Can nobody explain satellites?

  • 76 Replies
  • 16933 Views
Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2016, 11:31:33 AM »
Jane, Did you find  Karnaugh maps simple? I seem to remember it not so simple. Of course it could have just been me not studying enough.
I found them pretty simple.

Satellites travel in a straight line above the flat earth as dictated by Newton's 3 Laws of Motion.
what happens when they reach the edge?
They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2016, 12:15:17 PM »
Actually you grabbed onto my comment about complexity which was in response to a post that said the FE theory is  to complicated.  That does not imply that I think complicated is wrong- it simply means that both theories have their complexities.
As far as understanding the arguments- believe me I do. I simply look at them from a differing paradigm. The rounders accept a spinning ball thesis which I reject.

As far as Newtonian Physics, Electricity and Magnetism etc I had more than my fill of such whilst gaining my degree. You misconstrue disagreement as not understanding. I do understand which is why I reject such.
Except you misrepresented complexity: a conclusion can be tricky while still coming from simple underlying principles. It's simple enough to state, for example, "There is no easy formula to solve a polynomial of degree five." A little jargon-y, but basic, but the proof of that gets seriously involved.
I assumed you were rejecting on the basis of complexity as you ignored this fact when I previously stated it.


Jane, Did you find  Karnaugh maps simple? I seem to remember it not so simple. Of course it could have just been me not studying enough.
Not my area. Numerics is the extent of my computing-related maths. I'm more into analysis and structure theory (purer maths).

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2016, 12:35:52 PM »
They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.

Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2016, 01:32:14 PM »
They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.

Sorry, this is making no sense. HOW exactly does this happen? Please use simple English for us simpletons...

Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« Reply #34 on: March 15, 2016, 01:36:03 PM »
They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.
So you know distances, please provide amap.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2016, 01:51:46 PM »
They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.
So you know distances, please provide amap.
Sure. Let me get right on that non-euclidean map for you.  ::)

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.

Sorry, this is making no sense. HOW exactly does this happen? Please use simple English for us simpletons...

I doubt you are simpletons simply because you don't understand the jargon I am using. Seems a bit harsh! It basically means if we travel any direction we will end up where we started.

finite means of limited area.
closed means no edge.
space is self explanatory.

Non-euclidean basically means that what we are saying violates the idea that a line in a direction will never meet itself.

How it happens I cannot say. One might as well ask how one can walk forward and end up in a position ahead of where they were. The unfortunate answer is: it just does - because the starting spot is there, and the landing spot is here. We know if we travel any direction on the planet we end up where we were. We also know the Earth is Flat. We also know that objects such as the moon are not accelerating and are thus travelling in a straight line above the Earth (otherwise we would see rocks or dust flying every which way off it as it turns to magically face us no matter where we are). This all adds up to the explanation that if we travel any direction in a straight line we will end up where we started.

This explains circumnavigation, even south-bound (there's plenty of reasons to still keep the Antarctic on lock down - namely controlling the oil resources there.) It explains distances in the southern zone. It explains why we see different stars in the southern zone. It explains why ships sink. It explains why we can't see indefinitely (aside from air clarity.) It also explains why if the ISS exists they are weightless. It explains a whole lot of stuff.

All the problems associated with a flat earth melt away and we are left with a cohesive model and can turn our attention instead to NASAholes.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 01:56:27 PM by John Davis »

Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2016, 02:33:34 PM »
    First I do NOT accept the "so called" non elliptical orbits of these satellites.  They do not exist because they are not possible with regards to the flat earth.
    Ok this is quite fascinating. You claim [quite strongly] that you do not accept the non elliptical orbits on the basis that they are simply "not possible with regards to the flat earth". Did you know that this is the definition of arguing from Ideology? More specifically, this is a form of epistemological fallacy (one of the more interesting types I'll admit). What you're doing here is setting your perspective on the basis of a presupposition (more on these soon.), and you are editing which observations you admit to being real on the basis of that presupposition. What's important here is that your position stems from prioritising the ideological stance, the concept, over the observational evidence. You have it backwards. Where, in logical argument, observational evidence instructs concept. The proposition is made, thus the conclusion [that the proposition is true] follows from the assertions substantiating the proposition. You see how that works?

    You err here by turning this on it's head. You make an ideological stance (concept), and your assertion is that observation X (substantive form) is non existent on the basis of it's incompatibility with the concept. In laymen terms, you are saying "I reject the claim that this observation is real on the basis of my belief." Where basic rationality follows such that "evidence X logically concludes concept Y (It's actually a bit more complicated than this, see [1])". The important thing here is to note the ordering of the stages. This type of claim in question though, is opposed to basic rationality. I hope you can understand why. A good example here is when scientists are found to have done this, it is universally accepted that their conclusion is false as the process of reasoning they have used is fallacious. Regardless of the context being argued, this form of argument is by definition invalid due to the basic necessities, prerequisite to validity, in an argument's structure. Food for thought.

    If you wish to understand this concept more deeply I do implore you to read [1].

    Quote
    Each of us start with a pre-supposition. When you start with the "earth is a spinning ball" [...]
    You seem to keep making this reference to the significance that we begin our stances with a presupposition. I mentioned before that the claim that the Earth is round is not a presupposition. Though you don't agree with this, I presume this is down to a misunderstanding of the word, so lets break some stuff down.

    First lets look at the definition of presupposition: 
    • "a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse." [2]
    there are a couple of important terms in here that I'll break down further:

    • Implicit
    • suggested though not directly expressed.
    • always to be found in; essentially connected with.
    • assumption
    • a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

    So a presupposition is a belief essentially connected with a concept though not directly expressed and that is accepted as true without proof..
    Where:
           proof is: sufficient evidence or a [sufficient] argument for the truth of a proposition.
    And Truth is: being in accord with fact or reality.

    Where,
           Fact is: something that has really occurred or is actually the case, verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement.
    And Reality is: the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

    The important distinction here is the concept of a presupposition as a claim without proof, where proof is reliant upon truth and truth is reliant upon facts derived from measuring and defining observations in reality. Following? Good.

    So lets analyze the claim that the "the Earth is Round" under these criteria. This claim is a justified true belief (see[1] for further definition of this point) as a component of knowledge derived from proven facts, in turn derived from things that are actually the case as verified by repeatable careful observation and measurement.

    Let me simplify this. The concept of the Earth being round, is based upon observations, measurements of reality. From which, the conclusion that the Earth is round is the rational inference therein, due to the soundness in the application of established, proven facts, on to defining that component of Reality.

    The claim that this is a presupposition fails. A presupposition simply isn't derived from this propositional state.

    (I'm refraining from explaining why the Claim that the Earth is Flat is a presupposition as I'm sure you can extrapolate the same processes of analysis onto that claim and come to that conclusion. Though if you wish me to I will in another post, along with further substantiation of this point.)


    Quote
    [...]then these orbits can happen. But if the Earth is a flat disc then they are not possible in the flat earth theory. The affect of the aether both moves the Satellites and keep them in their positions.
    Refer to the earlier term definitions to understand why this arbitrary cross referencing of the contemporary physical models and the flat Earth Hypothesis isn't compatible. One is a presupposition that lacks proof or testable evidence (required to establish truth). The other, is the sum of a predictive system comprised of rationally sound proven facts based on observational evidence and reliably repeatable measurements of reality.

