Distances in the universe

  • 614 Replies
  • 36813 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #60 on: April 26, 2017, 05:04:41 AM »
If an apple falls but we can't explain why, does that mean the apple didn't fall at all? No it doesn't. We observe that mass attracts mass, whether we can explain it or not.

How an apple falls to the ground is explained clearly and beautifully in the correct FE theory.

Plenty of experiments carried out by some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.

And those experiments prove clearly that mass does not attract ANYTHING AT ALL.

In the classic Lamoreaux experiment, performed at Yale, in full vacuum, the two plates ARE PUSHED TOGETHER BY AN OUTSIDE FORCE.

No attraction at all.

Please inform yourself before posting a message.


His equations, however, were perfectly useful for water and people staying on Earth and all of the orbits observed in the sky.

But they do not.

Newton's differential equations approach FAILS CATASTROPHICALLY in fact.

Here is the three body problem paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581

From a mathematical point of view, Newton's ideas lead TO PURE NONSENSE.


Please recall that it was RE mathematicians who found Neptune using Newtonian equations.

But they didn't.

In fact, they had no idea what they were doing.

Do your homework on the subject.

The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune, the position of which was calculated simultaneously by Adams and Leverrier from the perturbations experienced by Uranus. But in the controversy which ensued concerning the priority in announcing the existence of Neptune, it was stressed that neither of the two scholars was the real discoverer, as both of them calculated very erroneously the distance of Neptune from the orbit of Uranus. Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune.


The orbit of Mercury was a little funny, and it took Einstein to work out a new theory of gravity. Now we have an even better theory of gravity that accounts for subtler effects and other phenomena such as time dilation (important for your GPS).

Einstein FUDGED THE MERCURY PERIHELION EQUATION.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65085.msg1736864#msg1736864 (total demolition of STR/GTR)


http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


EINSTEIN FAKED THE 1919/1922 DATA ON THE GRAVITATIONAL LENSING.

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


THE SAGNAC EFFECT RECORDED BY THE GPS SATELLITES IS MUCH LARGER THAN THE EFFECT PREDICTED BY STR:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1886058#msg1886058


Your statements, jonny, prove that you haven't got a clue when it comes to scientific matters. Please upgrade your knowledge by reading my messages.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 05:06:32 AM by sandokhan »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #61 on: April 26, 2017, 05:11:31 AM »

The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.

No one can answer how two gravitons attract each other.

Which means we have to believe that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies.[/b] He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
Not still raving on about two romantic gravitons are you?
Maybe on your earth they might, not on mine.

But, in the meantime these 1.37 billion km3, are held in place, not glued, by a total force of close to 1.41 x 1018 tonnes force.
Seems to work quite well!

All by Newtonian Gravitation.
Einstein's GR would give almost the same result give or take a billion tonnes or so, but the sums are a bit hard for a tyro like me!

And, yes Isaac Newton might have speculated about lots of things. This idea of masses attracting was a bit radical!
Newton seems to have it sorted out by the time he published, but even you don't get it yet!
:D Some people are a bit slower than others, I guess.  :D

Bye bye. Have a nice day! Just watch that blood pressure though!

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #62 on: April 26, 2017, 11:47:31 AM »
There is plenty of astronomical evidence for gravitational lensing. Just Google "gravitational lensing images" and you will find dozens of photos (along with some illustrations). Thanks again for acknowledging Neptune, Uranus, and the solar system. You could learn a lot from reading your own posts!
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #63 on: April 26, 2017, 12:05:36 PM »
There is plenty of astronomical evidence for gravitational lensing.

You are not prepared to debate with me on gravitational lensing or any other related subject.

Certainly gravitational lensing CANNOT BE caused by the ideas coming from the theory of relativity:

EINSTEIN FAKED THE 1919/1922 DATA ON THE GRAVITATIONAL LENSING.

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


The density of ether causes what is being described as "gravitational lensing".

What we see is the effect of the density of ether on the speed of light.

When are you going to learn to do your homework before posting here?

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/



Black Holes do not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090729082308/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html (one of the best archives on black holes hoax)

http://web.archive.org/web/20090303083616/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bang.htm (black holes, fact or fiction?)

http://web.archive.org/web/20090318144723/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bol.htm#b2

http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Schreiber_black_holes.pdf

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/black-holes-tear-logic-apart/


But, in the meantime these 1.37 billion km3, are held in place, not glued, by a total force of close to 1.41 x 1018 tonnes force.

Please explain how attractive gravity works.

How do two gravitons (the quanta of gravitational waves) attract each other?

You have no idea, do you?

Go ahead and ask any professor of physics, all over the world, how does attractive gravity function: how do two bodies attract each other?

You will find out that they haven't got a clue.

This means your description is a just an armchair pipe dream: you are expecting everyone to believe your story based ON PURE MAGIC.


Again, HOW DOES ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY WORK?

How do two gravitons attract each other?

