,000 km.
And again, you are pulling numbers from no where.

Do you have any justification for these numbers at all?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 28, 2019, 04:48:54 AM
This is all fascinating stuff I'm sure. However it doesn't explain how a star which is larger than the Sun can exist just 50km away. Does that make sense to anyone? Even in the centre of globular clusters the stars aren't that close!
 
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 05:00:18 AM
This is all fascinating stuff I'm sure. However it doesn't explain how a star which is larger than the Sun can exist just 50km away. Does that make sense to anyone? Even in the centre of globular clusters the stars aren't that close!
 

He cant explain it, its all word salad, selective referencing, self referencing and poor maths
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Themightykabool on October 28, 2019, 05:11:42 AM
triangulation

Then, you'd be making the same mistake that many other FE have committed (using triangulation to find the distance to some heavenly body).

An allowance must be made for ether refraction, however.

The experiment carried out by Martin Ruderfer proved the first NULL RESULT in ether drift theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

The density of ether increases greatly at higher altitudes.


Spectroscopy methods errors:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489346.html#msg1489346

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html


If you do not know what 95% of the universe consists of, then you have no idea about any of the distances to the stars commonly quoted: the redshift could be caused by tired light, or by the ether drift.


Positively Sirius must be very near to Earth, since it is IMMUNE to the acceleration of the rate of precession:


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662


In FE theory that would be under 50 km.

In RE theory the distance is under 150,000,000 km.

50km?
Thats a 30min drive on the hwy.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 05:12:39 AM
However it doesn't explain how a star which is larger than the Sun can exist just 50km away.

In FE theory, the stars are much smaller than the Sun.


All of you here have not done their homework.

Here are the undeniable facts of science.

(https://image.ibb.co/i6AbDn/pre1.jpg)

"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

And the data is this:

Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula to get it to match the increasing rate of precession that was observed leading up to his era.

The “constant” amount was .000222 arc seconds per year.

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


A TOTAL AND COMPLETE DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN ORBITAL MECHANICS.


The mass of the Sun/Moon/planets has not increased (we all know that the mass of the Sun is actually constantly decreasing).

The orbital distances are the same (and the Moon is constantly receding from the Earth).


Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.



In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.


Sirius does NOT undergo precession at all:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 28, 2019, 05:15:35 AM
Quote
However it doesn't explain how a star which is larger than the Sun can exist just 50km away.

In FE theory, the stars are much smaller than the Sun.

Just because FE theory says something like this doesn't make it right does it.  That is just a claim.  A claim that is made without as far as I can tell, any real world based evidence to back it up.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on October 28, 2019, 05:28:32 AM
Anything 50km up would fall pretty fast to the horizon as you move away from it
directly under it is 90 degrees above you
at 50km its at 45 degrees
100km it is at 22.5
500km it is under 6 degrees.

So as far as he is concerned, only people at about 500km radius would be able to see it at all! Anyone further than that would have its view obscured by anything taller than a small tree.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 05:29:07 AM
As usual Sandy reads up to a point that appears to match his hypothesis and stops reading.

Precession is most certainly not increasing exponentially.

They pick Sirius as it looks odd, brightest star in the sky, 5th closest to earth, also moving towards earth currently and is circumpolar which makes it less subject to the wobble in the axial rotation of the earth.

But once again Sandy I concede your argument, the earth is a globe thanks for clearing that up.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 28, 2019, 07:10:38 AM
Sirius has a declination of -16D so it is only circumpolar from locations on Earth with a latitude = or south of 74S which means it is only visible all night and all year from Antarctica.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 08:03:17 AM
The RE are denying reality.

The rate of axial precession is accelerating exponentially.

This is an undeniable fact of science.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

The ether provides the distortion/refractive indices necessary to view all of the stars on a FE.

Here are some star trails portraying that type of distortion:

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5Wu7MrTp3EE/maxresdefault.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fe/ed/6e/feed6ef25aa8b54d454153b652922611.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pXL3yIY5fFQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6a/71/2b/6a712b2ab51ded556c4c9749bfc21886.jpg)
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 28, 2019, 08:20:06 AM
Since you are clearly so interested in the nature of the Earths precession, here is a slightly less lengthy (and arguably clearer) explanation of the nature and cause of axial precession than your links typically provide.

http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/lec-precession.html

I note that some of E CHENGs star trail images are taken with very short (virtually fisheye) f/length lenses (14mm for example) which will inevitably create distortions of true paths.  Nothing to do with 'ether distortion' or refractive indexs. Just optical distortion caused by a very wide angle lens.

Of course you can chose to interpret that as something else if it suits you. And any denial which is going on is coming from your side of the table I would suggest.

Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 08:27:51 AM
You don't seem to understand what we are discussing here.

The rate of axial precession is increasing exponentially (the rate is accelerating).

Please read very carefully:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776108#msg1776108

Then, we apply these facts to Sirius:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 08:30:09 AM
The RE are denying reality.

The rate of axial precession is accelerating exponentially.

This is an undeniable fact of science.


So your flat earth model rotates on its axis  ::)

Precession is cyclical.

Can you show me the angular observations you are using to derive that it is exponentially growing?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 28, 2019, 08:34:25 AM
Quote
You don't seem to understand what we are discussing here.

I don't think anyone understands what you are discussing here. You go of on all sorts of tangents to 'prove' one of your obscure points.  Say whatever you like but please don't patronise me. I'm only saying what I believe in just the same way as you are. 
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 08:48:52 AM
Quote
You don't seem to understand what we are discussing here.

I don't think anyone understands what you are discussing here. You go of on all sorts of tangents to 'prove' one of your obscure points.  Say whatever you like but please don't patronise me. I'm only saying what I believe in just the same way as you are.

He does this a lot.

The Newcombe Formula is from 1895, Tables of the Sun, which predicted precession for the four inner planets. It was phased out nearly 50 years ago as it wasn't terribly accurate.

The tables he is showing is from the binary research institute. If he can he will move the conversation more towards the Alias effect, then present his real premis which is there are two suns, the other being the black sun that causes eclipses.

The Binary research figures are gibberish, they are applying an outdated formula to a huge time period, most precessional  forulas can cover a 300 year period before needing corrections, due to random variations in the precession itself.



 
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 08:52:31 AM
The acceleration of the rate of axial precession is a fact of science (RE science).

Please read up:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776108#msg1776108

Then, we apply these facts to Sirius:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032


It is very easy to prove that, before 1700 AD, the Earth did not ever undergo any axial precession movement:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 09:06:50 AM
The acceleration of the rate of axial precession is a fact of science (RE science).

Please read up:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776108#msg1776108

Then, we apply these facts to Sirius:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032


It is very easy to prove that, before 1700 AD, the Earth did not ever undergo any axial precession movement:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

First two links refer to the Binary Research Insitute, not RE science. You should quote your sources.

The latter is word salad.

Quoting yourself does not make the reference stand up.

If you are correct in your predictions show me the angualr observations used to confirm.

Before 1700 AD, the Sothic Cycle, ancient Egyptians  used Sirius as its key stone over 6000 years ago.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 09:31:00 AM
You are trolling the upper forums.

I have already displayed the data (yes, RE science):

(https://image.ibb.co/i6AbDn/pre1.jpg)

"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

The data comes from the Astronomical Almanac.

Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 09:35:04 AM
The crux of the matter is this: the increasing rate of precession is exponential.

Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):

http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/pdf/ProcJournees2008.pdf (pg 75)

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

Data for 2000 (AA):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=OvTjLcQ4MCQC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=astronomical+almanac+2000+precession+50.290966%22&source=bl&ots=lnlt1jmDYz&sig=d9xLTsLP-xb83lOIv5C0Xb0FVls&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0JDlpMfMAhUI7RQKHVwGBdgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=astronomical%20almanac%202000%20precession%2050.290966%22&f=false

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 09:39:04 AM
You are trolling the upper forums.

I have already displayed the data (yes, RE science):

(https://image.ibb.co/i6AbDn/pre1.jpg)

"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

The data comes from the Astronomical Almanac.

Once again, this is not RE science.

You have cut and pasted graphs, from another site and are using them out of context.

http://binaryresearchinstitute.com/bri/calculations/precession-data-analysis/

This is not mainstream science.

You post the same thing endlessly, it doesn't make it right, not even close.

Your theory regarding the easter calculation, your third link, has been debunked numerous times, yet still its rolled out to diffuse and distract from what you originally claimed.

Yet im the one who gets warnings  ::)
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 09:41:53 AM
The crux of the matter is this: the increasing rate of precession is exponential.

Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):

http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/pdf/ProcJournees2008.pdf (pg 75)

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

Data for 2000 (AA):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=OvTjLcQ4MCQC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=astronomical+almanac+2000+precession+50.290966%22&source=bl&ots=lnlt1jmDYz&sig=d9xLTsLP-xb83lOIv5C0Xb0FVls&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0JDlpMfMAhUI7RQKHVwGBdgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=astronomical%20almanac%202000%20precession%2050.290966%22&f=false

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


Your theory regarding the easter calculation, your third link, has been debunked numerous times

Provide a link. You won't be able to.

And that is because it cannot be debunked.

The GAUSS EASTER FORMULA is the most accurate astronomical formula in existence.

You are trolling the upper forums, as usual, that is why you are receiving warnings.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 10:02:23 AM
The crux of the matter is this: the increasing rate of precession is exponential.

Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):

http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/pdf/ProcJournees2008.pdf (pg 75)

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

Data for 2000 (AA):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=OvTjLcQ4MCQC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=astronomical+almanac+2000+precession+50.290966%22&source=bl&ots=lnlt1jmDYz&sig=d9xLTsLP-xb83lOIv5C0Xb0FVls&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0JDlpMfMAhUI7RQKHVwGBdgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=astronomical%20almanac%202000%20precession%2050.290966%22&f=false

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.

First link refers to the Conference internationale des etoiles fondamentales in 1896, as I have already stated there are known issues in that figure, as more precise observations became available the aberrations became more pronounced, started to be phased out over 50 years ago.

Just for clarity Newcoms procession rate was 5,025.64 arcseconds per tropical century


5,028.796195 arcseconds per century is the figure adopted in 2000

Orders of magnitude in difference.

The current rate of procession is equal to one full precession circle in 25,771.57534 years which is one full circle of 360 degrees divided with 5,028.796195 arcseconds per century.

That is good enough for now, but again as already stated the figures go out of synch, currently the processional rate is increasing very slowly over time.

SLOWLY does not equate to exponential.


Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Themightykabool on October 28, 2019, 10:04:53 AM
So it being the "crux", what does this "exponential" movement have to do with anything?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Macarios on October 28, 2019, 10:09:14 AM
Earth-Sirius distance, under 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

So, at which elevation and azimuth is Sirius seen from Portland, OR
and at which elevation and azimuth at the same moment from Miami, FL.
(Portland to Miami distance is 4352 kilometers.)
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 10:10:10 AM
So it being the "crux", what does this "exponential" movement have to do with anything?

Nothing, as it patently is not happening.

But its being posited as a RE fact, which it isn't, dont get me started on the math.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Unconvinced on October 28, 2019, 10:10:18 AM
The crux of the matter is this: the increasing rate of precession is exponential.

No!

The question is about the alleged distance to the stars according to Flat Earthers.

While different Flat Earthers will give different numbers, you claimed that Sirius is 50km above the Earth.

Can you justify this claim or not?

Feel free to give your calculations for “ether refraction” or whatever.

Trying to poke holes in rate of precession compared to Newtonian mechanics, flawed of otherwise is an off topic distraction.

Try to control yourself before accusing other of trolling.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 10:14:53 AM
If the mods would be monitoring your messages you would have received a two week ban by now, for trolling.

Once I provided the data from the official RE sources, you understood that your previous posts (i.e., trolling) were debunked.

By now, you are down to this:

SLOWLY does not equate to exponential.

Exponential: increasing at an increasing rate.