    I'll make this point clearer. The orbital motions are not simply derivatives of some arbitrary presuppositional stance that merely express some ergo of that view. They are observational facts in reality that conclude, alongside every other proof therein, that the Earth is indeed Round. The Orbital Movements are in themselves a form of observational evidence of reality, further indicating the validity of the proposition that the Earth is Round. Remember my very first paragraph about argument form and epistemology? This is the same thing. The evidence leads to the conclusion and given the argument is also logically valid and sound, and the belief is justified, then the belief is a justified true belief; and we have real knowledge, vis: knowledge of reality.

    As far as Aether is concerned, it simply (as of yet) fails to hold validation due to a lack of soundness in several of the criteria defining justified true belief. I am not saying your belief isn't real (that's a different thing). I am saying that it just doesn't work as an argument for reasons hopefully expressed pretty clearly by now, by proxy. Put simply, unjustified beliefs cannot confer justification on other beliefs. So Aether simply cannot be used to extrapolate upon as proof of the earth being Flat. Continuing to talk about it or engaging with derivative presumptive conjecture is meaningless before it has been validated as a real thing. In contrast to the concepts that have been proven to be real and have been integrated into the standard physical models of scientific fact because of that. See the difference?

    Quote
    We can measure the affect of Aether on the motion of celestial objects by measuring their interaction in the same way that "rounders" say that they can measure the affect of gravity.  We know how Aether works (and the Aetherial whirlpool) by observation.[/i]
    We can't. What you're doing when we measure reality is measure the physical properties of physical objects, and extrapolating quantitative relationships thereof. Gravity is a relational property of observed reality. It isn't a thing in itself but a relationship between physical objects. the correct term is gravitational attraction. It describes a relationship. Aether is claimed to be a substance, which requires to be found, identified, and studied. When we measure "gravity" we are measuring the relationship between physical things. Not a physical thing. this is a fundamental difference.

    Quote
    Aether works like a fluid- which light or other objects must pass through. You ask me about aether- I ask you about gravity- what is it.
    You will probably respond it is the distortion of space time continuum caused by the mass of (very large) objects.
    Correct. It is the curvature in space-time under the influence of Mass.

    Quote
    I ask "What is space time continuum that is being distorted"
    Depending on which "theory" a rounder subscribes to the answer might be "it consists of quanta vibrating on a string"
    And I ask what causes this quanta to vibrate?
    String "theory" is a [pretty outlandish] hypothesis that can never be tested on the basis that the predictions are far too minuscule in scale to ever be tested. It is by definition a philosophy. It has very little to do with General relativity besides some of it's implications may explain gravity in accordance with general relativity. Though it functionally has no relation or implication on Einstein's field equations ~ the actual meat of the theory that have been used to make all the predictions that have since been proven, and the equations that describe the curvature of space-time when under the influence of mass.

    I wouldn't have mentioned string theory at all. I would have given you the correct answer: The thing that space-time is, is causality. The order in which things interact. It's really that simple. It's an expression of relation between physical objects in physical space and time, well, in space-time. Without going in to too much detail. When object's worldline geodesics are expressed as vectors in non-euclidean geometric space as an expression of space-time, Causality is the resultant definition factor in arbitrary relativistic reference frames. Beyond this, I'd, at least have to send you lots of educational videos and articles on the web before I could extrapolate further.

    Quote
    And you might respond "energy"
    and I ask what is the source of this energy
    And you don't know and I say "it must be majik"
    So this last stance is an aspiration to phenomenological insubstantiability. I simply say to that ~ Reductio ad absurdum[3] ;)

    Phew. I am pooped!

    [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/
    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition
    [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum[/list][/list]
    « Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 03:46:41 PM by TigerWidow »

    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #37 on: March 15, 2016, 02:46:49 PM »
    They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
    Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
    Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

    They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
    What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
    It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.
    So you know distances, please provide amap.
    Sure. Let me get right on that non-euclidean map for you.  ::)

    They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
    Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
    Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

    They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
    What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
    It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.

    Sorry, this is making no sense. HOW exactly does this happen? Please use simple English for us simpletons...

    I doubt you are simpletons simply because you don't understand the jargon I am using. Seems a bit harsh! It basically means if we travel any direction we will end up where we started.

    finite means of limited area.
    closed means no edge.
    space is self explanatory.

    Non-euclidean basically means that what we are saying violates the idea that a line in a direction will never meet itself.

    How it happens I cannot say. One might as well ask how one can walk forward and end up in a position ahead of where they were. The unfortunate answer is: it just does - because the starting spot is there, and the landing spot is here. We know if we travel any direction on the planet we end up where we were. We also know the Earth is Flat. We also know that objects such as the moon are not accelerating and are thus travelling in a straight line above the Earth (otherwise we would see rocks or dust flying every which way off it as it turns to magically face us no matter where we are). This all adds up to the explanation that if we travel any direction in a straight line we will end up where we started.

    This explains circumnavigation, even south-bound (there's plenty of reasons to still keep the Antarctic on lock down - namely controlling the oil resources there.) It explains distances in the southern zone. It explains why we see different stars in the southern zone. It explains why ships sink. It explains why we can't see indefinitely (aside from air clarity.) It also explains why if the ISS exists they are weightless. It explains a whole lot of stuff.

    All the problems associated with a flat earth melt away and we are left with a cohesive model and can turn our attention instead to NASAholes.

    John, you really seem like a nice guy.  But really I have to tell you that I don't know where you come up with your theories.  You seem to have a fetish with NASA and I am afraid that all of your focus on trying to prove the earth is flat is skewing your senses.  You have to honestly keep in mind that so much of what you and your colleagues are trying to prove is just way off.  Unfortunately too much of what you're claiming is simply contrived and without much merit because it is easily falsified.  The entire premise of your flat earth model is flawed and cannot be proven.  For example you claim in some statements that ISS is fake and space is also fake (or at least some of your compatriots) and then you make claims that satellites do exist but now they operate according to theoretical principles that have no bearing on reality.  I could just as easily state that we live in Middle Earth and that everything we see in the sky is only a projection.  How could you prove me wrong?  Some people actually believe in this stuff and you might think they're crazy but in reality your theories and others like theirs really are cut from the same cloth.  Just keep that in mind.

    While you're at it, please try explaining the phenomenon of Venus transiting the sun, e.g. directly between earth and the sun.  We know Venus exists and have observed it for thousands of years.  It is a planet that is well documented and yet it periodically transits the sun.  I would appreciate a reasonable explanation.

    *

    Slemon

    • Flat Earth Researcher
    • 12330
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #38 on: March 15, 2016, 02:54:02 PM »
    John's getting topological. I offer my best wishes to anyone trying to understand it in any detail, I loathe topology.
    That being said, he is actually kind of right. According to the Theory of Relativity, space is more accurately modelled by Riemannian geometry, which describes a non-Euclidean space. A few of the traits transfer: for example, as is pretty well known an object moving at high speeds may seem to contract in length. Distances do get manipulated.

    The gist of John's model seems to be that the Earth is locally flat, but can be modelled as round: as is demonstrated by the distances he references. The Earth itself is flat: it's space that can be thought of as curved.

    Curvature, strictly speaking, is defined by the eigenvalues of the second fundamental form (the tangent plane, the space of all derivations) which is defined under Riemannian geometry. Derivations are defined pretty generally, but offhand I can't think of any reason it wouldn't theoretically be possible to define a manifold with derivatives that have zero eigenvalues and yet meet in the way John describes, if we're working generally. 
    That being said, I am very far from an expert at topology, which is what a full understanding of Riemannian geometry requires. It might be possible that the existing traits of the manifold require the existence of a derivative that causes curvature. I doubt I can say any more, without more knowledge both of his model and of topology.

    He's right as far as modelling space as non-Euclidean goes, though I can't say much more as to the accuracy of the rest. If you want to know about group structure, I'm your girl. This stuff, good luck.
    We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

    *

    Blue_Moon

    • 846
    • Defender of NASA
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #39 on: March 16, 2016, 12:35:22 PM »
    I'll switch tactics. 

    With satellites and other objects in earth orbit, we often use TLE's (two-line elements) as a simple way to express their orbital parameters.  We can then use a propagator algorithm to find their positions to a high degree of accuracy far into the future.  The parameters include:
    • Inclination
    • Right ascension of the ascending node
    • Eccentricity
    • Argument of perigee
    • Mean anomaly
    • Mean motion per day
    as well as a few others that help to refine the propagation.  Notice that we never take into account things like aether currents, yet we get the satellite's location accurately.  If the earth isn't a globe, the parameters will not make sense, but they do. 
    Aerospace Engineering Student
    NASA Enthusiast
    Round Earth Advocate
    More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #40 on: March 16, 2016, 02:58:14 PM »
    They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
    Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
    Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

    They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
    What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
    It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.

    I have to say this explanation has me thinking. I have heard the motion of a satellite orbiting the Earth described as the satellite travelling in a straight line through curved space, assuming gravity being explained as a curvature of space. I suppose one could argue that the surface of the Earth is a flat plane following the curvature of gravity, forming the equivalent of a sphere.

    Of course most flat Earthers don't believe in gravity, so this will never go anywhere.

    ?

    Art

    • 133
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #41 on: March 18, 2016, 09:59:58 AM »
    Is there any situation other than a computer program that can be observed
    where an object can move across a 2D shape and wrap around to the other side?

    Of course radio waves have to do this as well for short & long path to work.
    In fact I can’t believe any HF radio operator could believe the Earth is flat.
    RET:0 - FET:0

    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #42 on: March 18, 2016, 10:13:00 AM »
    Is there any situation other than a computer program that can be observed
    where an object can move across a 2D shape and wrap around to the other side?

    Of course radio waves have to do this as well for short & long path to work.
    In fact I can’t believe any HF radio operator could believe the Earth is flat.

    For a 2d shape not that I am aware of, although I am not an expert in geometry. However 3d shapes can be built using 2d shapes for sides. A cube is 6 squares, a pyramid is 4 triangles for example. For a cylinder you take a square and 2 circles, wrap the square around the circles on the end. This could be an example of a 2d square which when bent into a 3d shape wraps around.

    *

    Blue_Moon

    • 846
    • Defender of NASA
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #43 on: March 18, 2016, 10:14:13 AM »
    Is there any situation other than a computer program that can be observed
    where an object can move across a 2D shape and wrap around to the other side?

    Of course radio waves have to do this as well for short & long path to work.
    In fact I can’t believe any HF radio operator could believe the Earth is flat.
    And another thing:  having a wraparound flat earth might make it trivial to cross directly to the other side, but you would still have to take the long way to cross at a different angle. 
    Aerospace Engineering Student
    NASA Enthusiast
    Round Earth Advocate
    More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #44 on: March 18, 2016, 01:13:19 PM »
    Is there any situation other than a computer program that can be observed
    where an object can move across a 2D shape and wrap around to the other side?

    Of course radio waves have to do this as well for short & long path to work.
    In fact I can’t believe any HF radio operator could believe the Earth is flat.
    And another thing:  having a wraparound flat earth might make it trivial to cross directly to the other side, but you would still have to take the long way to cross at a different angle.

    Well if you could wrap around in every direction you would end up with a sphere. Which the flat earthers obviously hate.I am actually starting to have a dislike of discs, luckily I don't have cds and more and watch all my movies digitally.

    *

    Username

    • Administrator
    • 17563
    • President of The Flat Earth Society
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #45 on: March 20, 2016, 09:38:17 AM »
    I have to say this explanation has me thinking. I have heard the motion of a satellite orbiting the Earth described as the satellite travelling in a straight line through curved space, assuming gravity being explained as a curvature of space. I suppose one could argue that the surface of the Earth is a flat plane following the curvature of gravity, forming the equivalent of a sphere.

    Of course most flat Earthers don't believe in gravity, so this will never go anywhere.
    Exactly. This proves the Earth is stationary, has gravity, is flat, and gives good reason to suspect there is no conspiracy. It also brings with it all empirical evidence that is supporting relativity and conventional cosmologies.

    Firmament is revealed to be a fixed "coordinate system" that is revealed through inertial frames of reference. Aether gives us a mechanic by which space is bent and through which waves can propagate.

    The issue with flat earthers not believing in gravity will hopefully die down over a year or two once they "#TESTIT". They will then be left with the UA model or mine. Buoyancy just won't hold. Neither will magnetism or other ad hocs. The only one that will last the test of time are those that reveal gravity to be a pseudo-force.

    In addition, this highlights issues with our understanding of method and its role in society. Two off the top of my head:

    Dialogues that do not pigeon-hole discussion to what is "reasonable" within the dialogue have more paths to discover "revolutionary" material.

    This can be seen because we could have reached relativity from two directions; By assuming the Earth is flat we can directly derive relativity through use of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion.  With round, it also comes to existence. With everything else being equal this means it is more likely we would have discovered it sooner if we had allowed the flat earth into serious dialogue.

    The mathematical layer of theory is not directly translatable to the explanatory / natural language layer of science.

    This is to say that even if we have the description mathematically of a phenomena, we have infinite ways to express and understand this in natural language. This was known by Rowbotham among others. Multiple mutually exclusive world-views can be supported through use of identical sets of empirical and mathematical evidence.

    An axiomatic choice having been made to prefer inertial frames of reference (or a particular subset of them) in one. In the other no such preference has been made - we have loosened our axioms a bit and find a view where it is flat and round depending on frame of reference.

    ?

    palmerito0

    • 582
    • Why does this forum exist?
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #46 on: March 20, 2016, 10:32:39 AM »
    Who are you to talk about ad-hocs when you believe in aether?
    Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

    There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

    WHEEEEEEEEEEE

    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #47 on: March 20, 2016, 03:01:03 PM »
    I have to say this explanation has me thinking. I have heard the motion of a satellite orbiting the Earth described as the satellite travelling in a straight line through curved space, assuming gravity being explained as a curvature of space. I suppose one could argue that the surface of the Earth is a flat plane following the curvature of gravity, forming the equivalent of a sphere.

    Of course most flat Earthers don't believe in gravity, so this will never go anywhere.
    Exactly. This proves the Earth is stationary, has gravity, is flat, and gives good reason to suspect there is no conspiracy. It also brings with it all empirical evidence that is supporting relativity and conventional cosmologies.

    Firmament is revealed to be a fixed "coordinate system" that is revealed through inertial frames of reference. Aether gives us a mechanic by which space is bent and through which waves can propagate.

    The issue with flat earthers not believing in gravity will hopefully die down over a year or two once they "#TESTIT". They will then be left with the UA model or mine. Buoyancy just won't hold. Neither will magnetism or other ad hocs. The only one that will last the test of time are those that reveal gravity to be a pseudo-force.

    In addition, this highlights issues with our understanding of method and its role in society. Two off the top of my head:

    Dialogues that do not pigeon-hole discussion to what is "reasonable" within the dialogue have more paths to discover "revolutionary" material.

    This can be seen because we could have reached relativity from two directions; By assuming the Earth is flat we can directly derive relativity through use of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion.  With round, it also comes to existence. With everything else being equal this means it is more likely we would have discovered it sooner if we had allowed the flat earth into serious dialogue.

    The mathematical layer of theory is not directly translatable to the explanatory / natural language layer of science.

    This is to say that even if we have the description mathematically of a phenomena, we have infinite ways to express and understand this in natural language. This was known by Rowbotham among others. Multiple mutually exclusive world-views can be supported through use of identical sets of empirical and mathematical evidence.

    An axiomatic choice having been made to prefer inertial frames of reference (or a particular subset of them) in one. In the other no such preference has been made - we have loosened our axioms a bit and find a view where it is flat and round depending on frame of reference.

    You claim that satellites don't exist, that space is fictitious, and that geodetic surveying is false; can you please give us provable measurements for the size and distance of the sun/moon, their exact trajectories, and please explain exactly how you came to the conclusion that your flat disk map projection is actually correct?  You negate the existence of satellite imagery yet you use a distorted projection of the flat earth with great conviction as if you are certain the continents actually look that way.  Does the FE movement have its own surveyors or cartographers? You obviously don't have satellites to measure the planet's continents.  So why would you have any faith in any geography as was presented by "Them?" How do you even know if you live where you think you are?  Do you have proof you like in country X and that you have traveled to other countries?  If you have no faith in NASA, the government, millions of scientists globally, then why believe in anything that is generated by these institutions? You see where I'm going with this, don't you...

    And while I'm at it; why isn't a "Middle Earth" model more accurate than a Flat Earth model?  There are people out there that believe fervently in this model... what? you think that's a crazy assumption? And yet you can't prove it. 

    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #48 on: March 20, 2016, 03:30:06 PM »
    John, although your view is a really interesting one, and kudos for that! Sadly there's a problem in that view. even though it would stand, theoretically if the observations of the details involved in space-time curvature weren't the way they were.

    The problem is that space itself isn't actually that curved. The space component of space-time in gen-rel doesn't really alter that much. weirdly enough it's the time component that expresses large curvature in the worldline geodesics of events in minkowski space. That is that they (the time vectors) are the prominent components effecting the metric tensor in expressing the variance in coordinate systems.

    time is curved. not space (that much). I'll let that sink in for a minute...

    We can measure the curvature of space. We can see that it's pretty flat, even in the presence of large masses. We can see, for instance how light trajectories (space) bends around the sun by observing the displacement of a star, viewable in an eclipse, opposed to the lights trajectory when unaffected by mass. Space curvature can be (and is) measured, and it really doesn't bend that much. The same conclusion was come to by relativistic calculations before observations like this were taken to assess the validity of the predictions by the way.

    On the same basic relativistic calculations, time is essentially the component that expresses curvature in minkowski space, applicable to inertially straight Newtonian vectors that appear radially curved in space-time. -> " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> - Notice which axis has curvature. More specifically, the principle of equivalence states that it is due to the acceleration of the non inertial reference frame of the observer, accelerating away from the center of mass that creates the impression of downward acceleration of inertial objects through time.


    http://s23.postimg.org/wx3n8uvhl/principleequiv.jpg

    This same principle creates the relativistic impression of inertial vectors with orthogonal trajectories appear to radially orbit through time. It isn't so much that gravitational attraction causes masses to attract, but that, masses "expand" radially outward such the the centers of masses end up traveling towards each other (principle of equivalence), where the orthogonal vectors 'curve' via the acceleration of the relative reference frames in a manner that causes inertial vectors in space to trace a radially circular motion through time. It's much more complicated than this, regarding which mass is larger and the radius of M given the radius of m creates various space-time trajectories and so forth...

    It's really long to go in to to be honest and extremely dense. Lectures 5 and 6 (linked below) go in to it in much more detail. If you take the concept described therein and apply it to the mass of the sun and calculate the effect on space-time in the vicinity, it expresses what I've described here. (The same for Earth and the Moon e.t.c.) Where it is a function of the time component that expresses curvature. Really weird, yeah. And hard to get your head round. The point being though is that we're very definite on what's curved and what isn't. Space isn't what's curved, rendering the idea that earth could be a flat plane in curved space incorrect i'm afraid. Space really doesn't curve that much. The only time it does to any prominent degree is when the radius of M is getting very close to the Schwarzschild radius. (M = GM over C^2). At and below the Schwarzschild radius everything falls apart. Space becomes time, time becomes space and also becomes infinitely curved, and time both reaches infinity and both become the Schwarzschild radius and the singularity at the same time depending on reference frames yada yada yada. Basically! The only time space curves such that a closed surface is reached (as in your postulation) - everything melts. You're basically describing a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius of Earth is proximately 1 centimeter. Unless you're arguing that the earth is 2 cm in diameter and inside the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole(!) It sadly doesn't stand. Keep trying though, you've got the best ideas in the pro FE camp on here by far.

    " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> <- Ger Rel lecture 5
    " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> <- Gen Rel lecture 6

    If you're interested in exploring this idea further, please do research as much as you can on Gen Rel, and, hopefully, eventually, Read Gravitation! -> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gravitation-Physics-Series-Charles-Misner/dp/0716703440
    « Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 06:41:26 PM by TigerWidow »

    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #49 on: March 21, 2016, 06:29:05 PM »
    I made this to make it more intuitive:


    http://s15.postimg.org/57i1n88x5/spacetimecurvedone.jpg

    Note the angle of the metric tensor between T=0 and T=1. "straight up" at T0 isn't the same "straight up" at T1, though in Euclidean space velocities and momentum accords to Newtonian mechanics.

    This is how inertially straight vectors, in accord with Newtonian mechanics, appear to move radially through time. The space-time coordinates are 'curved' such that the 'straight forwards' inertial vectors in Newtonian mechanics are curving radially towards a center of mass, as the coordinates of the space-time reference frame in respect to the mass are "accelerating" away from the center of mass and towards any given euclidean spacial coordinate X at any given time coordinate T in respect to the frame of an inertial observer, as depicted by the spatial coordinates X=0 in relation to the time axis and the red line depicting the inertial reference frame in the image.
    « Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 04:31:16 PM by TigerWidow »

    ?

    palmerito0

    • 582
    • Why does this forum exist?
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #50 on: March 21, 2016, 06:35:40 PM »
    Both your img links are broken. Could you give the urls?
    Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

    There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

    WHEEEEEEEEEEE

    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #51 on: March 21, 2016, 06:42:44 PM »
    Both your img links are broken. Could you give the urls?

    that's odd, they work for me. I've added links underneath both images. Would there be a way for me to fix this? Should I switch hosting service?

    edit: I just checked on a laptop and not signed in to the site and it's working in every case. Maybe it's just you?
    « Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 06:48:47 PM by TigerWidow »

    ?

    palmerito0

    • 582
    • Why does this forum exist?
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #52 on: March 21, 2016, 07:04:24 PM »
    It's probably just me. No idea why, but I've seen it happen a bit lately on this forum. It's probably just cause of its crappy servers (most pages take 10-15s to load)
    Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

    There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

    WHEEEEEEEEEEE

    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #53 on: March 22, 2016, 12:27:48 AM »
    I have to say this explanation has me thinking. I have heard the motion of a satellite orbiting the Earth described as the satellite travelling in a straight line through curved space, assuming gravity being explained as a curvature of space. I suppose one could argue that the surface of the Earth is a flat plane following the curvature of gravity, forming the equivalent of a sphere.

    Of course most flat Earthers don't believe in gravity, so this will never go anywhere.
    Exactly. This proves the Earth is stationary, has gravity, is flat, and gives good reason to suspect there is no conspiracy. It also brings with it all empirical evidence that is supporting relativity and conventional cosmologies.

    Firmament is revealed to be a fixed "coordinate system" that is revealed through inertial frames of reference. Aether gives us a mechanic by which space is bent and through which waves can propagate.

    The issue with flat earthers not believing in gravity will hopefully die down over a year or two once they "#TESTIT". They will then be left with the UA model or mine. Buoyancy just won't hold. Neither will magnetism or other ad hocs. The only one that will last the test of time are those that reveal gravity to be a pseudo-force.

    In addition, this highlights issues with our understanding of method and its role in society. Two off the top of my head:

    Dialogues that do not pigeon-hole discussion to what is "reasonable" within the dialogue have more paths to discover "revolutionary" material.

    This can be seen because we could have reached relativity from two directions; By assuming the Earth is flat we can directly derive relativity through use of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion.  With round, it also comes to existence. With everything else being equal this means it is more likely we would have discovered it sooner if we had allowed the flat earth into serious dialogue.

    The mathematical layer of theory is not directly translatable to the explanatory / natural language layer of science.

    This is to say that even if we have the description mathematically of a phenomena, we have infinite ways to express and understand this in natural language. This was known by Rowbotham among others. Multiple mutually exclusive world-views can be supported through use of identical sets of empirical and mathematical evidence.

    An axiomatic choice having been made to prefer inertial frames of reference (or a particular subset of them) in one. In the other no such preference has been made - we have loosened our axioms a bit and find a view where it is flat and round depending on frame of reference.

    Rowbotham was a fraud...a charlatan.  And you take the word of this individual over the words of 100,000's of scientists that study a huge amount of converging topics.  Let's just boil it down to one point; please provide proof/verifiable evidence that the sun/moon are 1) at the distances you claim they are from the earth, 2) measure the size and mass of the sun/moon, 3) offer proof that the moon is indeed self-illuminating (incontrovertible proof of course), 4) proof of the trajectories of both and that they should be measurable at all times of the day by sophisticated equipment. 

    There you go. Instead of these ridiculous debates about fringe topics, go straight to the point. 

    ?

    Master_Evar

    • 3381
    • Well rounded character
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #54 on: March 22, 2016, 01:41:26 AM »
    Another problem with the model of earth being flat, but curved by space so it appears to be a sphere, is that we can't know if it is really flat. It could be a square, curved into a sphere. It could be a tube. It could be a bicycle. Or it could be a sphere. Since every known particle in the universe is affected by space, there is nothing we can use to measure the "true" shape of the earth. And since there is nothing (as far as we know) which is unaffected by space, and simply follows perfectly the curvature that makes it behave as if the earth is indeed a sphere, then there is no practical, or really even theoretical value in knowing the "true" shape. If everything is made to behave as if earth was a sphere, because of curved space, then we might as well just assume it is a sphere, as it makes no difference and is a lot easier to work with.
    Math is the language of the universe.

    The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

    We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

    When in doubt; sources!

    *

    Sir Richard

    • Flat Earth Believer
    • 451
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #55 on: March 22, 2016, 01:18:37 PM »
    Satellites exist as do high altitude balloons. So what. They just don't orbit some fictional spinning globe. The sun is also real- just not the way you think it is. Your question is pedantic and probably pejorative. Hard

    This reply doesn't really consist of anything and doesn't address the given justifications to the original assertion. You can reduce this reply down to " I agree satellites are real, and I don't believe the Earth is round".

    The justifications presented in the original assertion being:

    • If you tried to overlay the paths of satellites onto your FE azimuthal projection, you would have a mess.
    • Highly elliptical orbits would be especially difficult to explain, with their peaks and troughs.

    This claim thus far still stands, as it appears the assertion is valid and the response doesn't really mean anything in relation to the substantive content of the OPs claim.
    ----------
    My post started with "Satellites exist as DO high altitude balloons" not "to high altitude balloons". Those two statements mean differing things.
    Ok, but this is a "not even wrong" fallacy, the point has no relation to the original claim. The question is to describe how orbital paths would work in the flat earth azimuthal projection, and to explain [given the justifications described] that the observations could only exist on a round Earth. Not whether there is any relation between high altitude balloons and satellites, or that they are the same thing. So this is a pointless misnomer.

    Quote
    As the Aether rushes by the earth objects that it intersects with are also pulled along the path taking them around the disc.
    Can you prove the existence of Aether? This requires some evidence based, observable, substantive grounding. Without this, any claim to it's effects on any physical system are purely speculative and can't be used to substantiate a rebuttal to the original assertion.

    Quote
    We also have to remember that the disc (or earth) is also moving upward (along with the aether and the atmosphere) at a constant acceleration of 32/f/s/s.
    Can you substantiate this claim? Are there any physical measurements of this, or models that describe this that have shown to be reliable in prediction and testability? (I presume this is an hypothesis challenging the General Relativistic notion of gravity?)

    Quote
    The objects (in this case satellites) that interact with the ethereal wind then travel lower, but along the edge of the Aetheric "whirl pool.
    Again this is an unsubstantiated claim that lacks a credibly asserted backing. An extrapolation built upon an assumption. It can't rationally be accepted as substantive content to your attempted explanation. It's an idea based on a completely unproven hypothesis. Unless there are measurements that show Aether as a real substance and there is some line of science I have not come across that observes and maps it's behavior and effect on physical objects.

    Quote
    The satellites experience the same "eye wash" effect as the sun and the moon- but with light reflected by such and with such low luminosity (compared to those latter two objects) that the "satellite Rise and Setting are not as noticeable.
    Read my previous response: re. Aether. Also please explain the eye wash effect and source which evidence this concept is derived from. Without these substantiations, this is another idea based upon nothing substantive.

    In respect to Aether and the claims thereof... Argumentum ex culo my friend.

    Quote
    Newton (yep the believer in "Majick" his spelling btw) pretty much figured out that Aether and the aetheric wind had to exist for celestial body movement to occur.
    This is known as one of his hypotheses to describe the why in gravitational attraction. It's an extremely outdated and old hypothesis. Aether has never been proven to exist and the idea becomes redundant in explaining the why behind gravity, as General Relativity explains the why in concrete, observable, predictive and testable terms, to a complete degree of accuracy.
    This is an outdated information fallacy. Simply, using outdated and redundant ideas as cause of a rebuttal. Almost a straw man, but not quite.

    Quote
    With regards to aetheric wind and whirlpool are very basic Flat Earth Tenets and can be explored more fully on the resource portion of the Website. I can also recommend some top notch books and sites that provide detailed scientific theories and experiments that conclusive show that the aetheric wind and not some invisible "gravitational attraction" account for much of what we see overhead.
    But here is a link- but if you want book titles etc I can provide them.  I would suggest the following
     https://wiki.tfes.org/Aetheric_Whirlpool
    Please link to these books and sites that provide detailed scientific theories and experiments (two very different things mind you) that conclusively (wow) show that aetheric wind accounts for what we see overhead. - A point though. Isn't the idea of aetherial wind indistinguishable from gravitational attraction? - vis, some invisible force acting on things.
    The link you posted as source makes several assertions, yet fails to substantiate any of them with any kind of justification. The description is by definition incomplete. In a claim, you must describe the why and how alongside the is before it can be taken as an actual claim. It fails to do this so cannot be rationally taken as a description of anything beyond an [incomplete] idea. There is no substance wherein one can assess the validity of the assertion. As it stands, it can be taken on faith (which should never be done in cases like this), or discarded. I look forward to this scientific material on the conclusive nature of Aether, though.

    Quote
    As for Newton I think he had the right of it. I think he understood aether and his works have been buried and suppressed.
    You're entitled to that opinion. Though you should know that all of Newton's ideas on Aether are publicly available and can be studied readily and found to be inadequate to describe gravitational attraction against General relativity, which does a much better job. We simply don't need the (unprovable) hypothesis any longer. Do you have any evidence of his work being buried and suppressed, or is it an ideological stance as a means to justify your position?

    Having gone through this huge derailment excersize consisting of an impressive catalog of fallacious reasoning (I've literally just been going along and nit picking the faults in the argument on a case by case basis - assumptions, presumptions, leaps of faith, conjecture, incomplete arguments, unbacked claims, formal and informal fallacies). We have come nowhere in addressing the central claim of the thread.

    Which is this: Given the Earth is Flat. How do you explain the data expressed in satellite orbital paths in reference to an azimuthal projection. where they only seem to make sense in respect to a spherical earth.

    How do you explain, given the Earth is Flat, the specific observed nature of the orbital flight paths in respect to:
    • Polar orbits
    • Molniya orbits
    • Geosynchronous and Geostationary orbits
    • Semi-synchronous orbits
    • Tundra orbits
    • Sun-synchronous polar orbits

    The request here is to explain how these two seemingly incompatible concepts can co-exist. You must do this without resorting to vague hypotheses or unproven, ad hoc and outdated ideas as you have done this far. I'm not being rude here, this is an honest remark based on what you've actually been saying in attempting to refute (or otherwise sidestep) the original question.

    The Op has made an assertion, and substantiated that assertion with reference to observable phenomena. It is now your job to successfully refute this assertion with a rational counter argument that logically stands. So far you have failed. It would be best to begin somewhere mathematical as this is essentially the nature of the claim.
    I have just finished my dinner  and I will take one moment to brag on my culinary skills. For dinner was delightful as was the its preparation. I did find the debate of which your requested a response on my part and have responded to move it back up.
    I must say, in reading the above, however, it will take a bit of time for me to put together a worthy response. Thus it may be on the morrow before I am able fulfill your request. At my stage in life, after dinner and a nice dram of port, I find that scribbling (or typing) most difficult. Thus I will bid everyone a good night and spend  the rest of this fine  spring evening listening to a recording of  Eugene d’Albert's superb Opera, set in Spain,  "Tiefland."  For those who enjoy a fine opera I must declare that Hans Zanotelli's  conducting is outstanding and the voice of the famous Rudolf Shock, the protagonist, is sublime. I highly recommend this recording if you are of a mind to enlarge your collection of  operatic albums.
    « Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 01:23:07 PM by Sir Richard »
    "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

    "It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #56 on: March 23, 2016, 07:15:44 AM »
    They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
    Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
    Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

    They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
    What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
    It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.

    That is quite a philosophical assumption, which you well know cannot be tested or known, only assumed. How can you conclude this to be the case if you do not have a testable model? How would you propose you validate this? 

    *

    Username

    • Administrator
    • 17563
    • President of The Flat Earth Society
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #57 on: March 23, 2016, 07:51:15 AM »
    John's getting topological. I offer my best wishes to anyone trying to understand it in any detail, I loathe topology.
    That being said, he is actually kind of right. According to the Theory of Relativity, space is more accurately modelled by Riemannian geometry, which describes a non-Euclidean space. A few of the traits transfer: for example, as is pretty well known an object moving at high speeds may seem to contract in length. Distances do get manipulated.

    The gist of John's model seems to be that the Earth is locally flat, but can be modelled as round: as is demonstrated by the distances he references. The Earth itself is flat: it's space that can be thought of as curved.

    Curvature, strictly speaking, is defined by the eigenvalues of the second fundamental form (the tangent plane, the space of all derivations) which is defined under Riemannian geometry. Derivations are defined pretty generally, but offhand I can't think of any reason it wouldn't theoretically be possible to define a manifold with derivatives that have zero eigenvalues and yet meet in the way John describes, if we're working generally. 
    That being said, I am very far from an expert at topology, which is what a full understanding of Riemannian geometry requires. It might be possible that the existing traits of the manifold require the existence of a derivative that causes curvature. I doubt I can say any more, without more knowledge both of his model and of topology.

    He's right as far as modelling space as non-Euclidean goes, though I can't say much more as to the accuracy of the rest. If you want to know about group structure, I'm your girl. This stuff, good luck.
    Thank you!

    John, you really seem like a nice guy.
    Thank you!
    Quote
      But really I have to tell you that I don't know where you come up with your theories.
    Well, this theory can be directly found by looking at the Equivalence principle and Newton's Three Laws and of course by loosening some of Euclids postulates.

    Quote
    You seem to have a fetish with NASA and I am afraid that all of your focus on trying to prove the earth is flat is skewing your senses.
    My dislike of NASAs practices actually came about after my flat earth belief. I honestly just disagree with what they are doing, and am passionate about it. And I'm not alone - the dangers of much of what I'm being talked about have been discussed in publication.

    Quote
      You have to honestly keep in mind that so much of what you and your colleagues are trying to prove is just way off. 
    Of course. This is why I'm trying to make flat earth theory better. I can't blame them for being wrong, but I can show them how far I've gotten in examining the flat earth.

    Quote
    Unfortunately too much of what you're claiming is simply contrived and without much merit because it is easily falsified.
    If it is easily falsified, I'm sure someone would have falsified it by now.

    Quote
    The entire premise of your flat earth model is flawed and cannot be proven.
    Nothing can be proven. I assume you mean it can't be falsified? I thought you just said its easily falsified. Now I'm confused!

    Quote
      For example you claim in some statements that ISS is fake and space is also fake (or at least some of your compatriots)
    You can hardly discredit my model because it contradicts some other model unrelated to it. It would be like me saying that being a democrat is wrong because republicans tend to drink more coffee. What other people say about the ISS and space is of no relevance to my work, other than its going to be super-ceded by my work.


    Quote
    and then you make claims that satellites do exist but now they operate according to theoretical principles that have no bearing on reality.
    I had thought Newton's 3 Laws of Motion had quite a bit bearing on reality. If we accept Newton's 3 laws, and we accept that gravity is a pseudoforce, as we have ample evidence for, we must accept that in inertial FoR the ISS is travelling a straight line.

    An object in a state of motion will stay in that state of motion unless acted upon by a force.

    Quote
    I could just as easily state that we live in Middle Earth and that everything we see in the sky is only a projection.  How could you prove me wrong?  Some people actually believe in this stuff and you might think they're crazy but in reality your theories and others like theirs really are cut from the same cloth.  Just keep that in mind.
    Someone asked me recently on facebook about the projection idea. I don't think it holds, mainly we can falsify it using lasers. A great book on this is Ignorance: A Case for Skepticism.

    Quote
    While you're at it, please try explaining the phenomenon of Venus transiting the sun, e.g. directly between earth and the sun.  We know Venus exists and have observed it for thousands of years.  It is a planet that is well documented and yet it periodically transits the sun.  I would appreciate a reasonable explanation.
    Venus travels a straight line between the earth and the sun. This causes the phenomenon in question.

    They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
    Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
    Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

    They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
    What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
    It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.

    That is quite a philosophical assumption, which you well know cannot be tested or known, only assumed. How can you conclude this to be the case if you do not have a testable model? How would you propose you validate this? 
    It can be directed inferred from the assumption of Newton's Laws and that gravity is a pseudoforce.

    Since we know they are in an inertial frame of reference we know they are not accelerating. This means, recall from physics, that they are travelling a straight line at a constant speed (or alternately are "still".) We see them end up at the same location they started at periodically. This justifies empirically us loosening our parallel postulate.

    This is empirical evidence to support choosing the axiom that Euclid's postulates are incorrect (which are just another set of philosophical assumptions, mind you.)

    I have to say this explanation has me thinking. I have heard the motion of a satellite orbiting the Earth described as the satellite travelling in a straight line through curved space, assuming gravity being explained as a curvature of space. I suppose one could argue that the surface of the Earth is a flat plane following the curvature of gravity, forming the equivalent of a sphere.

    Of course most flat Earthers don't believe in gravity, so this will never go anywhere.
    Exactly. This proves the Earth is stationary, has gravity, is flat, and gives good reason to suspect there is no conspiracy. It also brings with it all empirical evidence that is supporting relativity and conventional cosmologies.

    Firmament is revealed to be a fixed "coordinate system" that is revealed through inertial frames of reference. Aether gives us a mechanic by which space is bent and through which waves can propagate.

    The issue with flat earthers not believing in gravity will hopefully die down over a year or two once they "#TESTIT". They will then be left with the UA model or mine. Buoyancy just won't hold. Neither will magnetism or other ad hocs. The only one that will last the test of time are those that reveal gravity to be a pseudo-force.

    In addition, this highlights issues with our understanding of method and its role in society. Two off the top of my head:

    Dialogues that do not pigeon-hole discussion to what is "reasonable" within the dialogue have more paths to discover "revolutionary" material.

    This can be seen because we could have reached relativity from two directions; By assuming the Earth is flat we can directly derive relativity through use of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion.  With round, it also comes to existence. With everything else being equal this means it is more likely we would have discovered it sooner if we had allowed the flat earth into serious dialogue.

    The mathematical layer of theory is not directly translatable to the explanatory / natural language layer of science.

    This is to say that even if we have the description mathematically of a phenomena, we have infinite ways to express and understand this in natural language. This was known by Rowbotham among others. Multiple mutually exclusive world-views can be supported through use of identical sets of empirical and mathematical evidence.

    An axiomatic choice having been made to prefer inertial frames of reference (or a particular subset of them) in one. In the other no such preference has been made - we have loosened our axioms a bit and find a view where it is flat and round depending on frame of reference.

    Rowbotham was a fraud...a charlatan.  And you take the word of this individual over the words of 100,000's of scientists that study a huge amount of converging topics. 
    As a matter of fact, the "among others" include Hume and Popper. You can also find discussions on this in philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematical foundations.

    Quote

    Let's just boil it down to one point; please provide proof/verifiable evidence that the sun/moon are 1) at the distances you claim they are from the earth,
    They are the same distance as the round earth model. Are you sure you still want proof?

    Quote
    2) measure the size and mass of the sun/moon,
    Again the same.

    Quote
    3) offer proof that the moon is indeed self-illuminating (incontrovertible proof of course),
    Proof has no place in science. We aren't in the Dark Ages, we've been Illuminated.
    Quote
    4) proof of the trajectories of both and that they should be measurable at all times of the day by sophisticated equipment. 

    There you go. Instead of these ridiculous debates about fringe topics, go straight to the point. 
    Again proof has no place in science. You ask for the impossible.


    John, although your view is a really interesting one, and kudos for that! Sadly there's a problem in that view. even though it would stand, theoretically if the observations of the details involved in space-time curvature weren't the way they were.

    The problem is that space itself isn't actually that curved. The space component of space-time in gen-rel doesn't really alter that much. weirdly enough it's the time component that expresses large curvature in the worldline geodesics of events in minkowski space. That is that they (the time vectors) are the prominent components effecting the metric tensor in expressing the variance in coordinate systems.

    time is curved. not space (that much). I'll let that sink in for a minute...
    I am familiar with the model and interpretation. However, to say that these bodies are not travelling straight lines is to also say gravity is not a pseudo-force. This is something Relativity cannot live without. Unless you can

    Quote
    We can measure the curvature of space. We can see that it's pretty flat, even in the presence of large masses. We can see, for instance how light trajectories (space) bends around the sun by observing the displacement of a star, viewable in an eclipse, opposed to the lights trajectory when unaffected by mass. Space curvature can be (and is) measured, and it really doesn't bend that much. The same conclusion was come to by relativistic calculations before observations like this were taken to assess the validity of the predictions by the way.
    To quote Einstein - "Damn the experiment, the theory is right." What we are measuring and assuming as "The curvature of space" could be any number of other phenomena. Gravitational Lensing, for example, could be any number of other things caused by the body it is being lensed by. 

