How does FET explain Romer's observations?

  • 64 Replies
  • 20750 Views
*

Aeternalis

  • 15
  • Local Resident of Antichtone
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2012, 03:17:18 AM »
Oh, thanks. Sorry I made a typo - I meant THEIR moon, as in, the moons of Jupiter. Does FET acknowledge Jupiter as a gas or solid planet? Because from what I know it is physically impossible to have a gas planet 26 miles in diameter.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 03:18:56 AM by Aeternalis »


"When I was young I thought it was weird that Plankton was married to a computer. Then I realised that I am Plankton."

http://soundcloud.com/aeternalis

Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #31 on: April 11, 2012, 03:51:05 AM »
Oh, thanks. Sorry I made a typo - I meant THEIR moon, as in, the moons of Jupiter. Does FET acknowledge Jupiter as a gas or solid planet? Because from what I know it is physically impossible to have a gas planet 26 miles in diameter.
While I never know when FEers will invoke the conspiracy again, here's my best guess at the FET values. I assumed only that the RET proportions between Jupiter and its moons were correct. (That seems very safe since the proportions of these diameters could be confirmed from direct observations.)

Here are the "stable" 66 moons:

« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 05:23:50 AM by ClockTower »
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Aeternalis

  • 15
  • Local Resident of Antichtone
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #32 on: April 11, 2012, 04:15:13 AM »
Thanks ClockTower :) I'm not even sure heavenly bodies such a small size would even have strong enough gravity to be able to form proper astronomical orbits though. They must be REALLY dense, right?


"When I was young I thought it was weird that Plankton was married to a computer. Then I realised that I am Plankton."

http://soundcloud.com/aeternalis

Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #33 on: April 11, 2012, 05:40:49 AM »
Thanks ClockTower :) I'm not even sure heavenly bodies such a small size would even have strong enough gravity to be able to form proper astronomical orbits though. They must be REALLY dense, right?
I don't think sizes, both distance and mass, affect the stability of n-body systems. Assuming Newton's simplified version of the force of gravity, Kepler found stable orbits without knowing the actual distances or masses. That said: I don't think that any one can really predict much about that stability in the general case. GR and its tensor equations really don't provide anything simple enough to work with on that task.

I think that real problem for FET here is: Given 1) The observed speed of light, 2) That the speed of light is constant for all observers (according to SR), and 3) Romer's observations, then Jupiter must be hundreds of millions of miles away and vary by 180 million miles each Earth year. That alone destroys all FET models
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6847
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2012, 10:20:45 AM »
CT, your attitude towards real science, the science of G.B. Airy for example, is deplorable...you would not be able to prove the earth is round to an amoeba, let alone to myself or to anybody else here...

The G.B. Airy experiment proves clearly that there is a layer of energy, call it aether, call it the Schumann cavity, which must be taken into account within any discussion about the speed of light.

Kepler's first law contradicts the accepted fact of current astronomy that the entire solar system moves toward the star Vega on a helical path.

You cannot explain how Jupiter orbits the Sun, or how Io, for example, orbits Jupiter without attractive gravity.

You cannot explain how Jupiter acquired a spherical shape, as shown by Nasa, the theory behind it is truly laughable, to say the least.

The books and articles I provided prove cleary, I think, that Einstein's relativity is a joke, not even a scientific theory...the speed of light is variable, put aside your misconceptions, and read carefully.

And last, but not least, we have the faint young sun paradox...completely destroying any arguments you might have about stellar evolution.

PS I did not check the biography of O. Romer; I assumed his observations were made AFTER 1905...thanks for letting me know what was going on...
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 10:23:27 AM by levee »

Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #35 on: April 11, 2012, 01:58:06 PM »
CT, your attitude towards real science, the science of G.B. Airy for example, is deplorable...you would not be able to prove the earth is round to an amoeba, let alone to myself or to anybody else here...

The G.B. Airy experiment proves clearly that there is a layer of energy, call it aether, call it the Schumann cavity, which must be taken into account within any discussion about the speed of light.
No. Reference, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Biddell_Airy#Ether_drag_test
Quote

Kepler's first law contradicts the accepted fact of current astronomy that the entire solar system moves toward the star Vega on a helical path.
How so?
Quote
You cannot explain how Jupiter orbits the Sun, or how Io, for example, orbits Jupiter without attractive gravity.
Yes, in the colloquially sense, we need attractive gravity to explain the motions of the Sun, Jupiter, Io, and the RE. Did you have an objection to the existence of attractive gravity that doesn't require a mindless wall of pasta?
Quote
You cannot explain how Jupiter acquired a spherical shape, as shown by Nasa, the theory behind it is truly laughable, to say the least.
Did you have a specific objection to concept that a large enough body over millions of years alone in space tends to pull itself into its lowest energy state, a sphere? Please do try to present cogent, concise arguments, not personal opinions. Thanks.
Quote

The books and articles I provided prove cleary, I think, that Einstein's relativity is a joke, not even a scientific theory...the speed of light is variable, put aside your misconceptions, and read carefully.
Again, present your case concisely and clearly. Use thesis statement. Don't think that woo-woo references ever proves anything.
Quote
And last, but not least, we have the faint young sun paradox...completely destroying any arguments you might have about stellar evolution.
Please point to any current argument, which the Greenhouse Hypothesis has not already addressed. Also how is FET better at resolving the paradox?
Quote

PS I did not check the biography of O. Romer; I assumed his observations were made AFTER 1905...thanks for letting me know what was going on...
Would you also please help us keep this thread on a single topic? You really seem to ramble on to size topics in this thread. I don't see how any of them addresses the OP.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6847
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2012, 02:49:50 AM »
CT, you must go and reach beyond vickypedia type of websites...if you want to become a true researcher, a scientist who uses his intuition to discover that the earth is actually flat.

Airy experiment, full details (which cannot be found on wikipedia):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580


You wrote: How so? Very simple:

The trajectory/movement of the entire heliocentric planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with Kepler's first law.

The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.

The movement of the Sun (galactic orbit):

http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3817/scan0001v.jpg

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to O. Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.


Now, we move on to other things.

Hyperdimensional Physics/R. Hoagland (he assumes that the Voyager missions did actually take place)

Astrophysical discovery of "glowing planets" -- planetary bodies which shine in the infrared via internal energy sources, not just by reflected light -- stems from completely unexpected ground-based telescopic observations of this solar system, beginning in the mid-1960's: the startling detection of "anomalous internal infrared radiation" coming from the planet Jupiter. Later Pioneer and Voyager insitu spacecraft observations across the 70s and 80s added the other "giant planets," Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, to the list of solar system worlds that -- somehow, without internal nuclear fusion processes, like stars -- still manage to radiate more energy out into space than they receive directly from the Sun.

After much initial debate, the conventional understanding of these anomalous "infrared excesses" eventually settled on three possible internal sources: 1) left-over "primordial heat" from the literal formation of the planet; 2) heating caused by eventual internal separation of light elements in so-called "gas giant" planets (helium from hydrogen), releasing potential energy as the helium falls further toward the center of the planet (a form of ultra-slow, "continued gravitational contraction"); and 3), anomalous energy release due to excess radioactive decay of heavy element concentrations located within gas giant rocky cores.



Of the three current explanations for these "energy anomalies," only the first applies to Jupiter ... because of its mass -- 318 times the Earth's; a planet of that minimum mass is required (in the model) if it's to retain significant thermal energy across the immense lifetime of the solar system ... almost 5 billion years since the planet's formation ... and still be able to radiate observable heat. And, as can be seen from this diagram, the current ratio of absorbed solar energy to emitted 5-billion-year-old internal Jovian energy is still almost two to one!

After the Voyager fly-bys of the 1980's, the second "internal heat" proposal -- the "helium drip model" -- was favored for the observed heat excess in the Saturn situation. But, because of their relatively light masses (less than 30 times the Earth's), only the third possibility -- massive internal radioactive decay -- has been seriously attempted as an explanation for Uranus' and Neptune's more puzzling "anomalous infrared emissions."

There are, however, serious problems with all of these "conventional" explanations -- particularly after these spacecraft flybys, for all planets less massive than Jupiter.

For instance, during the Voyager encounters of Uranus and Neptune, spacecraft instruments detected a barely measurable (but significant) "infrared excess" (as opposed to merely infrared re-emission of absorbed solar energy) for Uranus of about "1 to 1.14"; whereas for Neptune (essentially its planetary "twin") the ratio of internal heat to intercepted sunlight was a striking "three to one!"

However, simultaneous "doppler tracking" gravity measurements conducted during the fly-bys (looking for anomalous trajectory changes to the spacecraft motion, caused by gravitational effects from increased percentages of heavy radioactive elements in the cores of Uranus and Neptune) detected no anomalous central concentrations in either planet ... necessary, if the excess observed IR radiation is in fact caused by "excessive internal radioactive element concentrations."

Even more perplexing, Uranus has a pronounced axial tilt ("obliquity" is the technical term) compared to all the other planets of the solar system -- some 98 degrees to the plane of its orbit of the Sun; Neptune's is much more "normal": about 30 degrees. [For comparison, Earth's obliquity is about 23.5 degrees]. One recently proposed alternative to the "internal radioactivity model" is "the recent collision model": that Uranus -- somehow, long after its formation -- suffered a massive impact with another major object, perhaps an errant moon ... This, according to the theorists, in addition to accounting for the current "tipped over situation" of the planet, would have also added a significant amount of geologically "recent" internal energy to Uranus, driving up internal temperatures by equivalent amounts. This model argues that these resulting elevated temperatures in Uranus, derived from a massive "cosmic collision," could thus account for Uranus' current "infrared excess," as observed by Voyager in 1986.

There is only one problem with these ideas: the "excess radioactivity theory," and the "cosmic collision model" are both apparently dead wrong.



Over the past decade, as we have attempted to understand their anomalous IR radiation, one thing has become clear -- to a first order, the "infrared excesses" of the giant planets all seem to correlate very nicely with one parameter each has in common -- regardless of their individual masses, elemental compositions, or distance from the Sun:

Their total system "angular momentum."

The mass of a body and the rate at which it spins, in classical physics, determines an object's "angular momentum." In our Hyperdimensional Model, its a bit more complicated -- because objects apparently separated by distance in this (3-space) dimension are in fact connected in a "higher" (4-space) dimension; so, in the HD model, one also adds in the orbital momentum of an object's gravitationally-tethered satellites -- moons in the case of planets; planets, in the case of the Sun, or companion stars in the case of other stars.

When one graphs the total angular momentum of a set of objects -- such as the radiating outer planets of this solar system (plus Earth and Sun) -- against the total amount of internal energy each object radiates to space, the results are striking:

The more total system angular momentum a planet (or any celestial body) possesses (as defined above -- object plus satellites), the greater its intrinsic "brightness," i.e. the more "anomalous energy" it apparently is capable of "generating."

And, as can be seen from this key diagram, this striking linear dependence now seems to hold across a range of luminosity and momentum totaling almost three orders of magnitude ... almost 1000/1!

It is an undeniable fact that Jupiter and Saturn -- which possess only a tiny fraction the solar system’s total mass compared to the sun – are, in fact, a huge influence on the sun itself (and all of the other planets as a consequence). This is because they conversely possess most (almost 99%) of the solar system’s total bulk angular momentum.

In the Hyperdimensional Model, it is this angular momentum -- mainly from these two massive planets, transmitted through the “Hyperdimensional aether” -- which ultimately causes the sun’s differential rotation.

Especially noteworthy, the Earth (not "a collapsing gas giant," by any stretch of the imagination) also seems to fit precisely this empirical energy relationship: when the angular momentum of the Moon is added to the "spin momentum" of its parent planet, the resulting correlation with measurements derived from internal "heat budget" studies of the Earth are perfectly fitted to this solar-system-wide empirical relationship -- even though the Earth's internal energy is supposedly derived from "radioactive sources."





There is a well-known "rule of thumb" in science, perhaps best expressed by a late Noble Laureate, physicist Richard Feynman:


"You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right -- at least if you have any experience -- because usually what happens is that more comes out than goes in ... The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. Others, the inexperienced students, make guesses that are very complicated, and it sort of looks as if it is all right, but I know it is not true because the truth always turns out to be simpler that you thought ..."
This startling relationship -- our discovery of the simple dependence of an object's internal luminosity on its total system angular momentum -- has that "feel" about it; it is simple ... it is elegant ... in fact--

It could even be true.




http://www.zipcon.net/~swhite/docs/astronomy/Angular_Momentum.html (see the graphic there)

So the rotational angular momentum of the Sun, which is 1.1e42, is less than 4% that of the total orbital angular momentum of the planets, which is 3.1e43.

Based on this calculation Jupiter’s orbital angular momentum alone accounts for over 60% of the total angular momentum of the Solar system!

The orbital angular momentum of the Moon 2.9e34 is about four times that of the rotational angular momentum of the Earth, which is 7.1e33.

However, the total orbital angular momenta of the largest moons of Jupiter is less than a hundredth the rotational angular momentum of the planet.



J. Zenneck, Gravitation, in Encyclop. der Mathem. Wiss., vol. V, part I p.44.

The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion as well as attraction. A perturbation displacing a planet or a satellite by a few seconds of arc must direct it from its orbit. It is assumed that the orbits of all planets and satellites did not change because of perturbations. A regulating force emanating from the primary appears to act. In the gravitational system there is no place left for such regulating forces.
You also wrote: Did you have a specific objection to concept that a large enough body over millions of years alone in space tends to pull itself into its lowest energy state, a sphere? Please do try to present cogent, concise arguments, not personal opinions. Thanks.

That is why I invited you to read up on the Faint Young Sun Paradox:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1312927#msg1312927



Next time, I have a surprise for you CT: I will prove that the biography of Ole Romer has been falsified, and that his observations, were actually written up more than 100 years later.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 03:06:48 AM by levee »

Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2012, 03:33:16 AM »
CT, you must go and reach beyond vickypedia type of websites...if you want to become a true researcher, a scientist who uses his intuition to discover that the earth is actually flat.
I assure that I do a much better job at original-source research than you give me credit. Do forget about using your intuition to discover anything.
Quote

Airy experiment, full details (which cannot be found on wikipedia):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580

When you take the time to provide original sources that support your claim, I'll read it and consider it. However, I will not read your self-published walls of pasta.
Quote
You wrote: How so? Very simple:

The trajectory/movement of the entire heliocentric planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with Kepler's first law.
Note to you, again: Saying something does not make it true.
Quote
The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.
So you're going to claim that the relatively slow speed of the solar system means that it can't be described well by ignoring the effect of that motion, right? Show me your math, starting with the differential equations. Since motion is relative, I fail to see how it could possibly make a difference. If the Earth is moving at 20 km/s in the same direction as the Sun, then Kepler's Laws would still apply. If you're so sure that the planets aren't moving according to the RET predictions, as explained by Dr. Meeus in http://www.amazon.com/Astronomical-Algorithms-Jean-Meeus/dp/0943396352, please list one observation of a planet not where RET predicted it. Otherwise, I really don't see any reason to accept this wall of pasta.
Quote
The movement of the Sun (galactic orbit):

http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3817/scan0001v.jpg

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to O. Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.


Now, we move on to other things.

Hyperdimensional Physics/R. Hoagland (he assumes that the Voyager missions did actually take place)

Astrophysical discovery of "glowing planets" -- planetary bodies which shine in the infrared via internal energy sources, not just by reflected light -- stems from completely unexpected ground-based telescopic observations of this solar system, beginning in the mid-1960's: the startling detection of "anomalous internal infrared radiation" coming from the planet Jupiter. Later Pioneer and Voyager insitu spacecraft observations across the 70s and 80s added the other "giant planets," Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, to the list of solar system worlds that -- somehow, without internal nuclear fusion processes, like stars -- still manage to radiate more energy out into space than they receive directly from the Sun.

After much initial debate, the conventional understanding of these anomalous "infrared excesses" eventually settled on three possible internal sources: 1) left-over "primordial heat" from the literal formation of the planet; 2) heating caused by eventual internal separation of light elements in so-called "gas giant" planets (helium from hydrogen), releasing potential energy as the helium falls further toward the center of the planet (a form of ultra-slow, "continued gravitational contraction"); and 3), anomalous energy release due to excess radioactive decay of heavy element concentrations located within gas giant rocky cores.



Of the three current explanations for these "energy anomalies," only the first applies to Jupiter ... because of its mass -- 318 times the Earth's; a planet of that minimum mass is required (in the model) if it's to retain significant thermal energy across the immense lifetime of the solar system ... almost 5 billion years since the planet's formation ... and still be able to radiate observable heat. And, as can be seen from this diagram, the current ratio of absorbed solar energy to emitted 5-billion-year-old internal Jovian energy is still almost two to one!

After the Voyager fly-bys of the 1980's, the second "internal heat" proposal -- the "helium drip model" -- was favored for the observed heat excess in the Saturn situation. But, because of their relatively light masses (less than 30 times the Earth's), only the third possibility -- massive internal radioactive decay -- has been seriously attempted as an explanation for Uranus' and Neptune's more puzzling "anomalous infrared emissions."

There are, however, serious problems with all of these "conventional" explanations -- particularly after these spacecraft flybys, for all planets less massive than Jupiter.

For instance, during the Voyager encounters of Uranus and Neptune, spacecraft instruments detected a barely measurable (but significant) "infrared excess" (as opposed to merely infrared re-emission of absorbed solar energy) for Uranus of about "1 to 1.14"; whereas for Neptune (essentially its planetary "twin") the ratio of internal heat to intercepted sunlight was a striking "three to one!"

However, simultaneous "doppler tracking" gravity measurements conducted during the fly-bys (looking for anomalous trajectory changes to the spacecraft motion, caused by gravitational effects from increased percentages of heavy radioactive elements in the cores of Uranus and Neptune) detected no anomalous central concentrations in either planet ... necessary, if the excess observed IR radiation is in fact caused by "excessive internal radioactive element concentrations."

Even more perplexing, Uranus has a pronounced axial tilt ("obliquity" is the technical term) compared to all the other planets of the solar system -- some 98 degrees to the plane of its orbit of the Sun; Neptune's is much more "normal": about 30 degrees. [For comparison, Earth's obliquity is about 23.5 degrees]. One recently proposed alternative to the "internal radioactivity model" is "the recent collision model": that Uranus -- somehow, long after its formation -- suffered a massive impact with another major object, perhaps an errant moon ... This, according to the theorists, in addition to accounting for the current "tipped over situation" of the planet, would have also added a significant amount of geologically "recent" internal energy to Uranus, driving up internal temperatures by equivalent amounts. This model argues that these resulting elevated temperatures in Uranus, derived from a massive "cosmic collision," could thus account for Uranus' current "infrared excess," as observed by Voyager in 1986.

There is only one problem with these ideas: the "excess radioactivity theory," and the "cosmic collision model" are both apparently dead wrong.



Over the past decade, as we have attempted to understand their anomalous IR radiation, one thing has become clear -- to a first order, the "infrared excesses" of the giant planets all seem to correlate very nicely with one parameter each has in common -- regardless of their individual masses, elemental compositions, or distance from the Sun:

Their total system "angular momentum."

The mass of a body and the rate at which it spins, in classical physics, determines an object's "angular momentum." In our Hyperdimensional Model, its a bit more complicated -- because objects apparently separated by distance in this (3-space) dimension are in fact connected in a "higher" (4-space) dimension; so, in the HD model, one also adds in the orbital momentum of an object's gravitationally-tethered satellites -- moons in the case of planets; planets, in the case of the Sun, or companion stars in the case of other stars.

When one graphs the total angular momentum of a set of objects -- such as the radiating outer planets of this solar system (plus Earth and Sun) -- against the total amount of internal energy each object radiates to space, the results are striking:

The more total system angular momentum a planet (or any celestial body) possesses (as defined above -- object plus satellites), the greater its intrinsic "brightness," i.e. the more "anomalous energy" it apparently is capable of "generating."

And, as can be seen from this key diagram, this striking linear dependence now seems to hold across a range of luminosity and momentum totaling almost three orders of magnitude ... almost 1000/1!

Especially noteworthy, the Earth (not "a collapsing gas giant," by any stretch of the imagination) also seems to fit precisely this empirical energy relationship: when the angular momentum of the Moon is added to the "spin momentum" of its parent planet, the resulting correlation with measurements derived from internal "heat budget" studies of the Earth are perfectly fitted to this solar-system-wide empirical relationship -- even though the Earth's internal energy is supposedly derived from "radioactive sources."





There is a well-known "rule of thumb" in science, perhaps best expressed by a late Noble Laureate, physicist Richard Feynman:


"You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right -- at least if you have any experience -- because usually what happens is that more comes out than goes in ... The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. Others, the inexperienced students, make guesses that are very complicated, and it sort of looks as if it is all right, but I know it is not true because the truth always turns out to be simpler that you thought ..."
This startling relationship -- our discovery of the simple dependence of an object's internal luminosity on its total system angular momentum -- has that "feel" about it; it is simple ... it is elegant ... in fact--

It could even be true.



J. Zenneck, Gravitation, in Encyclop. der Mathem. Wiss., vol. V, part I p.44.
I have to challenge this quote. I researched this source and page 44 does not even contain English, let alone the supposed quote below. I conclude that you're being dishonest. Please scan the cover page and page 44  and post the images here to show me that you're not. Otherwise, I think we're through believing your posts.
Quote

The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion as well as attraction. A perturbation displacing a planet or a satellite by a few seconds of arc must direct it from its orbit. It is assumed that the orbits of all planets and satellites did not change because of perturbations. A regulating force emanating from the primary appears to act. In the gravitational system there is no place left for such regulating forces.
You also wrote: Did you have a specific objection to concept that a large enough body over millions of years alone in space tends to pull itself into its lowest energy state, a sphere? Please do try to present cogent, concise arguments, not personal opinions. Thanks.

That is why I invited you to read up on the Faint Young Sun Paradox:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1312927#msg1312927

And you continue to ignore my challenge: How does the Greenhouse Theory fail to resolve the Faint Sun Paradox? The evidence presented in various journal articles supports that it does.
Quote

Next time, I have a surprise for you CT: I will prove that the biography of Ole Romer has been falsified, and that his observations, were actually written up more than 100 years later.
I think that the only surprise for me will be what you consider "I will prove" to mean.

ETA: With the help of Google Translate, Zenneck on page 44 said only: "Attempts to demonstrate such a time variation of the gravitational constant had, according to R. Pictet and P. Cellerier, a hope of success, because the difference in the kinetic energy of the planets Jupiter and Saturn are decisive. As the minimum between the years 1899-99 and 1917-17 of the maximum amounts to approximately 18%."

There is absolutely no text match the alleged emboldened text. I believe that this shows with 99% accuracy that you are a fraud.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 04:07:15 AM by ClockTower »
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6847
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2012, 12:11:26 AM »
Here are the details on the Airy experiment:

An experiment with a water-filled telescope was performed by the then Astronomer Royal, George Airy (after whom the Airy disc of diffraction theory is named), in 1871, which can be considered to be a variation of an earlier investigation by François Arago, performed with a moving slab of glass in 1810.

Arago showed that either light itself or the luminiferous aether is
dragged along by a moving piece of glass. Fresnel explained the effect
by assuming it was the light-carrying medium (this is called Fresnel
drag). George Stokes explained it via compression of the aether, but
the important point is whether we can tell which one is doing the
moving - the light source or the transparent material. When Arago
investigated this effect with starlight, he concluded that the World
(with respect to which the glass plate was stationary in this instance)
was at rest and that it was the stars that were moving.

The experiment subsequently performed by Airy was first proposed by
Ruggiero Boscovich for testing James Bradley's heliocentric aberration.
This, in turn, was thought up to explain the elliptical
motion of the star Gamma D., as observed by James Bradley and
Samuel Molyneux.



What was the result of Airy's experiment? Exactly the opposite outcome
to that predicted in the rotating-World scenario. (Note that the
experiment is usually referred to as "Airy's failure" for this reason.)



Just like Arago before him, George Airy proved that the World was
stationary and the stars are moving. It does not matter whether there
exists a luminiferous aether or not, because the dragging of starlight,
as demonstrated initially by Arago, is real, irrespective of how we try
to explain it. Both Arago and Airy showed that it is the stars, and not
the World, which move (although Airy did not actually go so far as to
admit this). In addition, we can say that Michelson-Morley,
Trouton-Noble and many, many others have consistently demonstrated no
motion of the World.


Airy's experiment thus does not confirm the World to be just a piece of rock that hurtles through infinite space in who knows how many contorted motions, as Mikolaj Kopernik (aka 'Copernicus'), Johannes Kepler, Carl Sagan, et al., so zealously maintained.


"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)


Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.


No self-published pasta....just real science, a very easy to perform experiment which does show that the Earth is actually stationary, not to mention the existence of the aether.

Read for yourself: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm (Dr. Neville Jones)


Obviously, you had no idea about the Airy experiment to start with...


You had the audacity to write: So you're going to claim that the relatively slow speed of the solar system means that it can't be described well by ignoring the effect of that motion, right? Show me your math, starting with the differential equations. Since motion is relative, I fail to see how it could possibly make a difference. If the Earth is moving at 20 km/s in the same direction as the Sun, then Kepler's Laws would still apply. If you're so sure that the planets aren't moving according to the RET predictions, as explained by Dr. Meeus in http://www.amazon.com/Astronomical-Algorithms-Jean-Meeus/dp/0943396352, please list one observation of a planet not where RET predicted it. Otherwise, I really don't see any reason to accept this wall of pasta.


CT, DO YOU UNDERSTAND what is going on, what we are debating here? Do you comprehend the issues we discuss?

Kepler's first law says:  A PLANET MOVES IN A PLANE IN AN ELLIPSE...  RIGHT?

Do you understand the meaning of the term planar motion?

I did not bring into discussion at all any speed of the solar system...how fast or how slow.

Now, the accepted view in current astrophysics is that the entire motion of the solar system (Sun + Planets) toward the star Vega, IS A GEOMETRICAL PATH which takes the form of a helix (helical path), a tridimensional orbit.

AGAIN, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE? Why then did you post the BS about the speed of the solar system?

The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.

As early as 1920, O. Lodge observed that this motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.


So, CT, what is your choice here? If you think Kepler's law is correct, then the solar system CANNOT move on a helical path toward Vega, which means current astrophysics is a joke.

If the helical path is true, then it means Kepler's data was falsified much later in time, to fool us into believing the Earth is rotating around the Sun.

Do not try to find your way out of this by digressing from the subject, it won't work with me.


IT IS EITHER/OR: either Kepler's first law of PLANAR motion,  or the currently accepted view that the entire solar system is moving toward Vega on a helical path.





Why did you choose to ignore my previous message? The anomalous internal infrared radiation coming from the planet Jupiter CANNOT be explained at all, in any way shape or form, by the official astronomy.



Of the three current explanations for these "energy anomalies," only the first applies to Jupiter ... because of its mass -- 318 times the Earth's; a planet of that minimum mass is required (in the model) if it's to retain significant thermal energy across the immense lifetime of the solar system ... almost 5 billion years since the planet's formation ... and still be able to radiate observable heat. And, as can be seen from this diagram, the current ratio of absorbed solar energy to emitted 5-billion-year-old internal Jovian energy is still almost two to one!


DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE TERM: angular momentum? Do you?



So where did all the angular momentum go if the sun truly formed by gravitational contraction? Astronomers suggest that some of it was transferred to Jupiter and Saturn, which possess 98% of the total angular momentum of the solar system, still far, far less than the angular momentum that would have been generated during the formation of the sun.

Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion—that is, it is turning slowly. This 'angular momentum' is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?

A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets, yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist this is both astounding and unexplainable. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of momentum from the sun to its planets.

Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly.

Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this. This strange distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly.

*David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, * Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?'—*David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.


Are you joking? The Greenhouse effect  CANNOT account for the Faint Young Sun Paradox AT ALL! Please read:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1312927#msg1312927


Your temper does not allow you to stop and think CT, the quote I provided and the biographical piece of information say exactly what I posted:

The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

...because the difference in the kinetic energy of the planets Jupiter and Saturn are decisive. As the minimum between the years 1899-99 and 1917-17 of the maximum amounts to approximately 18%."

Exactly. Where did this excess of kinetic energy come from, in the period 1899-1917? That is why this difference CANNOT be accounted for from the point of view of the theory of gravitation. Please read carefully and refrain from emotional posting. The authors you quoted chose to ignore the real issue: the real source of energy for the huge difference noted in the those astronomical observations, that is why I brought it into our discussion.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 12:17:06 AM by levee »

Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2012, 12:34:10 AM »
Your temper does not allow you to stop and think CT, the quote I provided and the biographical piece of information say exactly what I posted:

The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

...because the difference in the kinetic energy of the planets Jupiter and Saturn are decisive. As the minimum between the years 1899-99 and 1917-17 of the maximum amounts to approximately 18%."

Exactly. Where did this excess of kinetic energy come from, in the period 1899-1917? That is why this difference CANNOT be accounted for from the point of view of the theory of gravitation. Please read carefully and refrain from emotional posting.
Just to review:

You claim here that Zenneck said:
J. Zenneck, Gravitation, in Encyclop. der Mathem. Wiss., vol. V, part I p.44.

The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

But he said only: "Attempts to demonstrate such a time variation of the gravitational constant had, according to R. Pictet and P. Cellerier, a hope of success, because the difference in the kinetic energy of the planets Jupiter and Saturn are decisive. As the minimum between the years 1899-99 and 1917-17 of the maximum amounts to approximately 18%."

You entirely misrepresented Zenneck, adding conclusions he did not make to serve your purposes. Look at the red font for the 47 words you dishonestly added to the quote, and the 10 you omitted. You're a fraud.

Now that I know that you falsify your quotes, I am not going to waste any more time reviewing your fabrications.

Oh, and you really don't understand physics. Physics predicts variation in the kinetic energy over the course of a body's orbit. Indeed, Kepler's Second Law tells us that!

Quote from: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/Newton-Kepler.html
Thus the planet's kinetic energy (proportional to the square of its orbital speed) must increase to compensate to keep the total energy = sum of kinetic + potential energies constant (conservation of energy). And of course, just the opposite applies as the planet's distance increases from the Sun - its potential energy increases, thus its kinetic energy (and so orbital speed) must decrease.

ITT: levee is exposed as a fraud, and we see that he doesn't understand simple physics.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6847
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2012, 12:50:52 AM »
A promise is a promise.

Without the help of the new radical chronology, nobody here could have answered in the Axial Precession thread, posted earlier:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52083.msg1303227#msg1303227


OFFICIAL BIOGRAPHY OF OLE ROMER:

Danish astronomer (1644–1710)

Römer was professor of astronomy at the University of Copenhagen when Jean Picard visited Denmark to inspect Tycho Brahe's observatory at Uraniborg. Picard recruited him and Römer joined the Paris Observatory in 1671.

He left France at a propitious time, since four years after his departure Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, and as a Protestant Römer would surely have been forced to leave the country, as was Christiaan Huygens.



Jean-Felix Picard (July 21, 1620 – July 12, 1682) was a French astronomer and priest born in La Flèche, where he studied at the Jesuit Collège Royal Henry-Le-Grand.


Therefore, in the official chronology, protestantism, priesthood and Jesuit colleges were a common thing at the beginning of the 17th century.


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm

THE PAULINE EPISLES BY THE BRITISH HISTORIAN EDWIN JOHNSON:

This 100-page book from 1894 shows that:

·         The Paul figure was a literary invention from the 1500's

·         The purportedly early Church Father writings were literary inventions of the 1500's

·         Eusebius' Church History was written in the 1500's.

·         The Gospels were written in the 1500's.

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459891

Direct quote from the works of Polydore Vergil, the greatest historian of the Renaissance (in the official chronology) which proves that biblical knowledge (especially about the epistles attributed to Paul) was unknown in Western Europe prior to 1520 AD.


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459900

How the Pauline Epistles WERE COPIED from Historia Ecclesiastica by Eusebius, a work written some 250 years later in time.

It also shows how Historia Ecclesiastica itself was invented at least after 1500 AD.


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459924

The artificial structure of the Pauline Epistles.


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459974

Take the richest theological Epistle ascribed to Paul: that to the Romans. Positively these so-called post-Apostolic men do not know it. They have merely some faint echoes of its contents; which is a very different thing.

I must distinctly warn my readers against this fallacy of the handbooks and introductions to the New Testament, the only thorough cure for which is to read these "post-Apostolic" men for themselves. They will then discover that these writers, assumed to be following in the steps of their forerunners, and to be diligently perusing their writings as we have them, are doing nothing of the kind. They are dreaming, rambling, and raving; but they do not know that romantic figure of Paul that is known to us, nor yet his alleged writings as we have them. `


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459991

Proof that Bede, Gildas were a late invention of the 16th century; the Canterbury Tales written in the 16th century.


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459997

Extraordinary proofs that the Vulgate (Latin Bible) was not known in Europe at least until 1594 (Sixtine edition). Johnson does show that the Council of Trent (1546) is a fable, with no scientific base whatsoever.


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54460011

Luther and Paul, biblical knowledge just beginning to spread in the 16th century.


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54460029

How the Torah could not have been written before 1530 AD, an extremely interesting discussion.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52083.0

The best ever proof that the Council of Nicaea COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE BEFORE THE YEAR 876-877 AD. This alone shows how history has been forged/falsified.

THE RULES FOR CELEBRATING EASTER

“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion” [518], part П, chapter 7, also see [17].



Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.



This means that we can hope for Matthew Vlastar’s text to give us a precise enough account of the opinions held by the Constantinople scientists of the XIV century, in regard to the Easter issue. As we can see, Matthew Vlastar tells us the following:



In addition to the two Apostolic Easter rules, namely:



1) Not celebrating Easter together with the Judaists.



2) Only celebrating Easter after the spring equinox.



The Elders of the Council that introduced the Paschalia added two more rules for certainty, since the previous two do not define Easter day explicitly enough:



3) Only celebrating Easter after the first full moon in a given spring. That is, after the Passover that is often called “Lawful Easter” in Christian clerical literature – that is, Easter celebrated in accordance with the Law of Moses – or, alternatively, that of “the 14th Moon”.



4) Easter cannot be celebrated on any weekday; the celebration is to occur on the first Sunday following this full moon, or the Passover.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52083.msg1277255#msg1277255

THE FOURTH RULE BROKEN


A ROUGH CALCULATION OF THE DATE OF THE PASCHALIA’S CREATION



Thus, we know a lot, almost everything, about the Paschalia. So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?



This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.



1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.



2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.



3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.



It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!



Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.


Presently, new moons can be calculated with the utmost precision, since there is a powerful theory of lunar movement in existence. However, such precision was hardly relevant to our means, so we used the classical Gaussian formulae that just give the dates of vernal full moons in the past rather than the precise time.



These formulae are a creation of Karl Friedrich Gauss, the eminent mathematician of the XIX century, and their intended purpose is precisely what we needed – Easter calculations. We have used them for programming the software that gave us the Julian dates of every vernal equinox since 1 AD, which were then compared with the Orthodox Easter dates in accordance with the Paschalia Easter Book. We shall currently omit the calculation details and the tables, since interested readers can repeat them using given algorithm. The conclusion we came to:



FIRST STATEMENT:



The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.



The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.



Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.



Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.



The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


And at least 100 years must have passed between the creation of the Paschalia and its official implementation: every 532 years, the Christian Easter cycle repeats from the very start, therefore the next start date would be the year 876-877 AD.


POMPEII AND HERCULANEUM, THRIVING CITIES IN 1570 AD!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1243234#msg1243234



Pompeii, a thriving city, located on the map created by the most celebrated of all cartographers: Abraham Ortelius, in 1570.


www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1243234#msg1243234

POMPEII GRAFITTI: GLADIATORS WEARING HELMETS WITH MOBILE VISORS, INVENTION OF THE XVTH CENTURY.



http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1243598#msg1243598

EUSEBIUS, JOSEPHUS, DIO CASSIUS, PLUTARCH, ALL MENTION POMPEII AS HAVING BEEN DESTROYED BY THE ERUPTION OF VESUVIUS IN THE YEAR 79 AD.

This means that all these authors and their works were invented at least after 1600 AD; no Jesuit colleges or protestantism could have developed in the 17th century to account for the falsified biographies of Jean Picard and Ole Romer.






« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 01:06:39 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6847
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2012, 12:57:06 AM »
CT, again...a difference of 18% was ignored by the authors of the article itself...they chose not to press matters further, and declare the whole thing a success. They could not account for the 18% difference, do you understand what we are discussing here?

Is this the kind of science you believe in, where such a huge difference is simply ignored and passed by?

The quote I provided explores exactly what was observed: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

How could this be a success, to quote R. Pictet and P. Cellerier?

JUST BECAUSE those authors say it is a success, shamefully choosing to ignore the facts in front of them, doesn't mean you can accept with your eyes closed their erroneous conclusions.

The fact of the matter stands: the 18% difference CANNOT be accounted for, since either Jupiter or Saturn did not increase in mass in the period 1899-1917.

I did not claim at all that my comment was what Zenneck wrote, not at all; I posted the bibliographical note, so that everybody here would know what is going on. Zenneck does not appear to understand the unbelievable discrepancy between the data itself and the fact that either Jupiter or Saturn did not increase in mass during that period.


BY THE WAY, you chose to ignore my previous message...Airy's experiment: absolute proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis; the fact that current science cannot explain the anomalous internal infrared radiation of Jupiter, or the factc about the angular momentum of the solar system; the proof that the planar motion of Kepler's first law CONTRADICTS DIRECTLY the currently accepted fact that our solar system moves on a helical path toward Vega, the fact that the Greenhouse effect cannot explain the Faint Young Sun Paradox...


Here are the details on the Airy experiment:

An experiment with a water-filled telescope was performed by the then Astronomer Royal, George Airy (after whom the Airy disc of diffraction theory is named), in 1871, which can be considered to be a variation of an earlier investigation by François Arago, performed with a moving slab of glass in 1810.

Arago showed that either light itself or the luminiferous aether is
dragged along by a moving piece of glass. Fresnel explained the effect
by assuming it was the light-carrying medium (this is called Fresnel
drag). George Stokes explained it via compression of the aether, but
the important point is whether we can tell which one is doing the
moving - the light source or the transparent material. When Arago
investigated this effect with starlight, he concluded that the World
(with respect to which the glass plate was stationary in this instance)
was at rest and that it was the stars that were moving.

The experiment subsequently performed by Airy was first proposed by
Ruggiero Boscovich for testing James Bradley's heliocentric aberration.
This, in turn, was thought up to explain the elliptical
motion of the star Gamma D., as observed by James Bradley and
Samuel Molyneux.



What was the result of Airy's experiment? Exactly the opposite outcome
to that predicted in the rotating-World scenario. (Note that the
experiment is usually referred to as "Airy's failure" for this reason.)



Just like Arago before him, George Airy proved that the World was
stationary and the stars are moving. It does not matter whether there
exists a luminiferous aether or not, because the dragging of starlight,
as demonstrated initially by Arago, is real, irrespective of how we try
to explain it. Both Arago and Airy showed that it is the stars, and not
the World, which move (although Airy did not actually go so far as to
admit this). In addition, we can say that Michelson-Morley,
Trouton-Noble and many, many others have consistently demonstrated no
motion of the World.


Airy's experiment thus does not confirm the World to be just a piece of rock that hurtles through infinite space in who knows how many contorted motions, as Mikolaj Kopernik (aka 'Copernicus'), Johannes Kepler, Carl Sagan, et al., so zealously maintained.


"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)


Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.


No self-published pasta....just real science, a very easy to perform experiment which does show that the Earth is actually stationary, not to mention the existence of the aether.

Read for yourself: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm (Dr. Neville Jones)


Obviously, you had no idea about the Airy experiment to start with...


You had the audacity to write: So you're going to claim that the relatively slow speed of the solar system means that it can't be described well by ignoring the effect of that motion, right? Show me your math, starting with the differential equations. Since motion is relative, I fail to see how it could possibly make a difference. If the Earth is moving at 20 km/s in the same direction as the Sun, then Kepler's Laws would still apply. If you're so sure that the planets aren't moving according to the RET predictions, as explained by Dr. Meeus in http://www.amazon.com/Astronomical-Algorithms-Jean-Meeus/dp/0943396352, please list one observation of a planet not where RET predicted it. Otherwise, I really don't see any reason to accept this wall of pasta.


CT, DO YOU UNDERSTAND what is going on, what we are debating here? Do you comprehend the issues we discuss?

Kepler's first law says:  A PLANET MOVES IN A PLANE IN AN ELLIPSE...  RIGHT?

Do you understand the meaning of the term planar motion?

I did not bring into discussion at all any speed of the solar system...how fast or how slow.

Now, the accepted view in current astrophysics is that the entire motion of the solar system (Sun + Planets) toward the star Vega, IS A GEOMETRICAL PATH which takes the form of a helix (helical path), a tridimensional orbit.

AGAIN, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE? Why then did you post the BS about the speed of the solar system?

The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.

As early as 1920, O. Lodge observed that this motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.


So, CT, what is your choice here? If you think Kepler's law is correct, then the solar system CANNOT move on a helical path toward Vega, which means current astrophysics is a joke.

If the helical path is true, then it means Kepler's data was falsified much later in time, to fool us into believing the Earth is rotating around the Sun.

Do not try to find your way out of this by digressing from the subject, it won't work with me.


IT IS EITHER/OR: either Kepler's first law of PLANAR motion,  or the currently accepted view that the entire solar system is moving toward Vega on a helical path.





Why did you choose to ignore my previous message? The anomalous internal infrared radiation coming from the planet Jupiter CANNOT be explained at all, in any way shape or form, by the official astronomy.



Of the three current explanations for these "energy anomalies," only the first applies to Jupiter ... because of its mass -- 318 times the Earth's; a planet of that minimum mass is required (in the model) if it's to retain significant thermal energy across the immense lifetime of the solar system ... almost 5 billion years since the planet's formation ... and still be able to radiate observable heat. And, as can be seen from this diagram, the current ratio of absorbed solar energy to emitted 5-billion-year-old internal Jovian energy is still almost two to one!


DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE TERM: angular momentum? Do you?



So where did all the angular momentum go if the sun truly formed by gravitational contraction? Astronomers suggest that some of it was transferred to Jupiter and Saturn, which possess 98% of the total angular momentum of the solar system, still far, far less than the angular momentum that would have been generated during the formation of the sun.

Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion—that is, it is turning slowly. This 'angular momentum' is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?

A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets, yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist this is both astounding and unexplainable. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of momentum from the sun to its planets.

Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly.

Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this. This strange distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly.

*David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, * Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?'—*David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.


Are you joking? The Greenhouse effect  CANNOT account for the Faint Young Sun Paradox AT ALL! Please read:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1312927#msg1312927


Your temper does not allow you to stop and think CT, the quote I provided and the biographical piece of information say exactly what I posted:

The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

...because the difference in the kinetic energy of the planets Jupiter and Saturn are decisive. As the minimum between the years 1899-99 and 1917-17 of the maximum amounts to approximately 18%."

Exactly. Where did this excess of kinetic energy come from, in the period 1899-1917? That is why this difference CANNOT be accounted for from the point of view of the theory of gravitation. Please read carefully and refrain from emotional posting. The authors you quoted chose to ignore the real issue: the real source of energy for the huge difference noted in the those astronomical observations, that is why I brought it into our discussion.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 02:15:08 AM by levee »

Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2012, 01:55:19 AM »
CT, again...a difference of 18% was ignored by the authors of the article itself...they chose not to press matters further, and declare the whole thing a success. They could not account for the 18% difference, do you understand what we are discussing here?

Is this the kind of science you believe in, where such a huge difference is simply ignored and passed by?

The quote I provided explores exactly what was observed: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.
Since we have clear and conclusive evidence that you fabricated that quote, no one is going to believe you.

How did you divine that the difference was ignored by the authors of the article itself? BTW, who are these authors? Zenneck is a single author, but he was just reporting on possible problems with the variability of the constant G. The article you cited was not authored by any one else. I guess you're really prone to fabrication.

Also, I already explained Kepler's 2nd Law predicts change in KE. Why is that so difficult for you to accept? Science really isn't that hard.

Here's an experiment for you...

Obtain a 1 foot length of sturdy rope or thick string.
Obtain a 1 lb fob.
Tie the fob to the string.
Twirl the fob on the string in front of you in a plane perpendicular to the ground.
Notice that the speed of the fob varies if you allow more or less of the rope out.
Since the fob's speed varies, so does its KE.

Easy to do, easy to convince yourself that you're wrong about the 18% requiring a variable G or changes in the masses of Jupiter and Saturn.

Oh, and yes, I'm ignoring most of your points, given your fraud. I'm not going to waste time checking your postings for fraud. I can't trust you.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6847
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2012, 02:13:11 AM »
CT, you need to grow up.

Your mind, at this present time, cannot deal with the fact that Kepler's first law (planar planetary motion; if you do not understand the term, please research the topic)  is contradicted wholly by the fact (official cosmology) that the entire solar system (including each and every planet) is moving toward Vega on a helical path, your pseudoexplanation amounts to nothing, I told you that digressing from the subject will not work with me.

You are choosing again to ignore the facts of the Airy experiment, the fact that current science cannot explain the anomalous internal infrared radiation of Jupiter, or the facts about the angular momentum of the solar system.

Your dreams about the Greenhouse effect are immediately destroyed by the facts listed very carefully here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1312927#msg1312927 (it includes the article Clouds and the Faint Young Sun Paradox by C. Goldblatt)

No one, nobody, not one scientist, can explain the Faint Young Sun Paradox; this paradox is the single most devastating blow to the entire current helio cosmology.


PS Please also accept the fact that the Council of Nicaea could have not taken place before the year 876-877 AD; Dr. G. Nosovsky used the most precise astronomical dating possible: K.F. Gauss' Easter formula, read the article the Easter Issue.


Authors? Zenneck, quoting Pictet and P. Cellerier, so there are three of them, agreeing to ignore the facts in front of them, an 18% difference which cannot be accounted for.









« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 02:21:39 AM by levee »

Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2012, 02:30:25 AM »
CT, you need to grow up.

Your mind, at this present time, cannot deal with the fact that Kepler's first law is contradicted wholly by the fact (official cosmology) that the entire solar system (including each and every planet) is moving toward Vega on a helical path, your pseudoexplanation amounts to nothing, I told you that digressing from the subject will not work with me.

You are choosing again to ignore the facts of the Airy experiment, the fact that current science cannot explain the anomalous internal infrared radiation of Jupiter, or the facts about the angular momentum of the solar system.

Your dreams about the Greenhouse effect are immediately destroyed by the facts listed very carefully here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1312927#msg1312927 (it includes the article Clouds and the Faint Young Sun Paradox by C. Goldblatt)

No one, nobody, not one scientist, can explain the Faint Young Sun Paradox; this paradox is the single most devastating blow to the entire current helio cosmology.


PS Please also accept the fact that the Council of Nicaea could have not taken place before the year 876-877 AD; Dr. G. Nosovsky used the most precise astronomical dating possible: K.F. Gauss' Easter formula, read the article the Easter Issue.
Again, don't both with these off-topic walls of pasta. I have exposed you as a fraud. Knowing this, I'm not going to bother to read your efforts. Why would I waste my time?

Oh and here's my reference to answer your posts regarding FYSP: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/uoc-ruo032910.php. Oh look: there's "one scientist" who can indeed resolve the FYSP.  The Natural History Museum of Denmark, the University of Copenhagen and Stanford were involved in the research and conclusions.

By the way, if you're so sure of yourself, why don't you email or call Professor Minik Rosing and educate him. I'm sure the team would love to know what their error is. Please be sure to tell him though that you fabricate quotes sometimes.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6847
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #45 on: April 13, 2012, 02:36:52 AM »
You have not done your homework.

Here is the bibliographical work that takes care of Professor Minik Rosing's "proof":

http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf

I told you to read the Clouds and the Faint Young Sun Paradox by C. Goldblatt; it takes care of your dreams, please wake up.

BTW, I included this reference here, even from the start: YOU DID NOT READ UP the works listed there:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1312927#msg1312927


Again, no one, nobody, not one scientist, can explain the Faint Young Sun Paradox; this paradox is the single most devastating blow to the entire current helio cosmology.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 02:38:28 AM by levee »

Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2012, 02:52:20 AM »
You have not done your homework.

Here is the bibliographical work that takes care of Professor Minik Rosing's "proof":

http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf

I told you to read the Clouds and the Faint Young Sun Paradox by C. Goldblatt; it takes care of your dreams, please wake up.

BTW, I included this reference here, even from the start: YOU DID NOT READ UP the works listed there:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1312927#msg1312927


Again, no one, nobody, not one scientist, can explain the Faint Young Sun Paradox; this paradox is the single most devastating blow to the entire current helio cosmology.
Again, I'm not going to read your fabrications. You're exposed as a fraud. Please deal with it.

Rosing's explanation does not require clouds. Please pay attention.

Again, Rosing and team resolve the paradox.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #47 on: April 13, 2012, 08:47:08 AM »
Again, I'm not going to read your fabrications. You're exposed as a fraud. Please deal with it.

Rosing's explanation does not require clouds. Please pay attention.

Again, Rosing and team resolve the paradox.

Basically, Levee utterly crushed you and all you can do is cry "You're a fraud!" and put out vague statements that you think support anything you say.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 08:51:25 AM by Irushwithscvs »

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #48 on: April 13, 2012, 10:01:32 AM »
Again, I'm not going to read your fabrications. You're exposed as a fraud. Please deal with it.

Rosing's explanation does not require clouds. Please pay attention.

Again, Rosing and team resolve the paradox.

Basically, Levee utterly crushed you and all you can do is cry "You're a fraud!" and put out vague statements that you think support anything you say.

I am still confused as to what Levee is saying.  Is he making the argument that the world is stationary based on Airy's Failure, and therefore it is not possible that we are moving towards anything, or does he have a problem with the shape of the orbits while moving towards Vega?

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #49 on: April 13, 2012, 10:40:22 AM »
Again, I'm not going to read your fabrications. You're exposed as a fraud. Please deal with it.

Rosing's explanation does not require clouds. Please pay attention.

Again, Rosing and team resolve the paradox.

Basically, Levee utterly crushed you and all you can do is cry "You're a fraud!" and put out vague statements that you think support anything you say.

I am still confused as to what Levee is saying.  Is he making the argument that the world is stationary based on Airy's Failure, and therefore it is not possible that we are moving towards anything, or does he have a problem with the shape of the orbits while moving towards Vega?

Dunno, I ain't reading that wall of text anytime soon.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #50 on: April 13, 2012, 10:47:59 AM »
Levee: please stop posting in this thread unless you have something to say about Romer's observations other than "the period of time when Romer lived did not exist".
Easter is not relevant. The movement of the solar system towards Vega is not relevant. The faint young sun "paradox" is not relevant. Your quotes have been shown to be fraudulent. You are unable to distinguish between things we don't know because they are paradoxical and things we don't know because we simply don't have the information. Nobody can wade through the sea of sewage you type to find the specks of relevant information, if there are any.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 10:50:02 AM by The Knowledge »
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #51 on: April 13, 2012, 10:49:03 AM »
Again, I'm not going to read your fabrications. You're exposed as a fraud. Please deal with it.

Rosing's explanation does not require clouds. Please pay attention.

Again, Rosing and team resolve the paradox.

Basically, Levee utterly crushed you and all you can do is cry "You're a fraud!" and put out vague statements that you think support anything you say.

If you're going to pretend not to be a troll, at least try a little.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42491
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #52 on: April 13, 2012, 11:49:51 AM »
Again, I'm not going to read your fabrications. You're exposed as a fraud. Please deal with it.

Rosing's explanation does not require clouds. Please pay attention.

Again, Rosing and team resolve the paradox.

Basically, Levee utterly crushed you and all you can do is cry "You're a fraud!" and put out vague statements that you think support anything you say.

I am still confused as to what Levee is saying.  Is he making the argument that the world is stationary based on Airy's Failure, and therefore it is not possible that we are moving towards anything, or does he have a problem with the shape of the orbits while moving towards Vega?

Dunno, I ain't reading that wall of text anytime soon.

Then how do you know that Levee "utterly crushed" him if you didn't read what Levee posted?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #53 on: April 13, 2012, 03:45:45 PM »
Again, I'm not going to read your fabrications. You're exposed as a fraud. Please deal with it.

Rosing's explanation does not require clouds. Please pay attention.

Again, Rosing and team resolve the paradox.

Basically, Levee utterly crushed you and all you can do is cry "You're a fraud!" and put out vague statements that you think support anything you say.

I am still confused as to what Levee is saying.  Is he making the argument that the world is stationary based on Airy's Failure, and therefore it is not possible that we are moving towards anything, or does he have a problem with the shape of the orbits while moving towards Vega?

Dunno, I ain't reading that wall of text anytime soon.

Then how do you know that Levee "utterly crushed" him if you didn't read what Levee posted?

ClockTower has some very obvious tactics when he starts to lose. He begins posting borderline fallacies, stops posting legitimate factual material, and will usually start pedantry. Levee made it clear that he doesn't tolerate pedantry, so ClockTower is limited to the first two if he is going to pull a win out of this one.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42491
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #54 on: April 13, 2012, 04:47:34 PM »
ClockTower has some very obvious tactics when he starts to lose. He begins posting borderline fallacies, stops posting legitimate factual material, and will usually start pedantry. Levee made it clear that he doesn't tolerate pedantry, so ClockTower is limited to the first two if he is going to pull a win out of this one.

So then you have no idea if Levee's post made the least bit of sense at all.  Gotcha.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #55 on: April 13, 2012, 04:53:02 PM »
Levee has some pretty clear tactics when he is loosing as well, such as quoting scripture as if it were fact and resorting to wallpasta.  I dont think I have ever seen him post a singular, cogent thought.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #56 on: April 14, 2012, 08:43:34 PM »

ClockTower has some very obvious tactics when he starts to lose. He begins posting borderline fallacies, stops posting legitimate factual material, and will usually start pedantry. Levee made it clear that he doesn't tolerate pedantry, so ClockTower is limited to the first two if he is going to pull a win out of this one.
This whole page or two of thread are not about ClockTower, they are about levee making a fool of himself by writing walls of baloney that not even the other FE'ers are willing to read.

If you want to help levee make his case, then explain some of his gibberish, or maybe even make a prediction based on it so that its validity can be measured.

Pedantic or not, ClockTower had nothing to do with exposing levee's failure. Levee failed all on his own and ClockTower only pointed us toward the failure.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #57 on: April 15, 2012, 04:36:30 AM »

ClockTower has some very obvious tactics when he starts to lose. He begins posting borderline fallacies, stops posting legitimate factual material, and will usually start pedantry. Levee made it clear that he doesn't tolerate pedantry, so ClockTower is limited to the first two if he is going to pull a win out of this one.
This whole page or two of thread are not about ClockTower, they are about levee making a fool of himself by writing walls of baloney that not even the other FE'ers are willing to read.

If you want to help levee make his case, then explain some of his gibberish, or maybe even make a prediction based on it so that its validity can be measured.

Pedantic or not, ClockTower had nothing to do with exposing levee's failure. Levee failed all on his own and ClockTower only pointed us toward the failure.

I concur. Clocktower deserves a medal for even managing to read all that guff.
Anyway, back to the topic - can anyone post anything pertinent to Romer's observations that explains it in a FET context?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6847
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #58 on: April 15, 2012, 05:27:53 AM »
eireengineer, there might be some ugly psychological factors at work in your message...here is a reminder why you might feel this way:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1005454#msg1005454 (it goes on for several pages; eireengineer obviously needs to study some more, to say the least...)


trig...remember this?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39361.msg985046#msg985046
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39361.msg984430#msg984430

That is what you wrote...

It is totally useless to consider the whole Sun as one single mass upon which all the centripetal force is applied because the direction of the force is not the same and the amount of the force is not the same in every place of the Sun. With this faulty reasoning, I could say that a typical Merry-go-round, which weighs about 10000 kilograms and turns once every 15 seconds and has a radius of 4 meters will produce a devastating 7018 Newtons (equivalent to 716 kilograms of weight) of centripetal force, thereby killing any brave child who rides it.


Centripetal force is proportional to the radius of the circle and to the square of the angular velocity; it is no surprise that a larger but slower-rotating body has a similar centripetal force than Earth.

But in fact...

trig, you should go back to kindergarten, not only to high school...

Let us suppose now, the sake of our discussion, a child (mass 25 kg) on a merry-go-round is moving with a speed of 1.35 m/s when 1.20 m from the center of the merry-go-round.

Let us calculate the acceleration and THE NET HORIZONTAL FORCE EXERTED ON THE CHILD:

a. a = v^2/r = (1.35 m/s)^2/(1.2 m) = 1.52 m/s^2

b. F = ma = (25 kg)(1.52 m/s/s) =  38 N = centripetal force on the child (F = ma = mv^2/r)

You take into account the MASS OF THE CHILD, NOT THAT OF THE MERRY GO ROUND...where did YOU learn physics trig?


Now, let us calculate the total CENTRIPETAL FORCE EXERTED ON THE ROUND EARTH:

Some preliminary calculations: (365.26 days)(24 hr/day)(3600 s/hr) = 31558464 s

For convenience, R (radius of earth) = 1.5 x 10^11 m

Mass of Earth is 5.98 x 10^24 kg

a = v^2/r = (2πr/T)^2/r = 4π^2r/T^2 , π = pi

So now,


F = (5.98 x 10^24 kg)(0.005946 m/s^2) = 3.55566x10^22 N = 3.6 x 10^22 N toward the Sun

trig, this is a HUGE QUANTITY, a very large magnitude of the centripetal force indeed.

So, THE CENTRIPETAL FORCE OF THE SUN, trig, MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT the mass of the Sun = 1,98892 x 10^30 kg

As I said, I will not attack you as I should be doing it, for your mistakes...which are typical of an amateurish approach to physics...please go back to a course in basic mechanics, and read up the facts...



Now, whoever wrote this forgot what centripetal force actually means:

Centripetal force (radius x angular velocity squared): 0.00845 newtons per kilogram

Fcp = -mw^2r

And let us derive the formula for the centrifugal force:

Fcf = mv^2/r = mwv = mw^2r

Now, that person forgot the mass (m), the factor which must be taken into consideration, and as we are told officially, the mass of the Sun = 1,98892 x 10^30 kg

When we bring this factor in, the centripetal/centrifugal force magnitude will be enormous.

Imagine what somebody else would do to you, for omitting this thing...


REMEMBER TRIG? Please keep these facts in mind, when you post something...it is really sad to see you forget these things, especially comments about failure...


Now, CT...how can you be so SUPERFICIAL?

You wrote this: Rosing's explanation does not require clouds. Please pay attention.

But in fact the WHOLE argument is about the clouds, and C. Goldblatt's article...

Professor Minik Rosing explains, "What prevented an ice age back then was not high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, but the fact that the cloud layer was much thinner than it is today." And there is more in his article only about the thickness of the clouds layer, pay attention to what you read.

Who is a fraud CT?

Rosing did not solve anything, read the work The Clouds and the Faint Young Sun Paradox, by C. Goldblatt...the paradox itself remains completely unsolved...


Basically, Levee utterly crushed you and all you can do is cry "You're a fraud!" and put out vague statements that you think support anything you say.

That's right.


knowledge...the Easter formula of Gauss shows clearly that the Council of Nicaea, the dating of which the whole official church chronology rests upon, could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD; the book The Pauline Epistles demonstrates that the Vulgate did not exist before 1594 (best possible scenario), this means that the biographies of both O. Romer and J. Picard have been forged...together with their astronomical observations...extremely relevant to what we discuss here...

Did you choose between Kepler's first law and the galactic orbit toward Vega? You must make a choice, there is no other way around this. Kepler's law says that the Earth is moving in a plane in an ellipse...modern astrophysics tells us that the orbit of each planet (and of the Sun, of course) on their galactic orbit toward the star Vega is in fact a helix, that is, a helical path...contradicting Kepler's first law...
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 05:52:29 AM by levee »

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: How does FET explain Romer's observations?
« Reply #59 on: April 15, 2012, 05:43:01 AM »
You do realize that both of those equations assume a perfectly circular path with a constant angular velocity. You will need to differentiate in order to calculate the forces in a RET model.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.