Exactly what is happening to the rate of axial precession: it is accelerating at an exponential rate.

"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

Now, let us apply this data to Sirius:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 28, 2019, 11:11:25 AM
Anyone else lost the will to live yet?  There is one thing I do know however (no matter how much Sandokhan wishes to argue about it) and that it that Sirius is definitely not just a few km away. 

Only one word to describe that suggestion - ridiculous!  You come out with claims like that, expect everyone else to accept everything you say and then rattle on about the Earths precession.  Lets make this clear - Nothing to do with it, irrelevant!.

Sirius shows a parallax of just under 0.5" (0.38" to be exact). d=1/p so 1/0.38" = 2.63pc or 8.58 lightyears. A star which is 3.26 lightyears away shows a parallax of 1" (hence the term parallax second) so a star which is just over twice as far away will show a parallax half that of Alpha Centauri for example which is 4.3 lightyears away.  That has been proved, it is the correct answer so just deal with it!

Precession has nothing to with it whether it is exponentially increasing or not.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 11:19:38 AM
Geocentric stellar aberration/parallax:

http://web.archive.org/web/20150321094726/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no115/par-ab-rev.pdf

http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Stellar-Parallax

http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/?page_id=38
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 28, 2019, 11:37:53 AM
Quote
https://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Stellar-Parallax
Of course that is never shown in any science textbooks because it is wrong!

As for your link about negative parallaxes, that has also been put forward by FEers before and shown not to be related to actual physical angular measurements.  It is purely a statistical result. How could you get a negative angle exactly?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Unconvinced on October 28, 2019, 11:55:02 AM
If the mods would be monitoring your messages you would have received a two week ban by now, for trolling.

Once I provided the data from the official RE sources, you understood that your previous posts (i.e., trolling) were debunked.

By now, you are down to this:

SLOWLY does not equate to exponential.

Exponential: increasing at an increasing rate.

Exactly what is happening to the rate of axial precession: it is accelerating at an exponential rate.

"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

Now, let us apply this data to Sirius:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

Nothing to explain how Sirius is 50km above the Earth. 

Try again.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 12:00:50 PM
If the mods would be monitoring your messages you would have received a two week ban by now, for trolling.

Once I provided the data from the official RE sources, you understood that your previous posts (i.e., trolling) were debunked.

By now, you are down to this:

SLOWLY does not equate to exponential.

Exponential: increasing at an increasing rate.

Exactly what is happening to the rate of axial precession: it is accelerating at an exponential rate.

"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

Now, let us apply this data to Sirius:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

No RE sources.

No understanding of the term exponential.

None of the evidence, relates to the opening discussions or even your own claim.

Two week ban for pointing out you dont know how decimal points work

Guilty as charged
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 12:05:12 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.


RE sources:

Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):

http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/pdf/ProcJournees2008.pdf (pg 75)

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

Data for 2000 (AA):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=OvTjLcQ4MCQC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=astronomical+almanac+2000+precession+50.290966%22&source=bl&ots=lnlt1jmDYz&sig=d9xLTsLP-xb83lOIv5C0Xb0FVls&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0JDlpMfMAhUI7RQKHVwGBdgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=astronomical%20almanac%202000%20precession%2050.290966%22&f=false

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.

You are trolling, yet again, the upper forums.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Unconvinced on October 28, 2019, 12:33:26 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

The topic is about Flat Earthers’ theories.

You made a claim at the beginning of the thread, now you are just  trying to avoid it completely.  What gives?

HOW or WHY is Sirius 50km above the Earth?

Where are your measurements, calculations, reasoning, etc?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 12:58:11 PM
The distance from Sirius to Earth cannot be measured in light years, millions of kilometers, thousands of kilometers, or even in the hundreds of kilometers: both the Sun and Sirius are linked/connected by the SAME FIELD, which makes it possible for both these heavenly bodies to precisely keep up with the exponentially increasing rate of precession.

The topic is about Flat Earthers’ theories.

Exactly.

Since both the Sun and Sirius must be connected by the same field, we have two choices:

1. FE - Earth-Sirius distance under 50 km

2. RE - Earth-Sirius distance under 150,000,000 km

Since you are not fully convinced that the surface of the Earth is flat, perhaps I could persuade you to change your mind, and you know what is coming up next: the Tunguska event, the photographs from Lake Ontario, English Channel, and much more.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Themightykabool on October 28, 2019, 01:26:36 PM
The crux

Please explain why the crux is the crux.

Thanks
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Unconvinced on October 28, 2019, 01:31:41 PM
The distance from Sirius to Earth cannot be measured in light years, millions of kilometers, thousands of kilometers, or even in the hundreds of kilometers: both the Sun and Sirius are linked/connected by the SAME FIELD, which makes it possible for both these heavenly bodies to precisely keep up with the exponentially increasing rate of precession.

The topic is about Flat Earthers’ theories.

Exactly.

Since both the Sun and Sirius must be connected by the same field, we have two choices:

1. FE - Earth-Sirius distance under 50 km

2. RE - Earth-Sirius distance under 150,000,000 km

Since you are not fully convinced that the surface of the Earth is flat, perhaps I could persuade you to change your mind, and you know what is coming up next: the Tunguska event, the photographs from Lake Ontario, English Channel, and much more.

Finally.  Thank you.

So what field is this, and why is it 50km above a flat earth?

Let’s not start going over photos here.  Plenty of other threads on that.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: kopfverderber on October 28, 2019, 01:35:23 PM
I think in "standard" FE theory the sun is around 5000 km away and the stars are somewhat further away than that. The 50km theory is just Sando's and is not really representative.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: JackBlack on October 28, 2019, 01:57:13 PM
This is all fascinating stuff I'm sure. However it doesn't explain how a star which is larger than the Sun can exist just 50km away. Does that make sense to anyone? Even in the centre of globular clusters the stars aren't that close!
According to Sandy, the sun is much much smaller than people claim, as is Sirius.

Remember, FEers reject large portions of science/reality.

Here are the undeniable facts of science.
Posting a list of numbers is not an undeniable fact of science.
You haven't provided a single citation for these numbers and instead just pulled them out of thin air.

Also, you are just copying from another source.
A source which in no way claims Sirius is less than 50 km from Earth.
Instead it claims that the sun and Sirius are part of a binary star system and that the apparent precision is actually due to the motion of the solar system due to it actually being a binary star system.

If you wish to claim it is an undeniable fact of science, provide valid citations to scientific journals which state (or better yet prove) that it is happening.
Don't just assert it is.
Don't just dump in a bunch of numbers.
Don't just link to some other random website.
And certainly don't link to yourself.

Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.
No, we can't. Even if we accept those values as true and accurate and precise, all that shows is that the rate increased. It doesn't show how the rate increased. It doesn't show if it was exponential or some other function.

But it could just as easily be that Newcomb was wrong.

A TOTAL AND COMPLETE DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN ORBITAL MECHANICS.
Pure nonsense. This is nothing more than yet another baseless assertion from you.
You have not substantiated it in any way.

The ether provides the distortion/refractive indices necessary to view all of the stars on a FE.
Here are some star trails portraying that type of distortion:
You mean showing the distortion due to the lenses used, but otherwise being 100% consistent with a RE?

Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):
That isn't his data.
That is him being mentioned 4 times.
Regarding precession all it states is that Newcomb needed more research and eventually the value settled on was 50.2564"/yr

There is no indication of his 0.000222" figure.

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).
Following your link I get a page not available error.
Looking http://asa.usno.navy.mil/static/files/2018/Astronomical_Constants_2018.pdf
I get the value 50.280"
Quite different from your claim.
It seems the value you are using is from the past, which has been projected forwards to 2000.

But that gives a change of 0.000236.

Exponential: increasing at an increasing rate.
No, exponential means increasing at a rate that is proportional to the value.
i.e. something of the form y=a^x, where a is a constant.
There are many different was to increase at an increasing rate.
For example, y=x^1.00000000001.
That is not an exponential function. It grows much more slowly than an exponential function.
You can even just have part of a function, for example, y=sin(x), where then between -pi/2 and -pi/2, x is increasing, with the rate increasing between -pi/2 and 0, and then decreasing between 0 and pi/2.

And again, none of that is relevant to the topic at hand as you are yet to show how it relates to your 50 km value.

How do you arrive at your 50 km value?
Is it just a number you think is reasonable?

Also, if you want to try and use all the above data to try and show it, just remember that that data relies upon a round Earth.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Platonius21 on October 28, 2019, 02:03:15 PM
Come on Sandy. Throw some Sagnac math into the "debate".
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Unconvinced on October 28, 2019, 02:23:31 PM
Come on Sandy. Throw some Sagnac math into the "debate".

Oh.  Is that going to be the answer to my question?

Never mind.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 02:33:25 PM
In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

Exactly, and the link works just fine.

This is the IMPROVED value.

Google search with "rate of precession julian century".

Not only does my reference appear as well (fully accesible), but also the explanation is given as to the difference observed.

It all comes down to the formula used to calculate the precession: the 50.290966 figure uses a more precise formula.


Sure it is A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

The mass of the Sun/Moon/planets has not increased (we all know that the mass of the Sun is actually constantly decreasing).

The orbital distances are the same (and the Moon is constantly receding from the Earth).


Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.


Modern science cannot explain the acceleration of the rate of axial precession, and neither can the RE in this thread.



http://www.saturndaily.com/reports/Saturns_bulging_core_implies_moons_younger_than_thought_999.html

“The moons are migrating away much faster than expected.”

The team also found that Saturn moon Rhea is moving away 10 times faster than the other moons.

Not even Saturn can come to the rescue.


One cannot bring the influence of the planets into the acceleration of the rate of precession, since the distances have not changed, and the mass of Jupiter, as an example, has decreased (and not increased) over time.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/article/space/jupiter%E2%80%99s-gravity-pulls-so-much-matter-planet-growing

The mass of Jupiter is DECREASING.

Heliocentrists have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, and also have to account for these facts:

1. Solar mass is decreasing

2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding

3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing

4. Saturn's moons are receding at an increasing rate

Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.

Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula to get it to match the increasing rate of precession that was observed leading up to his era.

The “constant” amount was .000222 arc seconds per year.

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


The mass of the Sun/Moon/planets has not increased (we all know that the mass of the Sun is actually constantly decreasing).

The orbital distances are the same (and the Moon is constantly receding from the Earth).

Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.


Now, not only do the RE have to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces, but also to come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: JackBlack on October 28, 2019, 02:45:50 PM
In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).
Not according to the source I provided, which is a more recent one.
Again, the value you quote is from a calculation predicting what it would be in 2000.

But as pointed out, all of this irrelevant.
It doesn't help you establish that Sirius is just 50 km from Earth.

You have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate this value and all your talk on precession is just a massive distraction from the issue at hand.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Themightykabool on October 28, 2019, 02:49:21 PM
In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

Exactly, and the link works just fine.

This is the IMPROVED value.

Google search with "rate of precession julian century".

Not only does my reference appear as well (fully accesible), but also the explanation is given as to the difference observed.

It all comes down to the formula used to calculate the precession: the 50.290966 figure uses a more precise formula.


Sure it is A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

The mass of the Sun/Moon/planets has not increased (we all know that the mass of the Sun is actually constantly decreasing).

The orbital distances are the same (and the Moon is constantly receding from the Earth).


Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.


Modern science cannot explain the acceleration of the rate of axial precession, and neither can the RE in this thread.



http://www.saturndaily.com/reports/Saturns_bulging_core_implies_moons_younger_than_thought_999.html

“The moons are migrating away much faster than expected.”

The team also found that Saturn moon Rhea is moving away 10 times faster than the other moons.

Not even Saturn can come to the rescue.


One cannot bring the influence of the planets into the acceleration of the rate of precession, since the distances have not changed, and the mass of Jupiter, as an example, has decreased (and not increased) over time.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/article/space/jupiter%E2%80%99s-gravity-pulls-so-much-matter-planet-growing

The mass of Jupiter is DECREASING.

Heliocentrists have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, and also have to account for these facts:

1. Solar mass is decreasing

2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding

3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing

4. Saturn's moons are receding at an increasing rate

Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.

Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula to get it to match the increasing rate of precession that was observed leading up to his era.

The “constant” amount was .000222 arc seconds per year.

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


The mass of the Sun/Moon/planets has not increased (we all know that the mass of the Sun is actually constantly decreasing).

The orbital distances are the same (and the Moon is constantly receding from the Earth).

Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.


Now, not only do the RE have to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces, but also to come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.

What does this have to do with anything?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 02:51:44 PM
Come on Sandy. Throw some Sagnac math into the "debate".

Oh.  Is that going to be the answer to my question?

Never mind.

More likely to be Alias effect the way hes steering it.

Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 02:53:57 PM
The other source does not benefit from the input of the best experts in the field.

The references I provided explain quite clearly how the formulas are to be used: a more advanced formula will provide the figure I included in my messages.

The distance from Sirius to Earth cannot be measured in light years, millions of kilometers, thousands of kilometers, or even in the hundreds of kilometers: both the Sun and Sirius are linked/connected by the SAME FIELD, which makes it possible for both these heavenly bodies to precisely keep up with the exponentially increasing rate of precession.

Since both the Sun and Sirius must be connected by the same field, we have two choices:

1. FE - Earth-Sirius distance under 50 km

2. RE - Earth-Sirius distance under 150,000,000 km

Since you are not fully convinced that the surface of the Earth is flat, perhaps I could persuade you to change your mind, and you know what is coming up next: the Tunguska event, the photographs from Lake Ontario, English Channel, and much more.

What is the nature of that field? EXACTLY the one mentioned by Newton himself.

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.


Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Stash on October 28, 2019, 03:00:19 PM
1. FE - Earth-Sirius distance under 50 km

I'm still confused. How is 50 km calculated?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Themightykabool on October 28, 2019, 03:02:42 PM
In one sentence.
State why the the crux is the crux.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 03:03:57 PM
Hes also assuming all movement is generated by the axial rotation of the Globe Earth.

Failing to take into account that Sirus is a Binary star, gravitationally unbound from the cluster where it formed. Its moving towards the solar system and will do for tens of thousands of years, it won't be visible in the northern hemisphere in about 4000 years.

Sandy keeps dropping hints towards calendars, so dont be surprised if it moves in that direction.  It's hard for somebody who thinks all of history only goes back 300 years to think in astronomical timescales
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 03:23:45 PM
Failing to take into account that Sirus is a Binary star, gravitationally unbound from the cluster where it formed. Its moving towards the solar system and will do for tens of thousands of years, it won't be visible in the northern hemisphere in about 4000 years.

Sure.

Please explain why Sirius does keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Stash on October 28, 2019, 03:42:03 PM
Failing to take into account that Sirus is a Binary star, gravitationally unbound from the cluster where it formed. Its moving towards the solar system and will do for tens of thousands of years, it won't be visible in the northern hemisphere in about 4000 years.

Sure.

Please explain why Sirius does keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.

That doesn't answer the question as to how you arrived at 50 km. How is this figure calculated?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 04:11:51 PM
Failing to take into account that Sirus is a Binary star, gravitationally unbound from the cluster where it formed. Its moving towards the solar system and will do for tens of thousands of years, it won't be visible in the northern hemisphere in about 4000 years.

Sure.

Please explain why Sirius does keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.

Its displacement from the ecliptic makes its helical rising appear more regular than other stars. Its period is also almost exactly a solar year.

I have already pointed out that you do not understand the term exponential.

But the Sirius binary system is not static, its changing but at a much reduced rate than other observations, such as the so called zodiac constellations on the ecliptic plane.

Your inability to appreciate long timescales does not make your position correct. Neither does it provide a shred of evidence to calculate the 50km distance of an object of just over 2 solar masses
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 10:42:25 PM
http://I have already pointed out that you do not understand the term exponential.

I wrote the book on exponentials.

I provided the first explicit formula in the history of mathematics for the exponential function.

GLOBAL COSINE/ARCCOSINE/EXPONENTIAL/LOGARITHM/ARCTANGENT FUNCTIONS

(http://www.zaimoni.com/grafx/UnitCircleW_InscribedRgtTri.gif)

The hypothenuse is labeled as c (which unites points A and C), side a is located on the x axis (which unites points A and B), and we also have side b. Angle θ is located between sides c and a (cos θ = a/c).

Point D will be the intersection of the circle with the positive x axis.

We first calculate the value of segment CD, in terms of a, b and c: (2c2 - 2ac)1/2

We then succesively bisect the chord CD, and each hypothenuse thus obtained (if we divide CD in half the midpoint will be E, and the intersection of the segment AE with the circle will be labeled as F; then we calculate this new hypothenuse CF in terms of the values obtained earlier, and so on, aiming to get as close to the value of s [arc length of CD] as possible], into smaller and smaller equal segments, calculating each succesive value in terms of a, b and c, in order to obtain a very close approximation of s (the arc length between points C and D); since s = rθ, where r = c = 1, by acquiring an exceptional figure for s, we correspondingly then get the value of θ.

Letting c = 1, we finally obtain:


COS θ =  1/2 x (({ [( (2 - θ2/2N)2 - 2)2...]2 - 2}2 - 2))    (n/2 + 1 evaluations)

COS-1 θ =  2n x {2 - ((2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 2θ)1/2]1/2}1/2...))}1/2   (n + 1 evaluations)


The cosine formula is a GLOBAL formula; by contrast the Maclaurin cosine series is a local formula:

(http://www.petervis.com/mathematics/maclaurin_series/maclaurin_series_for_cosx/maclaurin_series_for_cosx_4.gif)

My global cosine formula is the SUM of the Maclaurin cosine expansion.


We know that the Maclaurin hyperbolic cosine expansion is:

cosh x = 1 + x2/2! + x4/4! + ...

Therefore, by just changing the sign in the global cosine formula, we obtain immediately the GLOBAL hyperbolic cosine formula:

COSH V =  1/2 x (([(({[(2 + V2/2n)2 - 2]2} - 2))2...-2]2 - 2))   (n/2 + 1 evalutions)

This is the global hyperbolic cosine formula which is the sum of the corresponding local Maclaurin power series expansion.


We then immediately obtain the GLOBAL natural logarithm formula:

LN V =  2n x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)1/2]1/2...}1/2))1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2n x (V1/2n+1 - 1/V1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

For a first approximation,

LN V = 2n x (V1/2n - 1)

First results appear for n = 8 to 12, all the remaining digits for n = 19 and higher...

Example: x = 100,000        LN x = 11.5129255

with n = 20 the first approximation is LN x = 11.512445 (e11.512445 = 100,001.958)


We also can get the corresponding arctangent formula:

ARCTAN V =  2n x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ V2)}1/2)1/2]...1/2}))1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)


ERROR ANALYSIS

Here is the Maclaurin expansion for ex:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/9/8/f98fd1cf18b61436b3adf73e1be3e6fc.png)

Let us obtain a remainder form for the Maclaurin expansion for ex (Lagrange remainder):

Rn(x) = f(n+1)(c)[xn+1]/(n+1)! , where c is between 0 and x

f(n+1)(c) = ec


An approximation is said to be accurate to n decimal places if the magnitude of the error is less than 0.5 x 10-n.

e1 to four decimal place accuracy:

Rn = ec/(n+1)!

since c<1, then ec < e

since e<3, then Rn < 3/(n+1)!

then, for n=8 we will obtain four decimal place accuracy.


Local formulas are difficult to use because of their very slow convergence.


By contrast, my formula is a GLOBAL formula, which rapidly converges to the result, even for large x.


COSH v = (ev + e-v)/2 =~ 1/2ev = 1/2 x (({[( ( (2 + v2/2n)2) -2)2] -2)2 ...-2}2 -2))       
(n/2 +1 evaluations)

We can turn this formula into an exact formula for ev by simply substituting y for ev, and then solve the quadratic equation for y.

One might ask, could you not use Taylor expansions to obtain cosh 10 (as an example)? No, because you would need some other value to start with, cosh 9.5 or cosh 9.8 or cosh 10.3, to apply Taylor series.

With my global formula, no such approximations are needed, we can start directly with the value v = 10.

My formula also has a built-in remainder approximation estimation: the term v2/2n.

That is, we can estimate the accuracy from the very start: this is the power of a global formula.

The higher the value of n, the better the approximation that we will obtain.


Example:

COSH 10 = 11013.233

102/220 = 0.00009536

Using the global hyperbolic cosine formula with n = 20, we get: 11012.762

Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 10:50:05 PM
Its displacement from the ecliptic makes its helical rising appear more regular than other stars. Its period is also almost exactly a solar year.

But the Sirius binary system is not static, its changing but at a much reduced rate than other observations, such as the so called zodiac constellations on the ecliptic plane.


Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?

You are trolling this thread!

EXPLAIN WHY Sirius does keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession.

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.


You are wrong also on your assessment of the situation.

SIRIUS DOES NOT UNDERGO ANY KIND OF A PRECESSIONAL MOTION AT ALL.

This is what you do not understand.

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 11:19:50 PM
http://I have already pointed out that you do not understand the term exponential.

I wrote the book on exponentials.

I provided the first explicit formula in the history of mathematics for the exponential function.

GLOBAL COSINE/ARCCOSINE/EXPONENTIAL/LOGARITHM/ARCTANGENT FUNCTIONS

(http://www.zaimoni.com/grafx/UnitCircleW_InscribedRgtTri.gif)

The hypothenuse is labeled as c (which unites points A and C), side a is located on the x axis (which unites points A and B), and we also have side b. Angle θ is located between sides c and a (cos θ = a/c).

Point D will be the intersection of the circle with the positive x axis.

We first calculate the value of segment CD, in terms of a, b and c: (2c2 - 2ac)1/2

We then succesively bisect the chord CD, and each hypothenuse thus obtained (if we divide CD in half the midpoint will be E, and the intersection of the segment AE with the circle will be labeled as F; then we calculate this new hypothenuse CF in terms of the values obtained earlier, and so on, aiming to get as close to the value of s [arc length of CD] as possible], into smaller and smaller equal segments, calculating each succesive value in terms of a, b and c, in order to obtain a very close approximation of s (the arc length between points C and D); since s = rθ, where r = c = 1, by acquiring an exceptional figure for s, we correspondingly then get the value of θ.

Letting c = 1, we finally obtain:


COS θ =  1/2 x (({ [( (2 - θ2/2N)2 - 2)2...]2 - 2}2 - 2))    (n/2 + 1 evaluations)

COS-1 θ =  2n x {2 - ((2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 2θ)1/2]1/2}1/2...))}1/2   (n + 1 evaluations)


The cosine formula is a GLOBAL formula; by contrast the Maclaurin cosine series is a local formula:

(http://www.petervis.com/mathematics/maclaurin_series/maclaurin_series_for_cosx/maclaurin_series_for_cosx_4.gif)

My global cosine formula is the SUM of the Maclaurin cosine expansion.


We know that the Maclaurin hyperbolic cosine expansion is:

cosh x = 1 + x2/2! + x4/4! + ...

Therefore, by just changing the sign in the global cosine formula, we obtain immediately the GLOBAL hyperbolic cosine formula:

COSH V =  1/2 x (([(({[(2 + V2/2n)2 - 2]2} - 2))2...-2]2 - 2))   (n/2 + 1 evalutions)

This is the global hyperbolic cosine formula which is the sum of the corresponding local Maclaurin power series expansion.


We then immediately obtain the GLOBAL natural logarithm formula:

LN V =  2n x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)1/2]1/2...}1/2))1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2n x (V1/2n+1 - 1/V1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

For a first approximation,

LN V = 2n x (V1/2n - 1)

First results appear for n = 8 to 12, all the remaining digits for n = 19 and higher...

Example: x = 100,000        LN x = 11.5129255

with n = 20 the first approximation is LN x = 11.512445 (e11.512445 = 100,001.958)


We also can get the corresponding arctangent formula:

ARCTAN V =  2n x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ V2)}1/2)1/2]...1/2}))1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)


ERROR ANALYSIS

Here is the Maclaurin expansion for ex:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/9/8/f98fd1cf18b61436b3adf73e1be3e6fc.png)

Let us obtain a remainder form for the Maclaurin expansion for ex (Lagrange remainder):

Rn(x) = f(n+1)(c)[xn+1]/(n+1)! , where c is between 0 and x

f(n+1)(c) = ec


An approximation is said to be accurate to n decimal places if the magnitude of the error is less than 0.5 x 10-n.

e1 to four decimal place accuracy:

Rn = ec/(n+1)!

since c<1, then ec < e

since e<3, then Rn < 3/(n+1)!

then, for n=8 we will obtain four decimal place accuracy.


Local formulas are difficult to use because of their very slow convergence.


By contrast, my formula is a GLOBAL formula, which rapidly converges to the result, even for large x.


COSH v = (ev + e-v)/2 =~ 1/2ev = 1/2 x (({[( ( (2 + v2/2n)2) -2)2] -2)2 ...-2}2 -2))       
(n/2 +1 evaluations)

We can turn this formula into an exact formula for ev by simply substituting y for ev, and then solve the quadratic equation for y.

One might ask, could you not use Taylor expansions to obtain cosh 10 (as an example)? No, because you would need some other value to start with, cosh 9.5 or cosh 9.8 or cosh 10.3, to apply Taylor series.

With my global formula, no such approximations are needed, we can start directly with the value v = 10.

My formula also has a built-in remainder approximation estimation: the term v2/2n.

That is, we can estimate the accuracy from the very start: this is the power of a global formula.

The higher the value of n, the better the approximation that we will obtain.


Example:

COSH 10 = 11013.233

102/220 = 0.00009536

Using the global hyperbolic cosine formula with n = 20, we get: 11012.762

Utter dribble

Power series expansions are littered all over the internet, copy and paste again. But that's the point isnt it, would take a while to work through.

But even if you did write it, it's nothing special. First glance no limitation to the variables so you can take the series pretty much anywhere you want.

More importantly context, what had exponentials of a log series got to do with a claimed exponential increase elliptical procession, which your own citations DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2019, 11:24:50 PM
Your knowledge of advanced mathematics is lacking.

My formulas ARE NOT power series expansions at all: a power series expansion is a LOCAL formula.

I published the GLOBAL FORMULAS for the logarithm, hyperbolic cosine, cosine and arccosine functions, a first in mathematics.

You have just shown to everyone here that you are just trolling the upper forums.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 11:28:45 PM
Its displacement from the ecliptic makes its helical rising appear more regular than other stars. Its period is also almost exactly a solar year.

But the Sirius binary system is not static, its changing but at a much reduced rate than other observations, such as the so called zodiac constellations on the ecliptic plane.


Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?

You are trolling this thread!

EXPLAIN WHY Sirius does keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession.

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.


You are wrong also on your assessment of the situation.

SIRIUS DOES NOT UNDERGO ANY KIND OF A PRECESSIONAL MOTION AT ALL.

This is what you do not understand.

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

Erm no.

I have provided an explanation.

You made the claim that Sirius is 50km and cannot provide any proof.

Throw up as many paradoxes as you want, as most of your threads do, you will word spam, I will repeat question, then you report me to Mods for asking you questions.

Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 11:30:15 PM
Your knowledge of advanced mathematics is lacking.

My formulas ARE NOT power series expansions at all: a power series expansion is a LOCAL formula.

I published the GLOBAL FORMULAS for the logarithm, hyperbolic cosine, cosine and arccosine functions, a first in mathematics.

You have just shown to everyone here that you are just trolling the upper forums.

Semantics doest change my point

Link to published paper please

Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 28, 2019, 11:31:32 PM
Two claims of trolling already   >:(

Just supply substantive proof of your 50km claim
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Stash on October 29, 2019, 01:50:59 AM
Your knowledge of advanced mathematics is lacking.

My formulas ARE NOT power series expansions at all: a power series expansion is a LOCAL formula.

I published the GLOBAL FORMULAS for the logarithm, hyperbolic cosine, cosine and arccosine functions, a first in mathematics.

You have just shown to everyone here that you are just trolling the upper forums.

Still confused - How did you arrive at 50 km, specifically? Nothing you've shown so far even remotely addresses where that number came from; 50 km, specifically.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 29, 2019, 01:54:55 AM
Sandokhan can be as disparaging about mainstream science as he wishes, but what science aims to do is to provide concise and clear explanations based on real, observational data. Hence the claim about 8.5 lightyears is based on the observed annual parallax of Sirius. Sandokhan so far has not provided an equally clear and concise explanation for his claim about 50km.  We are not interested in pages and pages of copied and pasted equations, as attractive as they might look. All you need is one simple equation. d(distance)= 1/p (parallax)

As I have said before, the distances of the nearest stars are determined using parallax and in the case of Sirius that amounts to 0.38 arc seconds.  That is an annual back and forth change in the position of Sirius relative to the background stars. The distance is inversely proportional so 1/0.38" gives 2.6pc. The wobble of the Earths axis due to precession takes 26,000 years and so it doesn't take a genius to work out that precession has nothing to do with calculating star distances. 

So Sandokhan can call himself a Flat Earth Sultan, Flat Earth Scientist or whatever other labels he wishes to use but that doesn't make him right.  If you seriously believe a star which is physically larger than the Sun (claimed FE Wiki distance 3000 miles or 4,800km) yet appears as a point source of light in the sky from Earth is actually just 50km away (60 times closer than the Sun?!?), then even my 2 year old grand-daughter will detect something is a bit amiss about that claim! 

Also as noted yesterday, Sirius is the fifth nearest star to the Sun.  So what does that mean for the distance of Alpha Centauri, the Suns closes neighbour?

Please correct me on any of the above if you believe it to be wrong.  But if you do then please explain (clearly) why.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: kopfverderber on October 29, 2019, 02:17:28 AM
If stars were 50km away weather balloons would almost reach them. Stars would look bigger when seen from airplanes or mountain peaks.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on October 29, 2019, 02:29:36 AM
FE Wiki* states that the stars are 'luminous elements' which apparently move in a layer above the Sun and the Moon.  It doesn't specifically say anything about a size as such.

If the stars are above the Sun and Moon then that would mean further away from our point of view. FE theory states the Sun is 4,800km (3000 miles) above the Earth but Sandokhan claims Sirius is only 50km from the Earth. So on those figures, how can Sirius be above the Sun and Moon?

*I should add that the term luminous elements comes from the 'other' FE Wiki. I acknowledge that there is no similar term in the FE Wiki on this site.  There doesn't appear to be any mention in this FE Wiki about the distance of the stars or indeed what mechanism or process is responsible for making them visible.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: mak3m on October 29, 2019, 02:57:41 AM
Ahh morning coffee

OK bit of a retraction on the maths, it appears to work but im not sure what the purpose is.

It looks like a function to take a sequence of square roots, Im assuming you are creating a logarithm to to exponent the 2nd variable.

Looks overly complicated to me and not sure how that links to the presumed exponential increase in precession.



Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: JackBlack on October 29, 2019, 03:15:37 AM
Since both the Sun and Sirius must be connected by the same field, we have two choices:
No, we don't have these choices.
You have provided absolutely no basis for this.

Even if we agree that they are connected by the same field, why does this give the distances you claim?

You are a literally pulling a number from no where.

According to the site you reference, what is keeping it "so perfectly in sync" is that it is held together by gravity over those 8.6 light years.
There is absolutely no justification for your claim of 50 km.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Themightykabool on October 29, 2019, 06:31:13 AM
In one sentence.
State why the the crux is the crux.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: wpeszko on October 29, 2019, 07:40:20 AM
How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?
1. It doesn't stay synced precisely. Your source says "... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history." [Buchwald, “Egyptian Stars under Paris Skies” (Caltech, Engineering &
Science No. 4, 2003]. You made "precisely" up.
2. The formulas for rate of precession are valid for about the current centuries, it cannot be used to calculate precession rates for ancient times. This is the part you conveniently "missed".
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Stash on October 29, 2019, 04:58:10 PM
How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?
1. It doesn't stay synced precisely. Your source says "... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history." [Buchwald, “Egyptian Stars under Paris Skies” (Caltech, Engineering &
Science No. 4, 2003]. You made "precisely" up.
2. The formulas for rate of precession are valid for about the current centuries, it cannot be used to calculate precession rates for ancient times. This is the part you conveniently "missed".

Regardless of precession and the near synching of Sirius, there is still no explanation as to where a 50 km altitude of Sirius over earth's surface comes into play. The question remains, how is the 50 km claim derived? Without some sort of derivation, the claim seems like an arbitrary number asserted without evidence.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Themightykabool on October 30, 2019, 02:07:09 PM
So sando has still to answer why the crux is the crux or why the crux results in a 50km measurement.

On a side note, johnD has been talking about a samsung weather balloon.
Apparently these things can go up to 30-40km up.
Thus pretty much meeting the star halfway.
Are you, sando, seriously refuting that no ones seen the star from a weather balloon?
An easily ("easily") reproducible experiment?
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Stash on October 30, 2019, 07:49:48 PM
So sando has still to answer why the crux is the crux or why the crux results in a 50km measurement.

I'm guessing because there is no calculation/derivation. I think the notion is that something so far away (Sirius) couldn't be in such close procession to earth. Ergo, it must be close, I guess. But then there is a massive gap in logic/facts/calculations. Why 50 km? Why not 75? Why not 25? There is no answer to those questions. Hence the radio silence as such calculations/logic doesn't exist.

Whenever a refutation is brought up it is countered with, "RE has to answer this (random) question..."

RE does not (as they have been answered for 100's of years) but aside from that, if one wants to make a claim the that the 5th closest star to earth is in a sub-weather balloon orbit altitude, one has to justify said claim. And show why and how. No other random questions need to be fielded. Why 50 km? Simple as that.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 03, 2019, 01:31:49 AM
The star Sirius that we see with the naked eye is the primary member of a binary system. That means it is possible to calculate that the mass of Sirius 'A' is a tad over 2 solar masses or about 4 x 10^30kg.

Now if Sirius is just 50km or so away then given that we cannot detect any physical disk for a star which has twice as much mass as the Sun, that would mean it would have to be incredibly compact, and hence incredibly dense as well. The Schwarzschild radius for such a mass (radius at which the escape velocity becomes equal to the speed of light and hence it would become a black hole) is a touch under 6km. So if Sirius was only 50km away then I think its reasonable to suggest that we on Earth would feel something of a (very significant) gravitational pull from Sirius.

FE Theory (or at least one version of it) places the Sun only 3000km away above the flat Earth. So there would certainly be a marked mutual gravitational effect between the Sun and Sirius that we don't experience in the real world. That effect would be more than enough to have sucked the Sun and the Earth into Sirius many millions of years ago. So the fact that the Sun, the Earth and Sirius seem to manage to exist without any significant mutual effects suggests that something is definitely amiss somewhere with the FE claims.

Something else which doesn't add up is that FE Wiki claims that the Sun is just 32 miles in diameter. Now we can see a definite disk (32' across on the sky or 1/2 a degree) so if the Sun is 60 times further away from us than Sirius, based on Sandokhans claim of 50 km distance for Sirius then that must make Sirius every small indeed since we cannot see the physical disk of Sirius.  Geometrically that would make Sirius considerably smaller than 6km across and hence it would have a radius less than its Schwarzschild radius which is physically impossible.   
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: Themightykabool on November 03, 2019, 02:47:17 AM
In one sentence.
State why the the crux is the crux.
Title: Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
Post by: sokarul on November 03, 2019, 02:54:57 PM
He can’t copy paste anything so he is long gone.