Why does the sun set below the horizon If the sun always stays above the earth?

As above, why can I see a sunset below the horizon if the sun apparently always stays above the flat earth?

'fefelarue' - LOL!!!

Perspective, refraction, diffraction, diffusion, and light scattering. 

Perspective, refraction, diffraction, diffusion, and light scattering.

You mean 'Bullshit, lies, made up shit, troll and falsities'

why can I see a sunset below the horizon if the sun apparently always stays above the flat earth?

I am yet to find the answer for this (a valid one). I can only find hand-waving or pseudo-scientific answers. If they involve science/scientific terms, they provide no explaination.

Same bollocks here

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64996.0#.Vl09LnbhCUk

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.

Perspective, refraction, diffraction, diffusion, and light scattering.

Please explain how each of these causes the sun to set. I'll go and grab some popcorn....

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.

Ah!  Now I understand!  Mind you a Heliocentric Globe does seem a lot simpler.  I wonder how long it will take to get around to that.
Mind you it took almost 2,000 years from around Aristotle's time to Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Newton the first time around, so we might have to wait a bit!

According to that diagram, everyone in the world has day and night at the same time. There are times when the entire world is in darkness.

We know this isn't true.

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.

Every year my family would spend Christmas Holiday on Mt Terag. Very festive!

The map was for illustrative purposes only.

Here is the global Piri Reis map with latitudes:



Rotate the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn by 23.5 degrees, and we get the upper and lower bounds for the orbit of the Sun on a flat earth.

It rises from beyond Japan and illuminates at least half of the entire surface (not a spotlight sun at all), and sets somewhere beyond Antarctica (just like in the Black Sun photographs taken by F. Bruenjes).

Then, it rises again to complete its orbit over the other half of the semicircle (approximately).

This is the correct description for the Sun's orbit on a Flat Earth, the one that should be included in the official FAQ.

The most important part of the Sun's orbit is its precession (the westward shift of 1.5 km/year).


Sunrise in Patagonia:




Sunset in Patagonia:





Sunrise in Japan:




Sunset in Japan:





Sunrise in California:



Sunset in California:

If the sun sets ANYWHERE (i.e. beyond antarctica like you said), you are implying that there is at least one point every day when the entire world is in darkness.

This isn't true.

By Sun setting, I mean this:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (Norway, even though the Sun sets in Antarctica, there is still plenty of light)

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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.

By Sun setting, I mean this:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (Norway, even though the Sun sets in Antarctica, there is still plenty of light)

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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.

And when I mean the sun setting, I mean it literally being below the horizon, which obviously happens.

There is no possible way for the sun to be below my horizon and above anyone else's, if the earth is flat.

You must understand why the surface of the Earth must be flat, and I could mention only the Tunguska event (seen all the way from London), or the Double Forces of Attractive Gravitation, which destroys the very essence of RE theory:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1724215#msg1724215



You have seen already the videos, especially the one shot in Norway: sun setting at a very far distance, and yet that Sun provides light as it is rising for the western semicircle (approximately).

Let us now examine the very case you mentioned, when the Sun should dip below horizon for a few seconds.










Now, that setting sun will appear as a rising sun in Patagonia (as an example):



How is it possible?

Nikola Tesla explains:

Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.

Not only is the Sun setting, but its disk will slowly turn to face the other semicircle and light it up (as seen in Patagonia).

Rising sun in Argentina:





The setting sun becomes a rising sun in a matter of a fraction of a second.


Ether drift proofs:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791


This is the only way to explain the rising/setting Sun: the official FAQ copies the erroneous articles written by S. Rowbotham on the physics of the Sun, unfortunately (one of the weak points of the Earth is not a Globe, which does contain, otherwise, a very good compilation of the experiments carried out in Great Britain over a century ago).

It is time to change the FAQ: obviously the Sun does rise and set.

You can't use photographic evidence to back your hypothesis up, but discount the trillions of gigabites of photographic and video evidence that contradicts it. But let's not start on that, as I know you don't think anyone's been to space anyway, and I can't be bothered to listen why, so I'll just say this to contradict what you just tried to explain:

Whenever the sun is setting, there is always a place in the world where it's midday and the sun is directly (or almost directly) above their head.

Explain that please.

It may be easier to use a simple diagram to explain it (hand-drawn will suffice).

But I can use photographic evidence to back up my claim, as I have done for the past eight years: strait of Gibraltar, English Channel, lake Ontario, lake Michigan, we even have a video taken from Tarifa showing the opposite shoreline over a distance of 13 km.

There is no other photographic evidence which contradicts this: you forget the Double Forces of Attractive Gravitation paradox.


Here is a sunrise seen from St. Helena island:





At the same time, the sunrise seen from Maine (Mt. Desert island):



A careful and coordinated photographic documentation is needed over multiple longitudes in order to precisely point out the exact sequence of sunrises/sunsets over the entire surface of the flat earth, so far this task has not been undertaken.


Now, let me turn the table on you.

Here is the most direct proof that the Earth does not orbit the Sun.

From a classic text on mechanics:




When science teachers are asked how does gravity work, they answer in this manner:

Gravity is a force.

Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.

That makes gravity the centripetal force.

Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.

Now, ball = earth

you = sun

tension in the string = gravity


Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)


http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)

Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583

Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.


Then, the Mass Attraction and General Relativity Attraction concepts are not viable models for the cause of gravity and inertia.

"Applying any "attractive" force model to the Earth Moon dynamic forces, we obtain this system:

The Earth’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Moon.
The Moon’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Earth.

At first this may seem like an orderly and balanced attractive force system; however,... the following paradox exists. If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system. The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body. Another example of a balanced system is a rope under tension; each end has an equal amount of opposing force. As noted by Newton's third law of motion, " To every action there is always an opposed  equal reaction".

This double force paradox is directly applicable to the "mass attraction",... the General Relativity “attraction” and all other attraction type concepts of gravity.

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.   

The Mass Attraction Models of Gravitation

The attraction concepts accept Newton's inverse square equation of gravity's force between two bodies as:
             F = G x (M1 x M2) / r squared .
The surface gravity (g) for each of the bodies can be derived from the gravitational constant (G) and the mass and radius of the bodies. Using Newton's equation the g forces, allegedly "seated" in each of the "two" bodies acting on the other at a distance, can be calculated.

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.
 

Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!

The General Relativity Model of Gravitation

The exact same paradox arises with the General Relativity (GR) concept of gravity. It postulates that Mass warps a hypothetical "fabric of spacetime" and the warped fabric of spacetime causes “attraction” of other masses. Since in the GR theory the seat of the attractive force is anchored within the center of the planet’s and moon’s positions, we would again have twice the force required to balance the orbital forces of the Earth Moon system."

The Sun cannot and does not attract any other planet.

The Earth cannot and does not attract the Moon.

Your RE hypothesis is completely destroyed.

You don't add the calculated force at the Earth and the calculated force at the moon for each object. No wonder you are getting double the result. You simply calculate the force between the two objects as a single value. This single force applies to Earth and Moon.

Use the Gravitation equation:

F=Gm₁m₂ / r²

Plug in the mass of earth and moon and their separation to give the resulting force of:

1.985*10^20 N

This force is applied to the Earth and applied to the moon and results in an acceleration dependant upon mass.

You still don't get it.

You have only described HALF the forces involved.

That is, you are describing the PULL of y towards x, and of course, the pull of x towards y.

But, that is only half the story.



The Earth’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Moon.
The Moon’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Earth.

At first this may seem like an orderly and balanced attractive force system; however,... the following paradox exists. If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system. The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body. Another example of a balanced system is a rope under tension; each end has an equal amount of opposing force. As noted by Newton's third law of motion, " To every action there is always an opposed  equal reaction".


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.  


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.
 

Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!



Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!


That is why Newton dismissed the law of gravitational attraction as PURE GARBAGE.

This quote expresses his firm opinion opposing the concept that gravity (attraction) acted through empty space as an “inherent” property of matter.

Quote "...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything 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 philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking, could ever fall into it." Unquote

Since Newton considered the attraction concept "so great an absurdity"; it seems reasonable to assume that he would not have spent time contemplating the detailed mechanics of an absurd attractive system. Therefore he may not have encountered or addressed the double force paradox. People do not normally study hypothesis that they believe are not correct, or hypothesis that they do not have an interest in.

It also appears certain that Newton would never have believed that for one hundred plus years our Twenty and Twenty First Century Natural Philosophy Societies, learned professors, authors and students would fall into believing, teaching and propagating the concept “that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else”."

No you really have got this very wrong.

There is one force:

Force of attraction between the earth and moon. It acts equally on each in the direction of the other object.

Done.

You are digressing, that is all another point.

Show me what position the sun is in compared to the earth, when the sun is directly above one area in the world, and below the horizon in another place.

Surely it's not that hard to draw a circle and another circle with a few lines to explain it?

I. Newton calling the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity, pure garbage:

This quote expresses his firm opinion opposing the concept that gravity (attraction) acted through empty space as an “inherent” property of matter.

Quote "...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything 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 philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking, could ever fall into it." Unquote

Since Newton considered the attraction concept "so great an absurdity"; it seems reasonable to assume that he would not have spent time contemplating the detailed mechanics of an absurd attractive system.



Here is the pure garbage of the "law" of attractive gravitation.


"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."   

In fact, directly from a textbook on mechanics:




Again, mainstream science.

When science teachers are asked how does gravity work, they answer in this manner:

Gravity is a force.

Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.

That makes gravity the centripetal force.

Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.

Now, ball = earth

you = sun

tension in the string = gravity


Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)


http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)

Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583

Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.


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.

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.


 If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system. The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body. Another example of a balanced system is a rope under tension; each end has an equal amount of opposing force. As noted by Newton's third law of motion, " To every action there is always an opposed  equal reaction".


There is only thing left to do.

To safely and strongly flush the toilet with the law of attractive gravity right into the sewer system.

So much missquoting and incorrect information.

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.


Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)


http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)

Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583

Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.


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.

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.


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.jpg

Plugging 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.

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 ....

The facts are absolutely correct and the quotes stand exactly as they are.

Let's see.

"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.

Ok, but what does this have to do with anything? It's already known. If you replace a boat with a cruise ship, is the same thing seen?

...

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.

Ok

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]

ok.

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.

You repeat yourself alot.  Also note that gravity isn't a force but we can treat it like one here.
What's the problem with this? The masses of the objects are different. Like from before if you have different masses, the objects don't move equally.

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.

And now we are back to this incorrect statement. As usually, you are using something you don't understand to try and prove a point.

Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance

"Newton's theory of gravity offered no prospect of identifying any mediator of gravitational interaction. His theory assumed that gravitation acts instantaneously, regardless of distance."
Why would newton not believe in gravity when he came up with it?

And the real quote'



   

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.[4]
    — Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3

So yes, like I said you are intentionally misquoting to try and make a point. You always do this. It's because you have nothing to back up your claims with, so you have to invent it.

Then, this kind of absurdity should never be taught as truth in colleges and universities.

It works. They also teach general relativity, which is the current accepted theory.

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).

Nope.

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.jpg

Plugging 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!

You are digging in a pit of nothing. Nothing you posted shows gravity doesn't exist. It shows an experiment didn't work as predicted but still worked overall.

It is obvious what happened: the Explorer could not reach beyond the huge radiation contained in the aether/ether layers of the upper atmosphere.

And now you are back to jumping to outlandish conclusions. You don't even have evidence for this, you are just making stuff up.

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]

I'm sure they were set up for that. Yeah OK
You must go through 100 shovels a week.

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!

The apogee was higher but the perigee was lower. Please note this. The total distance and the speed of the rocket is what maters. "Higher" doesn't mean anything.

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 ...)!

How did you get through school without taking any science classes? Sometimes things don't work as planned. Are you aware angles matter too?

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 ....

Ok, terrific.

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.

Yes, but the moon is much smaller than Earth.

In fact, directly from a textbook on mechanics:

Yep, says it right there, Second half of the first paragraph.

We have been discussing sokarul for quite some time and have concluded that Sokarul is a chemist who collects urine.

Here are some quotes from sokarul, so that everybody can understand what is going on:

"You have to get over the fact that two things can be equal and not be the same thing.

A dead particle does not equal an alive particle.

It it theories water came from asteroids.

So the ground accelerates them, then why do they not leave the ground?

I wasn't thinking about the other type of acceleration."


Yet, he is allowed to post in the upper forums...


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.[4]
    — Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3


I. Newton essentially says that there is no such thing as vacuum; any Mediation by which "their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another" means only one thing: friction.

The law of attractive gravity as it is being taught right now, was regarded as an absolute absurdity by Newton himself, even insanity as the quote reveals pretty clearly.



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.

Readers like Dr. N. Kozyrev, Dr. B. DePalma, T. Townsend Brown, Dr. Y. Galaev, Dr. Dayton Miller, Dr. Steve Lamoreaux, Dr. Maurice Allais did consider the very matter and carried out classic experiments which did identify the Agent: it is Ether.

But Ether means friction, which destroys the very mathematical setting of the equations of motion of the heavenly bodies: they will no longer be a Hamiltonian, friction terms will have to be included.



The apogee was higher but the perigee was lower. Please note this. The total distance and the speed of the rocket is what maters. "Higher" doesn't mean anything.

Why is this kind of posting allowed in the upper forums?


Since the actual orbital parameters (according to George Ludwig's figures) were "223 by 1592 ..." -- almost 600 miles higher at apogee than "nominal" -- 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!


Therefore, we have only two choices left to consider, since the performance described clearly above was not possible by "any known chemistry and physics": either the office in San Diego lied about the Explorer's signals being received, or they fired another rocket from the Pacific.

Either way the data is very clear: the Explorer mission was a failure, and impossible numbers, which contradict the law of attractive gravity, had to be invented and offered to the public.


"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 ...)!

The data offered to the public for the Explorer III mission is again false: it defies chemistry and physics, just like Explorer I.


Explorer IV carried TWICE the payload.

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 ....


The Double Forces of Attractive Gravitation puts an end to the absurdity of the "law" of attractive gravity.


THERE WILL ALWAYS BE FOUR FORCES AT WORK.

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.

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.


Quote "...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything 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 philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking, could ever fall into it." Unquote

Since Newton considered the attraction concept "so great an absurdity"; it seems reasonable to assume that he would not have spent time contemplating the detailed mechanics of an absurd attractive system. Therefore he may not have encountered or addressed the double force paradox. People do not normally study hypothesis that they believe are not correct, or hypothesis that they do not have an interest in.

It also appears certain that Newton would never have believed that for one hundred plus years our Twenty and Twenty First Century Natural Philosophy Societies, learned professors, authors and students would fall into believing, teaching and propagating the concept “that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else”."


"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!


That is why Newton dismissed the law of gravitational attraction as PURE GARBAGE.

Yes, but the moon is much smaller than Earth.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Let us precisely calculate the DOUBLE forces involved in the moon-earth system.





Now, the confirmation that there is no such thing as the law of attractive gravity: the precise calculations involving the Allais effect.



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.