Question for flats

  • 43 Replies
  • 3880 Views
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #30 on: October 28, 2016, 12:02:47 PM »
On a flat earth with the sun circling overhead, the planets could not transit. Or they would have to be circling with the sun.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #31 on: October 28, 2016, 12:58:18 PM »
What do the flat earth people make of these transits
Nothing. 

and how do they fit with flat earth beliefs?
Nothing. 

What is happening UP THERE has nothing to do with the true shape of the earth DOWN HERE. 

<snip>
It kinda does. Generally speaking, flat earth goes along with a geocentric model whereas globe earth goes along with a heliocentric model. Trying to fit a flat earth into a heliocentric model causes big issues for the flat earth model. Even more than it already has.


PS. You're not as charming as your username suggests.

I'm really bloody charming ask anyone who knows me!....

The problem is models,.....where the focus should be on verifiable evidence. For example Jane was referring to observations being location dependent when the discussion was relating to the movement of the planets.  I would take her point if we were observing.....Munich... when we were all scattered  around the globe. If on the other hand as in the case of the initial post we are observing a transit of the sun, we are all going to see more or less the same thing.
One of the main bones of contention  is the way in which fairly robust beliefs that have been confirmed through experimentation and observation are rejected out of hand as they don't fit the FE view of the world. There are tables both on paper and on- line that predict the positions of planets and other cosmic events, like eclipses, transits, comets or meter showers etc. These events which are all accurately predicted using conventional theory, have that very accurate theory rubbished at every turn by the flat earth community.
Back to the topic.....
As yet no flat earther has given me the answer to the following.
How big is the sun?
How far is it from the earth?
How big is Venus?
How big is Mercury?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 03:21:25 PM by Nightsky »
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #32 on: October 28, 2016, 03:07:11 PM »
Are you round?

What's that got to do with anything?
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2016, 01:30:26 AM »
Flat earth theory says the diameter of the sun is 32 miles.

This "theory" has been debunked countless times: it is completely erroneous.

Its very derivation is fraught with numerous and catastrophic assumptions.

Do your homework on this one also: here is the Schroeter effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427

The Evening Star and the Morning Star are TWO different planets, and not the same.

So, on the occasions when the search function does work,  just what search parameters will find this information.

The nearest I could find was some idiotic hint that th sun was some 15 km high!

Then you claim "The Evening Star and the Morning Star are TWO different planets, and not the same." Balderdash.

If your theories are so wonderful, why are you the only one who believes them? Bit odd that, don't you think?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6764
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2016, 02:29:05 AM »
The Sun does rise and set (this much is obvious from the Fred Bruenjes photographs taken in Antarctica, well known to everyone here).

The Sun's orbital altitude is some 15-20 km.

The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters (since one sacred cubit = 0.6356621 m, 1000 sc = 635 meters is a better figure for the diameter).

The Sun, Moon, Black Sun, Shadow Moon and Jupiter have the same diameter.

The Sun has the shape of a disk.



CNO cycle: total demolition of the nuclear furnace hypothesis

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377


Faint young sun paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290


Martian faint young sun paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775118#msg1775118


ISS/Atlantis solar/lunar transits (also Mercury/Venus/Hubble solar transits):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025



Schroeter effect: the Evening Star and the Morning Star are two different planets, complete demonstration

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427


Calculations for the solar precession on a flat surface of the Earth (using the 635 meter diameter figure):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1726000#msg1726000


20 page debate on the altitude of the Sun:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1490160#msg1490160 (significant discussion starts here, on pg 5)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.150 (page 6)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.180 (page 7)


The Earth does NOT orbit the Sun: the missing orbital Sagnac effect

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780



If your theories are so wonderful, why are you the only one who believes them?

You still don't get it, do you?

Anytime YOU are unable to explain the Tunguska event, the Allais effect and much more, means that YOU agree wholeheartedly and completely with my assertions.

« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 02:32:34 AM by sandokhan »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2016, 03:47:39 AM »
The Sun does rise and set (this much is obvious from the Fred Bruenjes photographs taken in Antarctica, well known to everyone here).
The Sun's orbital altitude is some 15-20 km.
The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters (since one sacred cubit = 0.6356621 m, 1000 sc = 635 meters is a better figure for the diameter).
The Sun, Moon, Black Sun, Shadow Moon and Jupiter have the same diameter.
The Sun has the shape of a disk.
That is ridiculous in so many ways that I can't be bothered trying to even list them!
Just one little point, how in the name of all that's sane, can a 15 km high sun illuminate a patch of earth some 10,000 km in diameter, on a flat earth. You wonder I said balderdash.

Then how can a 635 m diameter sun contain enough energy to last, however many years, or even maintain any sort of fusion reaction, let alone a  CNO cycle? Ever checked out your hypotheses with a fusion expert? Oh sorry, I forgot that you are the ultimate expert in everything.

Quote from: sandokhan
CNO cycle: total demolition of the nuclear furnace hypothesis

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377
I'll let you pretend fusion experts fight over that one!

Quote from: sandokhan
Faint young sun paradox:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290
Not my problem, I'm more concerned with what is happening now!
Quote from: sandokhan

Martian faint young sun paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775118#msg1775118
Likewise.
Quote from: sandokhan
ISS/Atlantis solar/lunar transits (also Mercury/Venus/Hubble solar transits):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025
All that proves is that you have no idea about perspective. I've answered that before with the ISS ransit photos. They are quite insistent with the ISS, Venus, Mercury and th sun being at the well accepted distances. You can use the search facility to fingers that.

Quote from: sandokhan
Schroeter effect: the Evening Star and the Morning Star are two different planets, complete demonstration
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427
Calculations for the solar precession on a flat surface of the Earth (using the 635 meter diameter figure):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1726000#msg1726000
20 page debate on the altitude of the Sun:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1490160#msg1490160 (significant discussion starts here, on pg 5)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.150 (page 6)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.180 (page 7)
The Earth does NOT orbit the Sun: the missing orbital Sagnac effect
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780
If your theories are so wonderful, why are you the only one who believes them?
You still don't get it, do you?
Yes, the Sagnac effect needs to be considered in the clock synchronisation, but since the Sagnac effect is dependent on the angular velocity, it's hardly a problem with the earth's orbiting the sun.

Yes, I get it! You think that you and you alone understand the operation of the whole universe.

Quote from: sandokhan
Anytime YOU are unable to explain the Tunguska event, the Allais effect and much more, means that YOU agree wholeheartedly and completely with my assertions.
Oh, rubbish!

Go and convince someone who cares what you assert. Just because I  (and everyone else) can't be bothered wasting our time with your hare-brained ideas does not "mean that" we "agree wholeheartedly and completely with my assertions."

Stop peddling rubbish or go and convince someone who cares, I'm not buying any of it.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6764
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2016, 04:12:03 AM »
Your message is a spectacle of ineptness laced with your usual lack of homework, a combination not calculated to swell the RE ranks.

but since the Sagnac effect is dependent on the angular velocity

Please update your knowledge on the catastrophic hypotheses put forward by N. Ashby (the main proponent of your idea):

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf


The missing orbital Sagnac effect is absolutely proven by the conclusions of the RUDERFER experiment of 1961.

In one of the most intriguing experiments of the 20th century, Martin Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory (1961).

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66858.msg1784179#msg1784179 (also includes the references on the Ives experiment, a hexagonal closed path Sagnac effect)


A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.


Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus,
ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.


Believe it or not, most scientists have begun to give up on the theory of relativity, as it no longer can explain the spinning Mossbauer effect encountered in the GPS satellites.

THE LATEST VIEWPOINT in cosmology today is this: MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).

THIS IS THE LAST STAND of the RE scientists.

Let me explain.

A modified Lorentz ether is a TRANSLATIONAL ETHER: that is, it surrounds the Earth like an envelope, but does NOT rotate along with the Earth around its own axis; while at the same time it travels WITH the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.

In this way, the orbital Sagnac spinning Mossbauer effect could be explained by this translational ether.


HOWEVER, there is no such thing as MLET.


None other than Dr. Hans Zweig (Stanford University) has exposed the fallacies inherent in Lorentz' approach:

The colossal mistakes committed by Lorentz and Einstein in deriving the Lorentz transformation/factor:

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-4-the-michelson-morley-experiment/

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-5-the-lorentz-transformation/

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-1-introduction/

Dr. Hans Zweig, Stanford University: http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/hans-j-zweig/


MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) is based on the Lorentz transformation (Lorentz factor/contraction), and as such, is equally invalid.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/agathan5.pdf



And things don't stop here.

In addition to the fact that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, we have an even greater problem: the GPS clocks DO NOT RECORD the Sun's gravitational potential.

It is assumed that the orbital velocity of the Earth as it orbits the Sun is a variable; however, the GPS clocks show that the this velocity MUST BE CONSTANT, as it does not record the Sun's gravitational potential effect upon these clocks.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780


In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.



In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf


Then how can a 635 m diameter sun contain enough energy to last, however many years, or even maintain any sort of fusion reaction, let alone a  CNO cycle?

Ether fusion explained:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1831695#msg1831695

But the Sun DOES NOT use a fusion type reactor to produce energy: the subquarks/positrons provided by the Black Sun are constantly being used by the Sun to create quarks, and to activate thermal strings of the atmospheric/telluric subquark waves. The Sun has a constant supply of energy coming from the Black Sun.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 13186
  • Intelligence Officer
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2016, 11:35:23 AM »
Sandokhan,

You have access to the same information as the rest of us. I assume at some point you must have done a search for 'sagnac effect gps' and you're deliberately ignoring the arguments because it doesn't suit your worldview.

On a more fundamental level though your argument is wrong headed. It's like you're making a case for gps being a hoax. Everybody on this site has access to a working GPS receiver. Your challenge is explaining how these could possibly work on a flat earth, not denying their existence.

And what the hell does the tunguska event have to do with anything? Imagine a rounder saying this to you:

"so you think the earth is flat. I have some bad news for you : you're going to have to explain what does the fox say. "

It's almost like you're using the Chewbacca defense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

Re: Question for flats
« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2016, 01:06:14 PM »
Sandokhan is back to peddling his orbital Sagnac effect? I'll just quote my reply from last time:

[The orbital Sagnac Effect] is completely missing from the GPS satellites recordings.

A quick glance at this paper shows that the Sagnac effect is calculated based on a rotation rate of 7.2921151247 x 10-5 rad/s. This is the rotation rate of the earth with respect to the stars, not the sun. This takes into account both the rotation of the earth relative to the sun, and the rotation of the earth due to the orbit of the sun. There is no need for a separate "orbital Sagnac effect" calculation.

And here is where I try to further engage him on the subject: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67834.0

Obviously it went nowhere, since almost every claim sandokhan makes is just straight up false if you actually take the time to fact check him.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6764
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #39 on: October 29, 2016, 01:21:12 PM »
Your tricks do not work with me.

You tried this line of reasoning before... it didn't work then, it certainly won't do you any good now.


You have a short memory and you still lack the most basic knowledge of astrophysics.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67788.msg1814401#msg1814401 (a direct debunking of your argument)


Once you found out that your childish tricks are useless with me, you switched to word games.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67834.msg1814817#msg1814817

This is what you wrote:

Keep in mind this orbital Sagnac effect is only predicted "when a sun centered frame is used".

I had to remind you of your catastrophic knowledge of astrophysical data/figures used today.

I do not know how to make it simpler for you.

"The term “Sagnac effect” is part of the vocabulary of only the observer in the rotating reference frame. The corresponding correction applied by the inertial observer might be called a “velocity correction.” While the interpretation of the correction is different in the two frames, the numerical value is the same in either frame."

https://web.archive.org/web/20130218082359/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2006/paper28.pdf


« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 01:22:56 PM by sandokhan »

Re: Question for flats
« Reply #40 on: October 29, 2016, 01:36:03 PM »
Yeah... I am quite happy to let those threads speak for themselves.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22991
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2016, 01:40:09 PM »
Are you round?

No, global say this. I'm looking for an answer.

No, not it. Global say is flather or flat earth believer, not flat. Flat is your looking perspective to life, not ours.
If you're not on the side of wise, so you're probably on the wrong side.


Why is it Bill Gates?




Re: Question for flats
« Reply #42 on: November 01, 2016, 10:55:05 AM »
The Sun does rise and set (this much is obvious from the Fred Bruenjes photographs taken in Antarctica, well known to everyone here).

The Sun's orbital altitude is some 15-20 km.

The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters (since one sacred cubit = 0.6356621 m, 1000 sc = 635 meters is a better figure for the diameter).


With a disc sun at this altitude, can you explain the mechanics of the 2017 USA total solar eclipse that will last a total of 3.5 hours and will be 115 km wide at its peak, plus how the partial eclipse in a huge area either side also fits in. Do you have a link to previous calculations?

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #43 on: November 01, 2016, 11:11:42 AM »
The Sun does rise and set (this much is obvious from the Fred Bruenjes photographs taken in Antarctica, well known to everyone here).

The Sun's orbital altitude is some 15-20 km.

The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters (since one sacred cubit = 0.6356621 m, 1000 sc = 635 meters is a better figure for the diameter).


With a disc sun at this altitude, can you explain the mechanics of the 2017 USA total solar eclipse that will last a total of 3.5 hours and will be 115 km wide at its peak, plus how the partial eclipse in a huge area either side also fits in. Do you have a link to previous calculations?

The other questions flat earth believers need to answer ;
How can they explain the prediction?
Do they believe it will happen on the day specified?
By what means has this celestial event been calculated?
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these