    Quote
    On the same basic relativistic calculations, time is essentially the component that expresses curvature in minkowski space, applicable to inertially straight Newtonian vectors that appear radially curved in space-time. -> " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> - Notice which axis has curvature. More specifically, the principle of equivalence states that it is due to the acceleration of the non inertial reference frame of the observer, accelerating away from the center of mass that creates the impression of downward acceleration of inertial objects through time.


    http://s23.postimg.org/wx3n8uvhl/principleequiv.jpg

    This same principle creates the relativistic impression of inertial vectors with orthogonal trajectories appear to radially orbit through time. It isn't so much that gravitational attraction causes masses to attract, but that, masses "expand" radially outward such the the centers of masses end up traveling towards each other (principle of equivalence), where the orthogonal vectors 'curve' via the acceleration of the relative reference frames in a manner that causes inertial vectors in space to trace a radially circular motion through time. It's much more complicated than this, regarding which mass is larger and the radius of M given the radius of m creates various space-time trajectories and so forth...

    It's really long to go in to to be honest and extremely dense. Lectures 5 and 6 (linked below) go in to it in much more detail. If you take the concept described therein and apply it to the mass of the sun and calculate the effect on space-time in the vicinity, it expresses what I've described here. (The same for Earth and the Moon e.t.c.) Where it is a function of the time component that expresses curvature. Really weird, yeah. And hard to get your head round. The point being though is that we're very definite on what's curved and what isn't. Space isn't what's curved, rendering the idea that earth could be a flat plane in curved space incorrect i'm afraid. Space really doesn't curve that much. The only time it does to any prominent degree is when the radius of M is getting very close to the Schwarzschild radius. (M = GM over C^2). At and below the Schwarzschild radius everything falls apart. Space becomes time, time becomes space and also becomes infinitely curved, and time both reaches infinity and both become the Schwarzschild radius and the singularity at the same time depending on reference frames yada yada yada. Basically! The only time space curves such that a closed surface is reached (as in your postulation) - everything melts. You're basically describing a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius of Earth is proximately 1 centimeter. Unless you're arguing that the earth is 2 cm in diameter and inside the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole(!) It sadly doesn't stand. Keep trying though, you've got the best ideas in the pro FE camp on here by far.

    " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> <- Ger Rel lecture 5
    " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> <- Gen Rel lecture 6

    If you're interested in exploring this idea further, please do research as much as you can on Gen Rel, and, hopefully, eventually, Read Gravitation! -> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gravitation-Physics-Series-Charles-Misner/dp/0716703440
    I am actually quite educated in the matter. I will continue to review your post though tonight when time allows and reply in full, though I doubt its going to show me anything new, especially after glancing over it.

    *

    Sir Richard

    • Flat Earth Believer
    • 451
    Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
    « Reply #58 on: March 23, 2016, 07:53:37 AM »

      I'll make this point clearer. The orbital motions are not simply derivatives of some arbitrary presuppositional stance that merely express some ergo of that view. They are observational facts in reality that conclude, alongside every other proof therein, that the Earth is indeed Round. The Orbital Movements are in themselves a form of observational evidence of reality, further indicating the validity of the proposition that the Earth is Round. Remember my very first paragraph about argument form and epistemology? This is the same thing. The evidence leads to the conclusion and given the argument is also logically valid and sound, and the belief is justified, then the belief is a justified true belief; and we have real knowledge, vis: knowledge of reality.

      As far as Aether is concerned, it simply (as of yet) fails to hold validation due to a lack of soundness in several of the criteria defining justified true belief. I am not saying your belief isn't real (that's a different thing). I am saying that it just doesn't work as an argument for reasons hopefully expressed pretty clearly by now, by proxy. Put simply, unjustified beliefs cannot confer justification on other beliefs. So Aether simply cannot be used to extrapolate upon as proof of the earth being Flat. Continuing to talk about it or engaging with derivative presumptive conjecture is meaningless before it has been validated as a real thing. In contrast to the concepts that have been proven to be real and have been integrated into the standard physical models of scientific fact because of that. See the difference?


      Yes the orbital observations you observed are caused by the intersection of the non euclidean structure of the celestial sphere and the distorting effects on both the true orbits and the perception of those observations. I would suggest a you read a very nice volume (albeit in Latin but with a Latin/grammer translation book it is not that difficult a task) by Aetius entitled " Eclogae Physicae" Whereby he provides commentaries, and quotes from a lost volume authored by none other than the great natural philosopher Anaximander.

      In his work Aterus quotes Anaximander thusly
      "De sphaera lunae solisque coitum utrumque internum accenditur igne rotato contra se super terram. In defectu causatur ab igne pati conclusionem habetque evadere. Orbium caelestium rerum invisibilium movere debet ad virtutem et servat ea , quae in suis locis partiti sunt ordinarie ."

      Here is my (feeble, admittedly) translation
      "Regarding luna and sol they are round (spheres) and lit by internal fires and rotate in opposition (or opposite- unsure of this) to each other (or one another). [The, or ] Eclipse(s) are caused by the large vents that bring forth this fire, closing up. The orbiting of the celestial objects are due to an invisible force that keeps them in their organized (or ordinary) locations."

      If we only had the originals of Anaximander's works that were destroyed in the great library fire. He apparently worked out a scheme of evolution pre-dating Darwin by some 2,500 years!!!![/list][/list]
      "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

      "It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

      *

      Sir Richard

      • Flat Earth Believer
      • 451
      Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
      « Reply #59 on: March 23, 2016, 07:57:35 AM »

      Quote
      I ask "What is space time continuum that is being distorted"
      Depending on which "theory" a rounder subscribes to the answer might be "it consists of quanta vibrating on a string"
      And I ask what causes this quanta to vibrate?
      String "theory" is a [pretty outlandish] hypothesis that can never be tested on the basis that the predictions are far too minuscule in scale to ever be tested. It is by definition a philosophy. It has very little to do with General relativity besides some of it's implications may explain gravity in accordance with general relativity. Though it functionally has no relation or implication on Einstein's field equations ~ the actual meat of the theory that have been used to make all the predictions that have since been proven, and the equations that describe the curvature of space-time when under the influence of mass.

      I wouldn't have mentioned string theory at all. I would have given you the correct answer: The thing that space-time is, is causality. The order in which things interact. It's really that simple. It's an expression of relation between physical objects in physical space and time, well, in space-time. Without going in to too much detail. When object's worldline geodesics are expressed as vectors in non-euclidean geometric space as an expression of space-time, Causality is the resultant definition factor in arbitrary relativistic reference frames. Beyond this, I'd, at least have to send you lots of educational videos and articles on the web before I could extrapolate further.

      In other words hello-centrists have no rational explanation for gravity and the supposed "curving of space time" associated with this phenomena. It just happens. Objects distort this so called space time. Poof.  Yet you continue to ridicule aether but stand upon a house built of straw "Magical gravity and its impact on "space time" whatever in the world "space time is".

      "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

      "It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin