Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!

  • 102 Replies
  • 4264 Views
Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #90 on: July 27, 2017, 04:16:44 AM »
Let me clarify my calculations.

For a circle to make 1 revolution, it needs to go threw 360 degrees or 2pi or 6.283 rad

A year has 365.25 Days, so a Day has 6.283 rad
In 1 year we have 365.25 days times 6.283 rad = 2294.933 rad

1 day has 86400 sec and a year has 31,557,600 sec

From 1972 till 2016 we have 44 years

In 44 years we have  1,388,534,427 sec (including the 27 leap second) and we have traveled by 100,977.071 rad

The angular velocity originally is 6.283 rad  / 86400 sec = 7.272205216643E-05   rad/sec

The angular velocity after 44 years is the distance traveled divided by the time needed

100,977.071 rad / 1,388,534,427 sec = 7.272205075235E-05   rad/sec

Final angular velocity = Initial angular velocity + angular acceleration * Time

We get an angular deceleration of 1.018396E-21 rad/sec^2 for the 44 year duration.

So, if you put the numbers back to the equation and since acceleration is the opposite of deceleration ...

You get the table below.

Now is their any problem with my math?

Let's talk about conservation of angular momentum in the thread

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71441.0

Yes namely the current application of leap second have NOTHING to do with the earth slowing down but everything to do between the already present different between Atomic Time and Universal time.

No you are wrong, the atomic time will lose 1 second in 100 million years.

Universal time, is the time that it takes for the earth to rotate once on it's access.

If the earth did not slow down, then both the Atomic time and the Universal time would be in sync.
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #91 on: July 27, 2017, 04:23:05 AM »
Let me clarify my calculations.

For a circle to make 1 revolution, it needs to go threw 360 degrees or 2pi or 6.283 rad

A year has 365.25 Days, so a Day has 6.283 rad
In 1 year we have 365.25 days times 6.283 rad = 2294.933 rad

1 day has 86400 sec and a year has 31,557,600 sec

From 1972 till 2016 we have 44 years

In 44 years we have  1,388,534,427 sec (including the 27 leap second) and we have traveled by 100,977.071 rad

The angular velocity originally is 6.283 rad  / 86400 sec = 7.272205216643E-05   rad/sec

The angular velocity after 44 years is the distance traveled divided by the time needed

100,977.071 rad / 1,388,534,427 sec = 7.272205075235E-05   rad/sec

Final angular velocity = Initial angular velocity + angular acceleration * Time

We get an angular deceleration of 1.018396E-21 rad/sec^2 for the 44 year duration.

So, if you put the numbers back to the equation and since acceleration is the opposite of deceleration ...

You get the table below.

Now is their any problem with my math?

Let's talk about conservation of angular momentum in the thread

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71441.0

Yes namely the current application of leap second have NOTHING to do with the earth slowing down but everything to do between the already present different between Atomic Time and Universal time.

No you are wrong, the atomic time will lose 1 second in 100 million years.

Universal time, is the time that it takes for the earth to rotate once on it's access.

If the earth did not slow down, then both the Atomic time and the Universal time would be in sync.

Actually the earth rotation was never ever exactly matched 86400 si seconds (well maybe on some lucky days but not constantly), so no they not be in sync, from earthquakes to celestial bodies passing by there are several factor causing irregularities in earth rotation, the fact that the earth is slowing down is just one factor.

Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #92 on: July 27, 2017, 04:24:19 AM »
So that Rolex that I have is a peace of shit...
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #93 on: July 27, 2017, 04:32:00 AM »
So that Rolex that I have is a peace of shit...

Actually they were pretty shitty in the seventies, but still the best tool watches around.
Anyway mechanical watches sure "shittier" even then earth rotation, mines even in COSC standards deviate +- 5 secs daily, some older ones can go off 20-50 sec.

Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #94 on: July 27, 2017, 04:40:24 AM »
The angular velocity originally is 6.283 rad  / 86400 sec = 7.272205216643E-05   rad/sec
No it wasn't. Prior to the introduction of leap seconds we didn't have time synchronised anywhere near as well.
We didn't care about the leap second.

When we decided to make it all official and rigidly set, atomic clock times were already 10 seconds ahead, and we just stuck that into the definition. Atomic time is currently 37 s ahead of UTC, the 27 leap seconds and the 10 extra seconds.
It was only 1955 when they started using them and 1958 when they set it to try and match an equivalent of UTC, based upon impefect observations. Leap seconds were introduced roughly 10 years later (technically 14, with 2 leap seconds added at the start) and UTC was set to 10 s ahead of atomic time.
This was also done without taking into consideration gravitational time dilation, meaning the various clocks used were ticking at different rates. So atomic time wasn't even counting the seconds exactly.

This indicates that even during that time, the Earth was still spinning at pretty much the exact same rate.

If you did want to try and figure out a day that was 86400 s 1972 is not the right year.
Instead it would be based upon what the SI tried to model it off, which was Dec 31st 1899.
But even that wasn't constant as it shifted what it was trying to model, first making a second based upon one fraction of a tropical year, then using a slightly different fraction, before just setting it to atomic time.
So even then you likely didn't have exactly 86400 s in a day.

So while the math may be correct, what you are measuring/assuming is not.

We simply haven't been measuring atomic time for long enough to be able to try and develop an empirical model (i.e. one based purely upon the numbers) to try and figure out how fast Earth was spinning ages ago. You definitely wont know if it is linear or exponential or logarithmic and so on. They all approximate linear functions for small scales (every continuous function does).

If the earth did not slow down, then both the Atomic time and the Universal time would be in sync.
Only if they started based upon the length of a day being exactly 86400 s, which it didn't.

Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #95 on: July 27, 2017, 04:46:52 AM »
The angular velocity originally is 6.283 rad  / 86400 sec = 7.272205216643E-05   rad/sec
No it wasn't. Prior to the introduction of leap seconds we didn't have time synchronised anywhere near as well.
We didn't care about the leap second.

When we decided to make it all official and rigidly set, atomic clock times were already 10 seconds ahead, and we just stuck that into the definition. Atomic time is currently 37 s ahead of UTC, the 27 leap seconds and the 10 extra seconds.
It was only 1955 when they started using them and 1958 when they set it to try and match an equivalent of UTC, based upon impefect observations. Leap seconds were introduced roughly 10 years later (technically 14, with 2 leap seconds added at the start) and UTC was set to 10 s ahead of atomic time.
This was also done without taking into consideration gravitational time dilation, meaning the various clocks used were ticking at different rates. So atomic time wasn't even counting the seconds exactly.

This indicates that even during that time, the Earth was still spinning at pretty much the exact same rate.

If you did want to try and figure out a day that was 86400 s 1972 is not the right year.
Instead it would be based upon what the SI tried to model it off, which was Dec 31st 1899.
But even that wasn't constant as it shifted what it was trying to model, first making a second based upon one fraction of a tropical year, then using a slightly different fraction, before just setting it to atomic time.
So even then you likely didn't have exactly 86400 s in a day.

So while the math may be correct, what you are measuring/assuming is not.

We simply haven't been measuring atomic time for long enough to be able to try and develop an empirical model (i.e. one based purely upon the numbers) to try and figure out how fast Earth was spinning ages ago. You definitely wont know if it is linear or exponential or logarithmic and so on. They all approximate linear functions for small scales (every continuous function does).

If the earth did not slow down, then both the Atomic time and the Universal time would be in sync.
Only if they started based upon the length of a day being exactly 86400 s, which it didn't.

Is the earth slowing down or spinning up.

I have presented data that shows that it is slowing down.

If you want to say that this data is wrong, then show your data that proves me wrong.

I have given you a reference frame where the standard is accurate to 1 second in 100 million years, and based on this standard in 44 years, it lost 27 seconds.




To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #96 on: July 27, 2017, 05:39:07 AM »
Is the earth slowing down or spinning up.
On average it is slowing down.

I have presented data that shows that it is slowing down.
No you haven't. You presented data that shows that it takes slightly longer than 85400 s to complete an average solar day.

I have given you a reference frame where the standard is accurate to 1 second in 100 million years, and based on this standard in 44 years, it lost 27 seconds.
Yes, the standard is accurate to 1 second in 100 million years, i.e. that is how much the clock can drift by.
But the length of the day is not.
The length of the average solar day has never been measured to 86400.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 s exactly based upon an atomic clock. Instead it has been measured to fewer sig figs.

Thus you have no basis for claiming it has not lost 27 seconds in 44 years.
Instead if anything the data showed that Earth is speeding up slightly, reducing the length of the day (as my graph showed).

*

Pezevenk

  • 14276
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #97 on: July 27, 2017, 06:37:35 AM »
After studding JackBlack comment,  I redid the calculations by using physics and it turns out that I overestimated the earth rotation speed.

I admit it, that I was wrong.

JackBlack was the only one from the spherical group that had an idea on how to approach the problem, everybody else was just a bullshit artist saying that it was not a full second but a millisecond.


I told you THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING AS JACK BLACK a million times and you ignored it a million times. Good job.

Don't try to claim I didn't, I can quote the exact post.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #98 on: July 27, 2017, 07:23:22 AM »
Based on what you're saying a day should have 24 hours and 27 seconds, which does not.

Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #99 on: July 27, 2017, 07:55:56 AM »
Based on what you're saying a day should have 24 hours and 27 seconds, which does not.

You need to review the angular velocity equations, as did.

The 27 seconds in withing 44 years.
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #100 on: July 27, 2017, 03:41:15 PM »
Evolution is pure bullshit and so is the Heliocentric Hypothesis and below is the mathematically proof:

Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?

In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old

Let’s do the math

Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).

There is also something called leap second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC

So the rate that the leap second is added is

27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.

What does that actually means?

Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.

Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.

Let extrapolate the math at this rate:




We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.

At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM

But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…

Busted!!!

PS. Carbon dating, and rock dating work on a linear calculations!!!

If it is a scientific method for Spherical Earthers, then it's good for Flat Earthers...

Now I've read some mad stuff on these forums...but this op contribution must qualify for maddest post of the millennium......i think it even beats poor old Skepti DET rant and the John Davis edible genetically modified penguin burger mind trip.

Question...does the flat earth community do a side line of selling hallucinogenic drugs?

Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #101 on: July 27, 2017, 03:55:41 PM »
The 27 seconds in withing 44 years.
Yes, 27 seconds in 44 years is how much a rotation is off from the ideal 86400 seconds.
It does not indicate Earth is slowing.
It just means they didn't get it perfect when defining the second.

*

rabinoz

  • 26306
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!
« Reply #102 on: July 27, 2017, 07:15:55 PM »
Based on what you're saying a day should have 24 hours and 27 seconds, which does not.

You need to review the angular velocity equations, as did.

The 27 seconds in withing 44 years.
The 27 seconds is not a 27 second change in day length, but a 27 sec accumulated time difference between UT1, astronomical time, and TAI, International Atomic Time, over 44 years. TAi is counting seconds using the SI second defined from a Solar year in about 1900.
This amounts to 27 secs over 16,071 days or an average of 1.7 ms/day difference between the two "clocks".

This 1.7 ms/day accumulated over about 98 years, or very close to 1.7 ms/day per century.

By the way, I used "average" where I should have done some simple integration, but the end result should be the same.

The whole point is that the "leap seconds" are not due so much to current changes rate of rotation being as high as you claim, but from having two clocks, one running at astronomical time, UT1, and one running at Atomic Time, TAI, counting off SI seconds.

Even if the earth's rotation rate stayed constant at current value these two clocks would still be running with this very slightly different rates of 1.7 ms/day.

I hope my "back of envelope" calculations are correct.