Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - AmateurAstronomer

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / Sun spots, and craters on the moon.
« on: September 09, 2008, 07:37:37 AM »
I'll admit this is a bad time for a sunspot thread, given that the sun has been sunspot free for a month and two days now, but some will crop up soon enough.

Sunspots on the sun make it's 25 day rotation period visibly apparent. In periods of heavy spotting, a full rotation of spots can be seen, even by amateurs with just box viewers and a lot of patience.

The continuity of the rotation shows that the spots are not just the random generation of directionally traveling phenomena on a flat emitter sun.

Secondly, the visible side of the moon has impact craters. With a flat moon that would be the bottom side, and even with a round moon, it's relative bottom side is still heavily impacted. How could a body like the moon get impact craters on it's bottom side?

Could it be that it's mass influenced other masses? Our flat earth is a sheep though, and the moon is a hen. That explains 100% why our earth's mass wouldn't influence other bodies. Right?

Flat Earth Debate / A proposed experiment for testing bending light.
« on: August 23, 2008, 05:02:33 AM »
I have an idea for a simple experiment to test the bending light theory, but I want to sound it out here and get some feedback before I put any time or effort into advancing it further.

The basic premise is to use a laser horizontally over a distance of either 1/4, or 1/8 of a mile, and check for vertical deviance proportionally equivalent to the 6" per mile that should be expected with FET.

The main problem that comes up is that finding a 1/4 or even 1/8 of a mile area that is flat enough to test this is almost impossible, especially given that FET proponents would expect it to be level, and RET proponents would expect it to be curved.

For that reason I would propose using a length of high tensile strength wire, and suspending it at a height well above whatever could be considered the mid-point of the RET proponents curved earth measurement. The wire would be secured solidly on one end, and winched taut on the other.

On one end of the wire you'd attach the laser, and the other the target.

(I propose using trees, because that would eliminate the cost of building anchor points. The use of trees though would require windless conditions for the entirety of the steps of tightening, calibration, and experimentation. Buildings could work too, but the issues of anchoring and then tightening become a problem.)

I have a few ideas about how to fairly test the calibration for both laser and target.

The laser would be attached in such a way that prior to the experiment it could be rotated one full rotation, to test for circular deviation of path on a place setter target set at anywhere from 1 foot to 1/30th-1/20th full distance(limited distance to preserve the sanctity of the full scale experiment). If circular deviation is found, the laser would be realigned and re-tested until a mutually tolerable amount of deviance is found.

For the construction of the target I would use as flat a material as possible, and bore as close to a perfectly vertical hole as possible, slightly smaller that the bore of the wire, to ensure a snug fit. The target would have to be tested for deviance prior to use though, to eliminate the need to restring, given that the target end would be my choice for the solidly secured part. For the testing of deviance I would put the target on a flat surface with a vertical rod the same as it's bore extending straight out, and rotate it with a fixed laser shining straight down. If it showed unacceptable deviance, it would be discarded, and new disks would be made until it passed indisputably.

Here's some problems I see right off the bat.

1) I'm not entirely sure any 1/4 - 1/8 mile long wire that's in my price range for a hobby related exercise could be drawn taut enough to stay still even in mostly windless conditions without snapping and fucking it all up.

2) Even if I got got lucky and got perfect conditions, some FET proponents would A) Disregard it based on some real or imagined discrepancy, B) If I got it indisputably perfect, disregard it claiming I'm part of the conspiracy, C) Say it's some interesting anecdotally evidence, but since they weren't there to see it, it is entirely meaningless.

3) If I pick the wrong field, and some 4-wheeler drives through and decapitates himself on my wire, I could end up doing hard time.

I can see a lot of promise in this idea though, so I'm interested in getting some feedback from both sides on the particulars of this proposition.

Flat Earth Debate / Polaris and Sigma Octanis
« on: August 21, 2008, 07:03:14 AM »
In the northern hemisphere Polaris appears to rotate around the center of the sky, at the equator you get a band of stars that move horizontally across the center of the sky, and in the southern hemisphere Sigma Octantis appears to rotate around center of the sky. This is an indicator of a spherical sky, and is at the very least an aspect of FET that I've seen no indication of. Anyone care to explain how that works? Hopefully something better than optical illusion.

Flat Earth Debate / Satellite orbital dynamics.
« on: August 18, 2008, 06:56:24 AM »
I put together an animation to help me explain this properly. It'll take a sec to load on dialup, if you're unlucky enough to still be on it. If the text that follows is too much for you to read, just move on to another thread now. No tl:dr posts please.

Here we have the flat earth, the round earth, and 3 satellites. The red satellite is an equatorial  geostationary satellite, the yellow is an equatorial non-geostationary satellite, and the blue is a polar orbiting satellite. Various factors and scales are exaggerated and highlighted to make the animation more viewer accessible.

Over on my RE side, I only need one formula to explain the dynamics of all 3. Forward momentum is equal to gravitational pull, so it basically falls in a circle. Each satellite has several decades of sufficient on-board propellant to correct eventual orbital decay caused by upper-atmospheric drag, gravitational flux, minor collisions, solar wind, etc...

Over on the FE side though, you have some quite different paths going on. I'm interested in hearing some thoughts on these very different orbital paths.

Some ground rules though: If you don't agree to these rules, don't bother responding to this topic.

1) Given that this is a satellite dynamics discussion thread, If you don't believe in satellites, don't bother discussing here. Take it to some other thread.

2) Given that with only 3 terrestrial reference points you can triangulate a satellite's distance and location, the satellites locations are considered verified, and cannot be questioned.

3) Given that this is the only map put forward, and confirmed by the owner of this site, any references to any other maps real, or that "you are planning to get around to drawing up" are disavowed until a graphical representation of said map is physically posted in THIS thread.

4) No fellow RE posters piping in to say that the FE posters won't answer. I'm a relatively new poster, but a long term lurker, and I've seen a lot of threads devolve quickly into name calling. Whether you're FE or RE, please don't post unless you can add to this particular discussion.

Other than that, I'd like to hear some opinions.

Pages: [1]