You do want gravity to be attractive, right?

Go ahead and describe the process by which two bodies attract each other.

If you cannot, your whimsical bedtime stories amount to nothing at all.

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #64 on: April 26, 2017, 12:15:51 PM »
There is plenty of astronomical evidence for gravitational lensing.

You are not prepared to debate with me on gravitational lensing or any other related subject.

...

first of all you should learn how to use the quote-function of this forum.

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #65 on: April 26, 2017, 02:07:01 PM »
There is plenty of astronomical evidence for gravitational lensing.

You are not prepared to debate with me on gravitational lensing or any other related subject.

Certainly gravitational lensing CANNOT BE caused by the ideas coming from the theory of relativity:

EINSTEIN FAKED THE 1919/1922 DATA ON THE GRAVITATIONAL LENSING.

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


The density of ether causes what is being described as "gravitational lensing".

What we see is the effect of the density of ether on the speed of light.

When are you going to learn to do your homework before posting here?

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/



Black Holes do not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090729082308/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html (one of the best archives on black holes hoax)

http://web.archive.org/web/20090303083616/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bang.htm (black holes, fact or fiction?)

http://web.archive.org/web/20090318144723/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bol.htm#b2

http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Schreiber_black_holes.pdf

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/black-holes-tear-logic-apart/


But, in the meantime these 1.37 billion km3, are held in place, not glued, by a total force of close to 1.41 x 1018 tonnes force.

Please explain how attractive gravity works.

How do two gravitons (the quanta of gravitational waves) attract each other?

You have no idea, do you?

Go ahead and ask any professor of physics, all over the world, how does attractive gravity function: how do two bodies attract each other?

You will find out that they haven't got a clue.

This means your description is a just an armchair pipe dream: you are expecting everyone to believe your story based ON PURE MAGIC.


Again, HOW DOES ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY WORK?

How do two gravitons attract each other?

You do want gravity to be attractive, right?

Go ahead and describe the process by which two bodies attract each other.

If you cannot, your whimsical bedtime stories amount to nothing at all.

Using only your sources, we now have the acknowledgment of the existence of stars, galaxies, and the solar system. We are really getting somewhere!
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #66 on: April 26, 2017, 02:24:27 PM »
RE is not just a hypothesis.

But it is: in fact it is the most miserable of all hypotheses.

It rests ON PURE MAGIC.
Nope. It has been confirmed with mountains of evidence meaning it is a theory, a very strong one.

Not being able to explain interactions below the fundamental level doesn't mean it rests on magic.

Here you are confirming the above assertions:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.

And that applies to you as well.

The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.
Gravity is not the basis of RE theory.
Observations of Earth, which indicate it to be round, is the basis of RE theory.

Gravity explains a few things in RE theory, but it is not the basis for it.

Regardless, as I said this applies to literally EVERYTHING!!!

Stop acting like it is just the RE that has this limitation.
Your mountains of bullshit have the same problem.

No one can answer how two gravitons attract each other.
And you can't answer why they would have to for gravity to work.
You seem to be quite ignorant of gravity in general.

Which means we have to believe that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.
Nope. By gravity.
You are the one that believes it stays glued to Earth by magic.

You still do not know what a WAVECLE is?
A nonsense made up word?

Only the ether theory can properly the current debacle on the wave vs. particle debate.
There is no more debate in scientific circles.
We have accepted that light (as well as so many other things) is a collection of particles, and all particles have wave-nature.

BOSONS TRAVEL THROUGH SUBQUARK STRINGS IN A LONGITUDINAL WAVE FASHION.

THESE LONGITUDINAL WAVES PROPAGATE THROUGH THE TRANSVERSAL SUBQUARK STRINGS.

It is as simple as this.
Sure, as simple as a pile of unsubstantiated bullshit.


I am going to go to even more lengths to show you how bosons/photons interact with electrons:
By linking to more crap?

How about this, you go to a simple length and explain it here? Are you incapable of doing so?
Also note that this will be an entirely pointless endeavour for you, as each explanation you give will just push the problem one step back and I will ask about that instead.


EXPLAIN HOW 2 LIKE MAGNETIC OR ELECTRIC "CHARGES"/MONOPOLES CAN ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER!!!

Either that, or admit your blatant lie that they can replace gravity for celestial mechanics was completely wrong.


You are mistaken again.

That is the COMPLETELY WRONG model of FE planetary/stellar gravitation.
No. I'm not wrong. I never said it was.

Don't you remember your claim?
Here it is again:
Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way.
So explain how electricity or magnetism act in the same way as gravity and allow like charges to attract.

If you can't, just admit you were wrong.

There is no need for like charges to attract.
Then why did you effectively claim they do?

If you do not believe me, here is Newton explaining to you how this works:

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:
More baseless crap.

Newton only knew the formula for gravity. He had no idea what caused it.
The same formula applies on Earth as it does in space.

If an apple falls but we can't explain why, does that mean the apple didn't fall at all? No it doesn't. We observe that mass attracts mass, whether we can explain it or not.

How an apple falls to the ground is explained clearly and beautifully in the correct FE theory.
No it isn't.

It is explained horribly by various claims which contradict observed reality. It also still lacks the fundamentals for the explanation.

And those experiments prove clearly that mass does not attract ANYTHING AT ALL.
Sure, just like 2 magnets attractign each other show that all forces are really just magnets...

In the classic Lamoreaux experiment
Which has nothing at all to do with gravity.

Please inform yourself before posting a message.
Good advice, you should follow it and stop saying such ignorant crap.

An experiment showing one force at work doesn't mean all other forces are that force.


Newton's differential equations approach FAILS CATASTROPHICALLY in fact.
More baseless bullshit, which rather than explain here, you need to link away to the liars only section of the forum.

Here is the three body problem paradox:
If it is what I think you are referring to, it is the three body problem, not paradox. There is nothing contradictory about it.
I can't be bothered reading through your mountains of crap to try and find the paradox.

From a mathematical point of view, Newton's ideas lead TO PURE NONSENSE.
And another baseless claim.


Please recall that it was RE mathematicians who found Neptune using Newtonian equations.

But they didn't.
But they did, and so far all you have done to refute that is baselessly assert they are wrong and claim electricity or magnetism could replace gravity.

THE SAGNAC EFFECT RECORDED BY THE GPS SATELLITES IS MUCH LARGER THAN THE EFFECT PREDICTED BY STR:
Yes, when you calculate it completely wrong.

Your statements, jonny, prove that you haven't got a clue when it comes to scientific matters. Please upgrade your knowledge by reading my messages.
You mean your mountains of baseless bullshit?
Guess what? You asserting it doesn't make it true.

You are not prepared to debate with me on gravitational lensing or any other related subject.
You aren't prepared to debate anyone on anything.
All you can do is ignore what people say and repeatedly spout the same refuted/baseless garbage. That isn't how debate works.

Certainly gravitational lensing CANNOT BE caused by the ideas coming from the theory of relativity:
Explain why here, don't just link to crap or copy and paste crap.

Black Holes do not exist:
Except they do, and can be observed.

You have no idea, do you?
You are the one with no idea. If you had an idea you would stop asking such a stupid question.

Go ahead and ask any professor of physics, all over the world, how does attractive gravity function: how do two bodies attract each other?
No. They do have a clue. What they don't understand is the interaction below the fundamental level, which is true of everything.

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #67 on: April 26, 2017, 03:29:49 PM »
Just so you know: your black hole article gives the value for gravity as zero and therefore requiring infinite mass. Since they don't even know the most basic fact about gravity, I have a hard time taking the rest of it seriously.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #68 on: April 26, 2017, 09:30:33 PM »
jack, your hapless messages are not meant to swell the RE ranks.

You are still unable to offer a simple/clear explanation as to how attractive gravity works.

Unless you can do so, your hypothesis amounts to nothing.

You expect everyone of your readers to believe in PURE MAGIC.

How do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

If you want gravity to be attractive YOU MUST EXPLAIN HOW IT IS SO: HOW DO TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER?


From your statements YOU ARE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

How can then anybody take your hypothesis (attractive gravitation) seriously?


There is no mountain of evidence for attractive gravitation, perhaps you used the wrong words: just the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse.

No evidence whatsoever.


Whenever you are faced with undeniable proofs, the Lamoreaux effect, the Nipher experiments, the Allais effect, the Poincare chaos theory on the three body problem, your response is invariably:

By linking to more crap?

But these are some of the very best RE physicists, and their celebrated experiments DENY your hypothesis: there is no such thing as attractive gravity.


I can explain IMMEDIATELY AND BEAUTIFULLY how pressure gravity works on a flat earth.

Subquarks = gravitons = magnetic monopoles

They come in two "flavors": left handed spin (laevorotatory) and right handed spin (dextrorotatory).

It is the dextrorotatory subquarks which cause these phenomenons: radiation, decomposition, disintegration of matter.

Here is how the G FORCE works on a flat earth:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852870#msg1852870


ETHER (SUBQUARKS STRINGS) HAS TO EXIST IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE G FORCE.

Here is one of the best RE scientists explaining this fact to you:

“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”


EXPERIMENTS WHICH DO PROVE THAT GRAVITY IS NOT ATTRACTIVE:

DEPALMA EXPERIMENT

KOZYREV EXPERIMENT

ALLAIS EXPERIMENT

LAMOREAUX EXPERIMENT

DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX

SAGNAC EFFECT


Pressure gravity works beautifully on a flat Earth.


You, on the other hand, came up with this precious explanation:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.



PURE MAGIC!

In your learned opinion, it just happens.

But it doesn't work like that.


PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

IF YOU CANNOT, YOU ARE DONE HERE.


Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way.

That was the claim made in THAT article, the author had no idea of the existence of ether, a much stronger form of MAGNETISM.

I have already explained, just like Newton, that there are two kinds of gravitational forces:

1. TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY, a force of pressure

2. ROTATIONAL GRAVITY, a force of rotation, keeps in orbit planets/stars

Both are caused by ETHER.


If it is what I think you are referring to, it is the three body problem, not paradox. There is nothing contradictory about it.

Your catastrophic knowledge of celestial mechanics comes into play again.

A mathematical formulation of the planetary orbits, based on Newton's laws of motion and gravitation and Kepler's supposed elliptical orbits then will lead directly to the THREE/N BODY PROBLEM PARADOX.

This means that the entire foundation of RE/Heliocentrical mechanics/astrophysics is based on extremely false premises.

Moreover, whoever set up the entire system, had to drastically modify the diameters of all the planets, and also their distances from the Earth/Sun in order to construct a system of differential equations which led directly to nonsensical results, i.e., the n-body problem paradox.

That is, the three body problem cannot be explained using the conventional approach: attractive gravity. A system consisting of a star (Sun), a planet (Earth), and a satellite of the planet (Moon) cannot be described mathematically; this fact was discovered long ago by Henri Poincare, and was hidden from public view:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg987360#msg987360

(KAM theory, homoclinic orbits, Smale horseshoes)


The quote from Henri Poincare, the greatest mathematician in the world at the end of the 19th century (S. Ramanujan was to appear some ten years later on the scene), has been deleted/censored from textbooks on the celestial mechanics at the undergraduate/graduate level.

A differential equation (initial value d.e.) approach to celestial mechanics IS IMPOSSIBLE.

As Poincare experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of
the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial
2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further
experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the
smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His
calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body
might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.



For your knowledge, Henri Poincare was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time.


Even measuring initial conditions of the system to an arbitrarily high, but finite accuracy, we will not be able to describe the system dynamics "at any time in the past or future". To predict the future of a chaotic system for arbitrarily long times, one would need to know the initial conditions with infinite accuracy, and this is by no means possible.




To show the importance and the dependence on the sensitivity of the initial conditions of the set of differential equations, an error as small as 15 meters in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.


To put it bluntly: there is no way to predict anything pertaining to the heliocentrical solar system based on Newton's description of the orbit of the planets using a set of nonlinear differential equations.


Yes, when you calculate it completely wrong.

You are completely delusional jackblack.

Here is one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, Dr. A.G. Kelly performing the calculations for you:

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.



Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.



Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.


YOU ARE TOTALLY OUT OF LUCK jack.

The Sagnac effect proves the existence of ether, directly and precisely.


Let us take a look at your assertion, which proves you have NO CLUE as to what causes attractive gravity:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.


YOU ARE REQUIRING FAITH OF YOUR READERS TO BELIEVE THAT FOUR TRILLION BILLION LITERS OF WATER STAY GLUED NEXT TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.

Everybody here is laughing at you.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19003
  • Or should I?
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #69 on: April 26, 2017, 09:55:32 PM »
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

I have absolutely no idea.

The curved spacetime idea has some merit, I believe even if it's just that the maths works well locally.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #70 on: April 26, 2017, 10:59:23 PM »
I have absolutely no idea.

Believe it or not, this is exactly the same response offered by each and every RE physicist when asked how does attractive gravity work, or how do two bodies attract each other.


The curved spacetime idea has some merit.

There is no such thing as curved spacetime.

H. Minkowski had Riemann's multiple variables arranged on a blackboard.

He simply erased the x4 variable, and replaced it with t (time).

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19003
  • Or should I?
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #71 on: April 26, 2017, 11:03:53 PM »
I have absolutely no idea.

Believe it or not, this is exactly the same response offered by each and every RE physicist when asked how does attractive gravity work, or how do two bodies attract each other.


The curved spacetime idea has some merit.

There is no such thing as curved spacetime.

H. Minkowski had Riemann's multiple variables arranged on a blackboard.

He simply erased the x4 variable, and replaced it with t (time).

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.

You've certainly done some reading Sandokhan.

I don't pretend for an instant to understand GR.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #72 on: April 26, 2017, 11:07:16 PM »
jackblack, on the nature of attractive gravity:

No one knows. All we know is that it happens.

But it cannot happen.

HERE IS THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX.

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

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

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

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

This example may help visualize the double force issue.

Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.   

The Mass Attraction Models of Gravitation

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

Within the "attraction" concepts:

From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.

 

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

The General Relativity Model of Gravitation

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




Modern science describes the sun-earth system thusly:

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

Now, ball = earth

you = sun

tension in the string = gravity


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


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

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


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



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

Gravity is a force.

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

That makes gravity the centripetal force.

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

Now, ball = earth

you = sun

tension in the string = gravity


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Here are the precise calculations:

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



Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #73 on: April 26, 2017, 11:28:07 PM »
Is he for real?

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #74 on: April 27, 2017, 04:05:58 AM »
jack, your hapless messages are not meant to swell the RE ranks.

You are still unable to offer a simple/clear explanation as to how attractive gravity works.
I have provided one. What I can't explain is the interaction below the fundamental level, which no one can, for anything.

Unless you can do so, your hypothesis amounts to nothing.
Nope. It matches experimental observations. Even without a mechanism, that still makes it a theory as it is a model which matches reality and has predictive capability.

You expect everyone of your readers to believe in PURE MAGIC.
Nope, that would be you, like water staying stuck to Earth by magic.

How do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?
By their four trillion billion kg of mass being acted upon by gravity, resulting in a force holding them to Earth.

Do you have an explanation for how it stays? No.

If you want gravity to be attractive YOU MUST EXPLAIN HOW IT IS SO: HOW DO TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER?
I already did.
There are several models.
The simplest is that of curved space-time.
A massive object distorts space time, such that the time axis points towards it. This means any object near by, while moving forward in time will move towards the object.

Another option is with gravitons. In this case it functions almost identically to electrostatics, but with like charges attracting each other.

Gravity is just as well explained as electrostatics.



From your statements YOU ARE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
And from your's, you are unable to explain anything.

How can then anybody take your hypothesis (attractive gravitation) seriously?
It isn't a hypothesis. It is a theory. You can take it seriously because it matches experimental observations.
In order to throw it into question you would need to throw basically of of science into question, especially things like electrostatics.

No evidence whatsoever.
Except all the evidence you pretend isn't real.

Whenever you are faced with undeniable proofs, the Lamoreaux effect, the Nipher experiments, the Allais effect, the Poincare chaos theory on the three body problem, your response is invariably:
None of that is undeniable proof.
The Lamoreaux effect is unrelated to gravity, as is the Poincare chaos theory.
The Nipher experiments you have just pasted walls of crap on.
The Allais effect is just baseless, unsubstantiated crap, which your own sources, when honestly analysed, refute it.
The 3 body problem exists regardless of what force you discuss, and it isn't a problem in the sense of making something impossible or unreal.

By linking to more crap?
And do you know why? Because that is what you do.

But these are some of the very best RE physicists, and their celebrated experiments DENY your hypothesis: there is no such thing as attractive gravity.
No. They don't.

I can explain IMMEDIATELY AND BEAUTIFULLY how pressure gravity works on a flat earth.
Then do so, without just copying and pasting or linking to mountains of crap.

EXPERIMENTS WHICH DO PROVE THAT GRAVITY IS NOT ATTRACTIVE:

DEPALMA EXPERIMENT

KOZYREV EXPERIMENT

ALLAIS EXPERIMENT

LAMOREAUX EXPERIMENT

DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX

SAGNAC EFFECT
i.e. either crap with nothing to do with gravity, or just your ignorance of gravity.

You, on the other hand, came up with this precious explanation:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.

That isn't an explanation. It is a factual statement about reality.
If you think it is wrong, feel free to provide such a fundamental interaction.

Can you explain how a positive charge attracts a negative charge?

PURE MAGIC!
Yep, that is all you have, pure magic.

Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way.

That was the claim made in THAT article, the author had no idea of the existence of ether, a much stronger form of MAGNETISM.
That claim was made in your post.

If you don't want to have to justify the bullshit you link to or copy and paste, don't link to it or copy and paste it.

So, are you going to admit it is wrong, and you post pure bullshit, or are you going to defend it?

I have already explained, just like Newton, that there are two kinds of gravitational forces:
You didn't explain anything. You are yet to.
All you did was baselessly assert pure BS, BS that you then refuse to defend.


If it is what I think you are referring to, it is the three body problem, not paradox. There is nothing contradictory about it.

Your catastrophic knowledge of celestial mechanics comes into play again.
i.e. you know that I am right and need to insult me to try to dismiss my arguments.

A mathematical formulation of the planetary orbits, based on Newton's laws of motion and gravitation and Kepler's supposed elliptical orbits then will lead directly to the THREE/N BODY PROBLEM PARADOX.
Correction, when considering any force at all, as soon as you get three or more objects, you run into the 3 body problem.

This means that the entire foundation of RE/Heliocentrical mechanics/astrophysics is based on extremely false premises.
No. It means you are incapable of understanding it.

Moreover, whoever set up the entire system, had to drastically modify the diameters of all the planets, and also their distances from the Earth/Sun in order to construct a system of differential equations which led directly to nonsensical results, i.e., the n-body problem paradox.
More baseless bullshit.

That is, the three body problem cannot be explained using the conventional approach: attractive gravity. A system consisting of a star (Sun), a planet (Earth), and a satellite of the planet (Moon) cannot be described mathematically; this fact was discovered long ago by Henri Poincare, and was hidden from public view:
It can be, such as determining the position of various things like L1 through 5.

Others cannot always be described by a simple solution.

To show the importance and the dependence on the sensitivity of the initial conditions of the set of differential equations, an error as small as 15 meters in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.
Yes, 100 million years, determining the exact position.

What impact will it have in the general shape of Earth's orbit in 100 million years?

To put it bluntly: there is no way to predict anything pertaining to the heliocentrical solar system based on Newton's description of the orbit of the planets using a set of nonlinear differential equations.
Except we do all the time.
So to put it bluntly, you are full of pure bullshit.

Yes, when you calculate it completely wrong.

You are completely delusional jackblack.

Here is one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, Dr. A.G. Kelly performing the calculations for you:
Yet even with him allegedly being so great, he still got it completely wrong.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.
That's right. That doesn't mean it violates relativity.

The Sagnac effect proves the existence of ether, directly and precisely.
Not in the slightest. It is completely explainable without the ether at all.


Let us take a look at your assertion, which proves you have NO CLUE as to what causes attractive gravity:
No, it is a fact, that proves no one know exactly how the interaction works below the fundamental level.

YOU ARE REQUIRING FAITH OF YOUR READERS TO BELIEVE THAT FOUR TRILLION BILLION LITERS OF WATER STAY GLUED NEXT TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.
Nope. It is observable, no faith is required.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
Sure, once you do, using any force, explaining the fundamental interactions.

But it cannot happen.

HERE IS THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX.
i.e. your complete ignorance on how gravity works, or how basically any force works.

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

At first this may seem like an orderly and balanced attractive force system
That is because it is.

the following paradox exists. If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies
But it isn't. It is between the 2 bodies, or one body causes the other to move.

the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
No it doesn't. It produces the same force.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body.
No, it doesn't.
It requires that the force from the 2 bodies act on both bodies.

Another example of a balanced system is a rope under tension; each end has an equal amount of opposing force. As noted by Newton's third law of motion, " To every action there is always an opposed  equal reaction".
Yes, and it works basically the same, so according to you pulling things with a rope is impossible.

Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
And the same thing happens with gravity.

From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
No. The concept would have gravity acting as the rope, with the force in the rope drawing the moon and Earth towards each other.
It would be the force that is "anchored" at the moon pulling Earth towards it, and the force that is "anchored" at Earth pulling the moon towards it.
No doubling up.

Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Nope. By throwing logic out the window and doubling the forces for no reason at all.


The exact same paradox arises with the General Relativity (GR) concept of gravity. It postulates that Mass warps a hypothetical "fabric of spacetime" and the warped fabric of spacetime causes “attraction” of other masses. Since in the GR theory the seat of the attractive force is anchored within the center of the planet’s and moon’s positions, we would again have twice the force required to balance the orbital forces of the Earth Moon system.
Nope. Once again, you have no actual doubling of forces, instead you just have your dishonest baseless claim that it is doubled.

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

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

No. There are just 2 (which is really just one).
There is the force of gravity, pulling the moon towards Earth, and the force of gravity pulling the Earth towards the moon.
If you wish to consider them as anchored, then the force anchored on Earth is only drawing objects to Earth, it isn't drawing Earth to them.


Yep, just like you would expect.
You have the 2 forces being equal and opposite, and you have that matching the force required for the orbit.

Just like if there was a rope connecting them.
No double forces at all.

*

Callzter

  • 148
  • Amateur Astronomer, Round Earth Defense Force
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #75 on: April 27, 2017, 04:27:23 AM »
Odd. Because you can actually OBSERVE this "magical" force in action by taking out a telescope, pointing it at Jupiter and then start watching the positions of it's moons for a few days.

Hmm, what force could be causing the moons of Jupiter to orbit it in roughly circular orbits?



Thank you, desertphile.

Bruh, gravity is observable around Jupiter. I can't believe I have to explain that to you.

The quickest way I could kill myself is by climbing up to the top of your ego and then jumping down to your fucking I.Q.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #76 on: April 27, 2017, 04:53:05 AM »
Odd. Because you can actually OBSERVE this "magical" force in action by taking out a telescope, pointing it at Jupiter and then start watching the positions of it's moons for a few days.

Hmm, what force could be causing the moons of Jupiter to orbit it in roughly circular orbits?



Thank you, desertphile.

Bruh, gravity is observable around Jupiter. I can't believe I have to explain that to you.
;D ;D ;D ;D they're just lights in the sky  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

Yes, so many Flat Earthers just try to close their eyes to those "lights in the sky" because their movement just will not fit into their model!

The Babylonians were possibly the last of the "Flat Earthers" with a "Cosmology" that was close to reality.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 05:00:08 AM by rabinoz »

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #77 on: April 27, 2017, 04:58:18 AM »
I have absolutely no idea.

Believe it or not, this is exactly the same response offered by each and every RE physicist when asked how does attractive gravity work, or how do two bodies attract each other.


The curved spacetime idea has some merit.

There is no such thing as curved spacetime.

H. Minkowski had Riemann's multiple variables arranged on a blackboard.

He simply erased the x4 variable, and replaced it with t (time).

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.

You've certainly done some reading Sandokhan.

I don't pretend for an instant to understand GR.

Unlike Sandy, who does pretend for a long time.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #78 on: April 27, 2017, 05:25:37 AM »
jackblack, you blew it.

Here was your best chance to explain HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

Your total failure to explain the central tenet of RE theory is noted.

The simplest is that of curved space-time.
A massive object distorts space time, such that the time axis points towards it. This means any object near by, while moving forward in time will move towards the object.


But there is no such thing as spacetime curvature.

H. Minkowski had Riemann's multiple variables arranged on a blackboard.

He simply erased the x4 variable, and replaced it with t (time).

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.


Another option is with gravitons. In this case it functions almost identically to electrostatics, but with like charges attracting each other.

Really jackblack?

ARE YOU TELLING US THAT GRAVITONS HAVE... LIKE CHARGES?

IS THAT SO?

Because then gravitons would not be electrically neutral, would they?

Exactly my point.

Would you care to explain how those like charges of the graviton WOULD ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER?

Two emissive vortices will not attract each other, on the contrary.


jackblack, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

Your useless assertions fail to explain anything at all.

Which means those four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.

RE THEORY = PURE MAGIC


jackblack PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.


The Nipher experiments you have just pasted walls of crap on.

Dr. Francis Nipher, one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm

“Dr. Francis Nipher, Professor of physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, did some of the pioneering electrogravitics work at Washington University in St. Louis back around the turn of the last century. He applied high voltage to lead balls, lead spheres and hollow metal boxes and compared the repulsive effect induced in small test spheres hung vertically near them, similar to the original Cavendish experiments but with high voltage. Dr. Nipher went to great lengths to insert protective, grounded screens of glass between the solid lead spheres and the suspended balls to rule out electrostatic effects.”

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS: GRAVITATION AND ELECTRICITY ABSOLUTELY LINKED.


The Allais effect is just baseless, unsubstantiated crap, which your own sources, when honestly analysed, refute it.

Let us then honestly analyze the Allais effect.

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70052.msg1892354#msg1892354

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).



A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

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

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


In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."

"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:





That's right. That doesn't mean it violates relativity.

BUT IT DOES: YOU ARE FORGETTING THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT.

Since the ORBITAL SAGNAC is not being recorded/registered/picked up by GPS satelllites, and at the same time the Sun's gravitational potential effect upon the clocks is missing also, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

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.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #79 on: April 27, 2017, 05:26:53 AM »
You have not been able to explain the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox: just as usual you used plain denial, nothing else.

The following quote is taken from one of the top treatises on MECHANICS:



Are you scientifically literate jackblack? Do you understand plain English?

THE EARTH-MOON-SUN WORKS IN THE SAME WAY.

The best RE scientists say so.

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

Gravity is a force.

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

That makes gravity the centripetal force.

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

Now, ball = earth

you = sun

tension in the string = gravity


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


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

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

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

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


THEN, WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.


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

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

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


Here are the precise calculations:

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


Here is another example:

Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.

The concept would have gravity acting as the rope, with the force in the rope drawing the moon and Earth towards each other.
It would be the force that is "anchored" at the moon pulling Earth towards it, and the force that is "anchored" at Earth pulling the moon towards it.


You have just been given TWO EXAMPLES which defy your silly explanation.

Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.




MODERN SCIENCE VIEWS GRAVITY AS A STRING STRETCHING FROM THE EARTH TO THE SUN, AND FROM THE MOON TO THE EARTH.

SEE THE PRECISE QUOTES POSTED ABOVE.

THEN, WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.


Within the "attraction" concepts:

From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 

Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 05:29:15 AM by sandokhan »

*

Callzter

  • 148
  • Amateur Astronomer, Round Earth Defense Force
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #80 on: April 27, 2017, 05:49:08 AM »
because their movement just will not fit into their model!
Lol, true. I've heard flat earthers so desperate that after they've been backed up into a corner about there being observable gravity right above their heads flatties will go as far as to say that the images of the planets you see ARE PRE-PROGRAMMED into the telescope!

When asking them: "What about optical telescopes during galileos time? HE saw jupiters moons orbit and he HIMSELF made his telescope so how could there be pre-programmed images in there during the 17th century?"

Then the flat earther went on to rant about how Galileo was apparently a "Freemason" and how he "lied" about the existence of planets and to top it off he said that I should accept Jesus Christ as my lord and saviour and that I should accept the "fact" that Christianity apparently isn't a religion because it's the "truth".

You can't fix stupid.
The quickest way I could kill myself is by climbing up to the top of your ego and then jumping down to your fucking I.Q.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #81 on: April 27, 2017, 05:52:18 AM »
<< more wallpaper! >>

The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?

*

Callzter

  • 148
  • Amateur Astronomer, Round Earth Defense Force
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #82 on: April 27, 2017, 05:55:59 AM »
<< more wallpaper! >>

The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?

OOOH! OOOH! I KNOW THIS ONE I KNOW THIS ONE PICK ME PICK ME!


Uuumm... 3,000 miles?
The quickest way I could kill myself is by climbing up to the top of your ego and then jumping down to your fucking I.Q.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #83 on: April 27, 2017, 07:10:56 AM »
"What about optical telescopes during galileos time? HE saw jupiters moons orbit and he HIMSELF made his telescope so how could there be pre-programmed images in there during the 17th century?"

You haven't done your homework on Galileo's telescope, have you?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719875#msg1719875

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719879#msg1719879

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719889#msg1719889

*

deadsirius

  • 899
  • Crime Machine
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #84 on: April 27, 2017, 07:17:37 AM »
For these "boat and rope" metaphors, I think you have to look at it from the rope's perspective.

The tension in the rope should be analogous to the gravitational attraction between the two bodies.  And that is one force.  The rope only feels ONE force--it doesn't "care" which side is bigger or pulling harder.
Suffering from a martyr complex...so you don't have to

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #85 on: April 27, 2017, 07:39:28 AM »
FE logic: "my stupidity is infinite, therefore my mind is infinite, therefore I have infinite knowledge"
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #86 on: April 27, 2017, 08:01:00 AM »
If an apple falls but we can't explain why, does that mean the apple didn't fall at all? No it doesn't. We observe that mass attracts mass, whether we can explain it or not.

How an apple falls to the ground is explained clearly and beautifully in the correct FE theory.

Plenty of experiments carried out by some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.

And those experiments prove clearly that mass does not attract ANYTHING AT ALL.

In the classic Lamoreaux experiment, performed at Yale, in full vacuum, the two plates ARE PUSHED TOGETHER BY AN OUTSIDE FORCE.

No attraction at all.

Please inform yourself before posting a message.
First of all, you failed to understand the point. Just because our current working theory contains a component that is yet to be properly explained, does not mean that the theory is wrong. We look everywhere and see the effects of mass attracting mass. For example in the orbit of planetary bodies. Us not being able to explain it to the fullest, does not mean that it doesn't happen. You can't deny that.

Furthermore, all you do is:
-Point out paradoxes
-Point of things that have not been solved yet
-Misinterpret research
-Cite unscientific sources, going blatantly against well established science for no particular reason
-Don't give anything a second thought; you never seem to try to come up with arguments that would disprove your case, which is quite essential really. How can you support a theory if you haven't thought about how it could be disproven? If you haven't given it a try yourself?

And in the end, all your "proof" and "debunking science", or whatever you call it doesn't mean a thing. Mostly because science is a work in progress; a paradox doesn't mean that everything involved doesn't work, it just means that we're missing something. Not having explained something yet doesn't mean that it doesn't work or exist, it just means that we're not that far yet.

And most of all, you have yet to propose an actual working model for a flat earth that doesn't fall apart immediately.

Go do your homework before telling others to do so.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #87 on: April 27, 2017, 08:46:40 AM »
The tension in the rope should be analogous to the gravitational attraction between the two bodies.  And that is one force.  The rope only feels ONE force--it doesn't "care" which side is bigger or pulling harder.

Brilliant.

However, on both sides of that rope you have boats. And any boats connected by that rope will move. Four forces involved. The Earth and the Moon are connected by a gravitational string. The same four forces will be at work.


Us not being able to explain it to the fullest, does not mean that it doesn't happen.

You haven't been able to properly defend RE theory since you came here.

Your parroting the official dogma speaks for itself.


You had no knowledge of the faint young sun paradox, the Allais effect, the double forces of attractive gravitation and much more before you came here.


PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

Explain how two gravitons attract each other.

If you cannot, and obviously this is the case, nobody will look in your direction.


RE theory = pure magic

By magic, one trillion billion gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

By magic, the Earth anchored “attraction” force would not be pulling the Earth toward the Moon, as it obviously should.

By magic, the Moon seated force would not equally be pulling the Moon toward the Earth.


PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.




Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #88 on: April 27, 2017, 08:59:42 AM »
"What about optical telescopes during galileos time? HE saw jupiters moons orbit and he HIMSELF made his telescope so how could there be pre-programmed images in there during the 17th century?"

You haven't done your homework on Galileo's telescope, have you?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719875#msg1719875

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719879#msg1719879

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719889#msg1719889

you really claim that all optical telescopes are not working correct?

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #89 on: April 27, 2017, 09:28:57 AM »
 You keep missing an important point: all of your sources acknowledge the existence of stars, planets, and moons.  All that they dispute is a type of force that holds everything together. Since this site is a debate about flat earth, conceding the existence of all these things pretty much means you belong on a physics forum that assumes an RE universe. (Of course, you could just retract all sources that assume all that.)
« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 02:16:11 PM by Jonny B Smart »
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants