« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula

  • 14 Replies
  • 3355 Views
*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17670
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« on: January 23, 2008, 10:15:50 PM »
While working on my paper I realized I stated something wrong a few times in the past.  Here is the correction:

aetheric eddification angle = arcos(-tan( latitude )  x  tan(  23.45 * sin [360 / 365 * (284 + Day )] ) )

Is the new formula that is actually accurate (though an approximation).  The previous one was just plain out wrong.  I have also decided to discontinue use of aetheric refraction for the more accurate new term aetheric eddification.

If anyone sees glaring errors in this new formula, let me know.

This formula accurately predicts sunrises and sunsets.  Furthermore, although I need to investigate if this also explains the rotation of heavenly bodies in the night sky.  My guess is it does, or is not complete yet and will when it is.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 10:24:09 PM by Username »
Logged
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.
?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1525
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2008, 06:06:54 PM »
It's like a different language to me....
Logged
Quote from: Eddy Baby on May 24, 2011, 05:54:00 PM
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.
?

Bushido

Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2008, 06:09:46 PM »
Quote from: Username on January 23, 2008, 10:15:50 PM
While working on my paper I realized I stated something wrong a few times in the past.  Here is the correction:

aetheric eddification angle = arcos(-tan( latitude )  x  tan(  23.45 * sin [360 / 365 * (284 + Day )] ) )

Is the new formula that is actually accurate (though an approximation).  The previous one was just plain out wrong.  I have also decided to discontinue use of aetheric refraction for the more accurate new term aetheric eddification.

If anyone sees glaring errors in this new formula, let me know.

This formula accurately predicts sunrises and sunsets.  Furthermore, although I need to investigate if this also explains the rotation of heavenly bodies in the night sky.  My guess is it does, or is not complete yet and will when it is.

Prey tell, what assumptions did you use to derive such a formula? What is aetheric eddification?
Logged
?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2008, 10:16:19 AM »
Erm...this equation is a little bit of nonsense without context, would you agree?

It's like stating the equation for Snell's law without posting what its used for, if Snell's law hadn't yet been made.

Logged
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!
*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17670
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2008, 10:57:17 AM »
Quote from: fshy94 on January 25, 2008, 10:16:19 AM
Erm...this equation is a little bit of nonsense without context, would you agree?

It's like stating the equation for Snell's law without posting what its used for, if Snell's law hadn't yet been made.



Sorry, I've stated it before.  This is the angle that aether bends light when it passes through aether eddies, specifically that of the sun.

I'll post more on this.  Getting ready for a convention here.  Free drinks for 3 days mwa ha ha.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 11:00:06 AM by Username »
Logged
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.
?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2008, 11:08:54 AM »
Are you talking about the same aether I am? Because luminiferous aether was disproved pretty solidly in a very nifty experiment, Michelson–Morley. Then Einstein came along and showed everyone they didn't need aether.
Logged
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!
*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17670
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2008, 11:15:59 AM »
Hrm, no that got a null result.
Logged
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.
?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2008, 11:19:33 AM »
So you are postulating luminiferous aether? There are multiple experiments against that, and we don't even need it anymore, because of Einstein. Go read about its history. Sure, there's a small small small group that wishes to believe it still exists, but the evidence isn't there. The newer results are all fairly conclusive; no luminiferous aether. And Michelson–Morley didn't behave as aether should have, and...not so much luck there. Granted, that experiment was inconclusive on its own, but after more refined experiments took place, luminiferous aether was growing insanely complex in weird attempts to save it, and when Einstein came around, the whole reason aether was postulated fell apart. By that time, luminiferous aether was pushing on untestability, because every single time an experiment was made, it went against it, so they built a more complex system to explain those results away.
Logged
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!
?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2008, 01:50:48 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Lorentz prove that the "ether wind" of the earth could not be calculated?
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 01:53:07 PM by Germanicus »
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2008, 02:10:39 PM »
"Another, completely different, attempt to save "absolute" aether was made in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis, which posited that everything was affected by travel through the aether. In this theory the reason the Michelson-Morley experiment "failed" was that the apparatus contracted in length in the direction of travel. That is, the light was being affected in the "natural" manner by its travel though the aether as predicted, but so was the apparatus itself, canceling out any difference when measured. Fitzgerald had inferred this hypothesis from a paper by Oliver Heaviside. Without referral to an aether, this physical interpretation of relativistic effects was shared by Kennedy and Thorndike in 1932 as they concluded that the interferometer's arm contracts and also the frequency of its light source "very nearly" varies in the way required by relativity."

"Nevertheless the intuitive appeal of a causal background for "relativistic" effects cannot be denied. Some physicists hold that there remain a number of problems in modern physics that are simplified by an aether concept"
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2008, 02:15:26 PM »
You know, you're not the only one capable of checking wikipedia out... ::)

All three of us have probably done it already...

If your point is that some scientists still hold that view, I might also note that some scientists still disagree with relativity, believe in Sasquatch, and a whole bunch of other nonsense. Just because you are a scientist doesn't mean that your theory suddenly has more value without evidence.

If the Time Cube guy became a scientist, does that mean anything?
Logged
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2008, 02:18:09 PM »
Quote from: fshy94 on January 25, 2008, 02:15:26 PM
If your point is that some scientists still hold that view, I might also note that some scientists still disagree with relativity, believe in Sasquatch, and a whole bunch of other nonsense. Just because you are a scientist doesn't mean that your theory suddenly has more value without evidence.

Never claimed that it gained more value. That'd be subjective anyways.

And no, the point was to show: "Nevertheless the intuitive appeal of a causal background for "relativistic" effects cannot be denied."
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2008, 02:19:33 PM »
The intuitive appeal for a God cannot be denied either.
Neither can the intuitive appeal to deny relativity, as it goes against alot of intuition.

 ???

Not sure what you're getting at.

Furthermore, by adding ether, you are denying relativity. Not that that constitutes blasphemy, but in order to accept ether, you must deny relativity, because Einstein predicts everything so well, that the only reason it can't be proved to greater accuracy is because of the inaccuracy of clocks on Earth. I believe the figure was something like 10^14 power...

You can't double the effects. So its an either or situation. Can't have both.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 02:21:58 PM by fshy94 »
Logged
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!
*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17670
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2008, 02:52:13 PM »
Quote from: fshy94 on January 25, 2008, 02:19:33 PM
The intuitive appeal for a God cannot be denied either.
Neither can the intuitive appeal to deny relativity, as it goes against alot of intuition.

 ???

Not sure what you're getting at.

Furthermore, by adding ether, you are denying relativity. Not that that constitutes blasphemy, but in order to accept ether, you must deny relativity, because Einstein predicts everything so well, that the only reason it can't be proved to greater accuracy is because of the inaccuracy of clocks on Earth. I believe the figure was something like 10^14 power...

You can't double the effects. So its an either or situation. Can't have both.
Relativity, at least how it was envisioned by Einstein, included an ether of sorts. 

Thats the last thing I'll say for a while.

Lorentz's work is a great place to start on aether. 

Last post for the weekend, wish me fun drunken times.  With the week I've had I need it heh.
Logged
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.
*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65192
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Sorry, new aetheric eddification formula
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2008, 10:36:45 PM »
Have fun drunken times. I'll drink in sympathy with you.
Logged
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »