Perspective, refraction, diffraction, diffusion, and light scattering.
why can I see a sunset below the horizon if the sun apparently always stays above the flat earth?
The Sun does rise and set.Most of the "facts" presented in the section devoted to the data relating to the Sun are plain wrong.That is why a big change is needed: the FAQ must be written by those who do actually know flat earth theory very well, and have been able to defend it for all these years successfully.
By Sun setting, I mean this: (Norway, even though the Sun sets in Antarctica, there is still plenty of light)The depth to which the Sun reaches the towards the shores beyond Antarctica differs according to season, of course, as can be seen in these videos.This is the correct description of the Sun's orbit.
The facts are absolutely correct and the quotes stand exactly as they are.
"This example may help visualize the double force issue. Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x. Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force." It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate.
...Within the "attraction" concepts:From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.[/size][/b]
FOUR FORCES ACTING ON THE EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.The Moon attracts the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
I. Newton on the madness of the law of attractive gravity:...is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking, could ever fall into it.
It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers. — Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3
Then, this kind of absurdity should never be taught as truth in colleges and universities.
The very fact that there is no such thing as the law of attractive gravity was clearly proven during the falsification of the Explorer missions (research done by M. Bara and R. Hoagland).
Explorer I was launched at 10:48 PM EST, January 31, 1958 -- from Pad 26A, at Cape Canaveral.The Jupiter-C rocket (C standing for "composite") that successfully launched this first US satellite into the Florida skies (below), was actually a converted "Redstone" military ICBM -- a rocket developed as a US Army advancement over their earlier "V-2s," by Wernher von Braun and his imported team of "Operation Paperclip" German Nazi rocket engineers to the United States, in the decade immediately following World War II.http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/sputnik/expinfo.html"Thus, when the spacecraft disappeared over the South Atlantic horizon from Cape Canaveral that evening, after being launched "downrange" (the line extending southeast from Florida -- above), there was essentially no way for von Braun (or anyone else ...) to track it, to KNOW from "telemetry" (radioed information ...) if "his" satellite had been successfully placed in orbit by the Jupiter C ... or not--But to impatiently just wait ....Until Explorer I -- moving at ~18,000 miles per hour (5 miles per second ...) -- had almost completely circled the entire world ... and came back around ... within range of special radio receivers set up in the deserts just north of San Diego, California (a place called menacingly "Earthquake Valley" ...).There, if the receivers picked up Explorer I's faint telemetry signals as it was coming over the Pacific Ocean for the first time -- after the spacecraft had almost circled the entire planet -- word was to be "flashed" (by "long-distance telephone" -- as it was quaintly called in those days ...) to Cape Canaveral (where von Braun's Army launch crew was nervously waiting ...), and, to the Pentagon in Washington DC -- where von Braun himself, Van Allen, and William Pickering (Director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory -- JPL -- the West Coast facility which had constructed the actual satellite) -- were also watching "the clock tick down the seconds" ...."That key California signal -- for a carefully planned, Explorer I trajectory around the Earth of 220 by 1000 miles -- was expected at about 12:30 AM EST, February 1, 1958.Slightly over an hour and a half after Explorer's launch from Florida," the moment of truth" in this intensely anticipated "window" came ... and went--And--Nothing.Then -- it was 12:31 ... then, 12:32 ... and more nothing.Because of the "clockwork" nature of satellite orbits when, by 12:33, there was STILL no signal.That, they were likely never going to hear that desperately hoped-for signal ... because, somehow ... "something" had gone radically wrong!By 12:41 AM it was all but certain.Instead of going into orbit and coming around the Earth on time, Explorer I had -- somehow -- been plunged back into the atmosphere far over the horizon from the Cape -- and, by now, had simply burned up ... literally, somewhere on the far side of the world ....It was never going to "come around the Earth and over Earthquake Valley ..." -- because it no longer even existed!Then, at 12:42 AM--There it was!Explorer I had just been "late."But ... why?Plugging the numbers in the rocket equation revealed the extent to which the entire Explorer mission had to be falsified.The key parameter is the number representing "ISP" -- a rocket's "specific impulse" (expressed as "seconds")."Specific impulse is somewhat like a "miles per gallon" reading for your car; the higher the specific impulse (ISP) for a given rocket system (engines plus fuel), the more efficient the total rocket system is ... in terms of "miles per gallon" usage of that fuel ....And, the higher the final velocity you can achieve with a given amount (mass) of fuel.And ... higher final velocities result in higher orbits!So, high ISP numbers are good; lower ISP numbers are ... "less good" ....In terms of determining if the JPL upper stages could have achieved the performance levels required to place Explorer I into its higher-than-expected orbit, we began by looking at the published parameters of the solid rockets JPL used in constructing those stages for von Braun's final "composite" rocket.One major clue was in Van Allen's own report: "... the final burnout velocity of the fourth stage was somewhat higher than intended [emphasis added] ....." According to the Smithsonian's "National Air and Space Museum Data Sheet, Department of Astronautics" -- published on an official NASA website--The fuel and oxidizer used in the JPL-designed "solid" upper stages for the Jupiter-C was "... polysulfide-aluminum and ammonium perchlorate." This was pretty standard stuff, even if its ISP was fairly poor, compared to almost any liquid chemical rocket fuels in use today; the ISP varied from about "220 seconds" in the atmosphere, to about "235 seconds" in a good vacuum (because, contrary to common misperception, rocket engines actually work best in a pure vacuum -- when the thrust exhaust isn't slowed down by the surrounding air!).The Smithsonian data sheet also neatly listed the "fueled" and "empty weight" of each Jupiter-C stage (below)."http://www.enterprisemission.com/Jupiter-C-Stats.jpgPlugging these numbers into the Rocket Equation, and averaging the atmospheric and vacuum ISP efficiencies of the upper stages together (as the Jupiter-C rose out of the atmosphere that night, and the later stage ignitions became more efficient ...), gave us the maximum theoretical "by the book" velocity those three upper stages could have imparted to Explorer I at "orbit injection.dV = -32.2 X 228 X (662lb/1380lb) = 3520 feet per sec But--We already knew that this velocity, added to the maximum velocity imparted by the liquid-fueled first stage (at "staging"), was the "nominal satellite injection velocity" -- what was required to place Explorer I into its planned orbit of about "220 by 1000 miles" (red line, below).Since the actual orbital parameters (according to George Ludwig's figures) were "223 by 1592 ..." -- almost 600 miles higher at apogee than "nominal" (the blue line, below) -- what we really needed was a measure of how much additional velocity that approximately 600-mile increase in apogee represented, to put Explorer I into an orbit that much higher (and more elliptical) than originally targeted ....There's a well-known "rule of thumb" in rocket science -- that, for "every additional foot per second of injection velocity" at perigee (the low point of the orbit), a spacecraft gains "about a mile of additional altitude at apogee" (the highest orbital point).Using this approximation, Explorer I had gained something like "an additional ~600 feet per second" ....This amounted to almost a twenty percent performance increase -- in ALL the upper stage solid ISPs -- over the same solid-fueled rockets' measured performance in previous JPL applications!The idea that one of the 15 solids in those upper stages might exhibit this degree of major variation, was barely plausible; that ALL of them TOGETHER (required to produce the total delta velocity increase) had done so that night, was simply impossible ... by any known chemistry and physics."Normal physics" also says you "can't get something for nothing." Yet, somehow, by this simple calculation, Explorer I DID exactly that--Acquiring six hundred extra miles of "something" ... from absolutely nothing.Just how the hell did JPL and von Braun manage to accomplish that!?No "small variations" -- a few percent, at best -- of the Jupiter-C's individual solid rockets in the vehicle's upper stages -- from "grain size, packing density, mixture variations, etc., etc." -- could possibly account for a ~20% INCREASE in overall delta V at burnout ... resulting in almost 600 additional feet per second ... and 600 additional vertical miles ... of "super performance" for America's first satellite!
It is obvious what happened: the Explorer could not reach beyond the huge radiation contained in the aether/ether layers of the upper atmosphere.
Then, Nasa/JPL had at their disposal two options: either call the San Diego office and tell them to lie about the radio signals, or launch another rocket very fast from the Pacific, just minutes later.[/b]
Things went wrong again even for the Explorer III mission.Launched March 26, 1958, the satellite was planned for a trajectory essentially identical to Explorer I's original intended orbit: 220 by 1000 miles. However, to the chagrin of von Braun and his launch team, the new spacecraft also wound up in a close repeat of Explorer I's peculiarly extended flight path!Explorer III 's final orbital parameters were -- "125 miles by 1750 miles ... with a period of 115.7 minutes" -- an orbit more elliptical (and even higher) than Explorer I's ... but of almost exactly the same duration!
There was NO WAY this could be dismissed as simply another "over performance" by the Jupiter-C (and yet, of course, according to the "experts," that's all it could be ...)!
With the launch of Explorer IV four months after that -- July 26, 1958 -- "the anomaly" was solid:Explorer IV's final orbit was "163 miles by 1373 miles ..." compared to the, again, intended "220 by 1000." At first glance, this does NOT look like any kind of confirmation ... until the fact that Explorer IV was carrying twice the payload of scientific instruments, compared to the previous spacecraft, was factored in ....
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate.
In fact, directly from a textbook on mechanics: