Tonight's lunar eclipse..

  • 62 Replies
  • 6534 Views
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2019, 11:20:42 PM »
I don't need to explain.

But you need to explain, because otherwise we are left with a fairy tale mechanism of attraction which is impossible no matter how much you think about it.

People understood the sun was hot long before they understood how nuclear fusion works.

Not fully understanding the fundamental principles of something doesn't mean we can't measure the effects.

The flat earth idea has way more unexplained than the heliocentric model.  You should concentrate more on trying to solve the enormous holes in your own ideas than complaining we don't currently have a unified quantum theory of gravity.


*

Stash

  • 8573
  • I am car!
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2019, 11:48:45 PM »
Too bad that the original topic is now being avoided. I'd love to read more about your shadow objects in the firmament.

I agree. So in FE, is the prevailing theory that there is a "dark object" hiding up there somewhere between 3000 miles up and terra firma that reveals itself during these types of eclipses?
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2019, 12:03:45 AM »
Not fully understanding the fundamental principles of something doesn't mean we can't measure the effects.

You have a real knack for introspective understatements.

There is no "not fully understanding": there is no understanding at all for providing an explanation for attractive gravity.

None whatsoever.

What you are telling your readers is even worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).

The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.


Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2019, 12:08:35 AM »
Not fully understanding the fundamental principles of something doesn't mean we can't measure the effects.

You have a real knack for introspective understatements.

There is no "not fully understanding": there is no understanding at all for providing an explanation for attractive gravity.

None whatsoever.

What you are telling your readers is even worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).

The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.

OK then.  Perhaps you could explain a few Flat Earth principles for me.

Let's start with the sun:

- How big is the sun?
- How high is the sun?
- What does it orbit?  If it doesn't orbit anything, what determines it's path?
- What's it composed of and how is it fueled?
- How does it's orbit/path change wrt the seasons in defiance of conservation of angular momentum? (Why does this exactly match what we expect to see with the heliocentric model?)
- What causes the "spotlight"?
- Why does the "spotlight" change shape wrt the seasons?  (Why does this exactly match what we expect to see with the heliocentric model?)
- Why can't any Flat Earth models predict the position of the sun for any location and time on Earth, like the Heliocentric model?
- How do we have both sunsets and timezones?


Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2019, 12:48:06 AM »
Truth = a mathematical proof, that is what John was referring to: this truth never expires.

You are simply trolling the upper forums.

Your questions were answered many times before:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76954.msg2081202#msg2081202

Gauss' Easter formula is the truth: the most accurate astronomical dating available. This formula proves immediately that the official chronology of history has been totally faked/falsified.

You are no stranger to faking the data, are you now? Remember how Kepler fudged all of the figures for Nova Astronomia? Or how Einstein faked the data for the 1919/1922 solar eclipses?


You are yet to explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere. By magic?

Ok science lover. How about you quote some Nobel prize winners, you love doing that, who would support your beliefs on this subject.

Where are references to the scientific experiments that support your claims that you love to post?

The answer to your problem regarding all the water in the oceans and all the little people and animals scurrying around held to the surface of the planet is gravity, pure and simple.

Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2019, 12:56:01 AM »
It is very important to understand that the lunar eclipse cannot be explained by modern science.

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."


The existence of the shadow moon was discussed/predicted by the most eminent astronomers of the 19th century:

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."


The subquarks constantly being supplied to form the telluric currents come in two flavors, as already discussed:

One of the dark bodies which orbit above the Earth emits the laevorotatory subquarks, the antigravitational subquarks, as proven by the Allais effect.

Logically, the invisible moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks; in fact read this extraordinary work:


http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-rpress.asp

In fact, cosmic waves have far greater penetrating power than the man-made gamma radiation, and can even pass through a thickness of two metres of lead. The highest frequency possible, that is, the shortest wavelength limit is equal to the dimension of the unit element making up space-time itself, equal to Planck length, radiating at a frequency of 7.4E42Hz.

As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect, since such radiation would penetrate ANY matter and act all over its constituent particles, not just its surface. The radiation can be visualised as a shower of high energy EM waves imparting impulses of momentum to all bodies in space. It also explains the great difficulty we have to shield anything from such force. The energy of each individual photon is a crucial component of the momentum necessary to create pressure for gravity to be possible. The shadow of incoming high energy EM wave packets can be pictured as the carriers of the gravitational force, the normal role assigned to the theoretical graviton. Hence, gravitons have been theorised due to the lack of knowledge of radiation pressure and radiation shadowing, and that's why they will never be detected. If photons represent the luminance of electromagnetic radiation, then, gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes.

This radiation shadowing is being emitted by the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse: read the phrase - that is why they will never be detected.

"Gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes".


The Shadow Moon, the source of the dextrorotatory subquarks causes the lunar eclipse.

We know for sure that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, here is the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382



Cosmology of the Desana tribe

(notice, at the bottom of the image, the two heavenly bodies which are responsible for causing the lunar and solar eclipses)



You are a liar.

Name one eminent contemporary astronomer who supports your belief in the existance of a shadow object.

Provide one contemporary scientific paper that provides evidence for the existance of your shadow object.

Your belief in a shadow object is just one of the many fictions you air on this forum, it’s just one of the many false excuses you and other flatinos have to invent in an attempt to explain away your contradictory beliefs.

Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2019, 01:40:25 AM »

What you are telling your readers is even worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).


Incidentally, no.  I believe it because science is based on observation and measurement.

Here is one such observation:



Note how all the water is attracted to the surface of the spherical Earth?

Where are the observations that show a Flat Earth?

Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2019, 01:41:21 AM »
On the Eclipse I found a cool video. Apparently the moon was hit by a meteorite during the Eclipse.



Doesn't seem fake to me, since it was recorded by different observers.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2019, 01:54:13 AM »
Note how all the water is attracted to the surface of the spherical Earth?

How do you know that the mechanism of terrestrial gravity is attractive?

Please explain the physics to your readers.

Do you want to use gravitons?

Please provide an explanation which justifies your claim, "note how all the water is attracted to the surface of the spherical earth".


Gravity is fundamental, it is the main theory. The secondary, supporting theory (sun, moon, eclipses, ocean waves, neutrino beams) comes into play only when you are able to provide an explanation for gravity.

The existence of the shadow object is a direct consequence of the fact that there are two anomalies present during the lunar eclipse, completely unexplained by heliocentrism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

The unwarranted belief in attractive gravity, incurred by the scientists you mention during decades of being inoculated with false information, would be ripped to shreds in seconds once they understand that there is no possible mechanism for attractive gravity.


Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of sphere.

If you cannot, then we are dealing with a fanatical and dogmatic agenda.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 01:56:11 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2019, 02:01:02 AM »
Note how all the water is attracted to the surface of the spherical Earth?

How do you know that the mechanism of terrestrial gravity is attractive?

Please explain the physics to your readers.

Do you want to use gravitons?

Please provide an explanation which justifies your claim, "note how all the water is attracted to the surface of the spherical earth".


Gravity is fundamental, it is the main theory. The secondary, supporting theory (sun, moon, eclipses, ocean waves, neutrino beams) comes into play only when you are able to provide an explanation for gravity.

The existence of the shadow object is a direct consequence of the fact that there are two anomalies present during the lunar eclipse, completely unexplained by heliocentrism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

The unwarranted belief in attractive gravity, incurred by the scientists you mention during decades of being inoculated with false information, would be ripped to shreds in seconds once they understand that there is no possible mechanism for attractive gravity.


Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of sphere.

If you cannot, then we are dealing with a fanatical and dogmatic agenda.

You like to quote John Herschel on the term "firmament". However, that was a completely different time. https://books.google.nl/books?id=XuxhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=john+herschel+firmament&source=bl&ots=XZ3ziXRH9V&sig=ACfU3U1spBA3H316KLi-8qtSUjVas4dGmA&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjd0PLt0YPgAhUDalAKHU2gCIcQ6AEwDXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=john%20herschel%20firmament&f=false

Looks to me that the word "firmament" back then is what we now refer to as "outer space". Quote from that text: "The most remote stars in our firmament Herschel estimates to be at the distance of ten thousand billions of miles."

Herschel never thought the earth to be flat. The only sources stating this are using the exact same quote you use, and are exclusively Flat Earth believers.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2019, 02:13:00 AM »
I don't need to explain.

But you need to explain, because otherwise we are left with a fairy tale mechanism of attraction which is impossible no matter how much you think about it.
I don't need to explain gravitation for it to be true.
Electrostatic and magnetic forces were just as true before they were explained.
Light and other electromagnetic radiation were just as true before they were explained.

Quote from: sandokhan
Gravitons are still just hypothesised as the carriers of the energy of gravitational radiation in the same way that photons are the carriers of the energy of electromagnetic radiation but that is by no means proven.

What you are saying is that there no gravitons, therefore there are no gravitational waves as well. Those waves need to interact with matter through particles, the very quantum level components of the wave itself.

Is this your final word on this, no gravitons at all?
1) I did not say that at all. Just because gravitons are not proven does not mean that there are no gravitons.
2) I'm not the ultimate authority on gravitons. Ask a specialist in quantum gravity.

Quote from: sandokhan
Possibly mass causes spacetime to curve towards the mass making the geodesic of an object (the free fall trajectory) curve towards large masses.
There is no such thing as spacetime or general relativity.
Correction! You claim that "There is no such thing as spacetime or general relativity" but you are by no means an authority.

Quote from: sandokhan
Please make sure you understand these crucial facts:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750
I think I'd rather ignore what someone who claims that:
  • "History is just some 365 years old (I started with a figure of 500 years, and slowly reduced the period to 364-365 years).

    Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.

    The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier, after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden."

  • That the sun is 10 to 20 km above the earth.
I know you claim that you can "prove" it all but if an investigation leads to totally ridiculous results then that investigation was flawed.
The totally ridiculous sun height is easily disposed of so I'll ignore the rest as none of your "experts" would have a bar of your stationary flat earth ideas.

Quote from: sandokhan
<< Mr Sandokhan I judge people by what else they write and I find plenty of material in "Advanced Flat Earth Theory".
So I'll ignore all that until you prove your sun height calculations >>

But whether or not gravitation can be explained it's effect and behavior has been verified countless times.
Your dismissing those experiments and measurements means nothing.

Would you now please get back to the topic, which is "Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse.."

Bye.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2019, 02:33:06 AM »
I don't need to explain gravitation for it to be true.

You need to explain right away your claim that it is attractive.

How does attractive gravity work?

If you have no authority on gravitons, then you are simply accepting what someone else said.

Please explain how two gravitons attract each other.

But whether or not gravitation can be explained it's effect and behavior has been verified countless times.

You are claiming that it is attractive.

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

If you cannot, then we are dealing with something worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).

Take a look at how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 data for general relativity:

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



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

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...)


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.


Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.


"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.

If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."


Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erroneous claim regarding the speed of light:



Here is the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations, which prove that the speed of light is variable and not constant:




Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

If you cannot, then we are dealing with a fanatical and dogmatic agenda.


As for your quotes regarding the new radical chronology of history, your shtick is getting old.

I have already answered your questions in full detail here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76954.msg2081202#msg2081202

Gauss' Easter formula is the truth: the most accurate astronomical dating available. This formula proves immediately that the official chronology of history has been totally faked/falsified.


Explain right now how attractive gravity works.

Gravitons, general relativity, pure magic won't help you to justify how trillions of billions of liters of water stay in place on the outer surface of a sphere.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 02:36:21 AM by sandokhan »

*

Stash

  • 8573
  • I am car!
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2019, 02:42:53 AM »
I don't need to explain gravitation for it to be true.

You need to explain right away your claim that it is attractive.

How does attractive gravity work?

If you have no authority on gravitons, then you are simply accepting what someone else said.

Please explain how two gravitons attract each other.

But whether or not gravitation can be explained it's effect and behavior has been verified countless times.

You are claiming that it is attractive.

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

If you cannot, then we are dealing with something worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).

Take a look at how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 data for general relativity:

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



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

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...)


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.


Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.


"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.

If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."


Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erroneous claim regarding the speed of light:



Here is the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations, which prove that the speed of light is variable and not constant:




Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

If you cannot, then we are dealing with a fanatical and dogmatic agenda.


As for your quotes regarding the new radical chronology of history, your shtick is getting old.

I have already answered your questions in full detail here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76954.msg2081202#msg2081202

Gauss' Easter formula is the truth: the most accurate astronomical dating available. This formula proves immediately that the official chronology of history has been totally faked/falsified.


Explain right now how attractive gravity works.

Gravitons, general relativity, pure magic won't help you to justify how trillions of billions of liters of water stay in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

Why can't mass attract mass? Why, according to you, does there always have to be an "other", i.e., 'graviton's'? Why not simply mass?
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2019, 02:46:54 AM »
Note how all the water is attracted to the surface of the spherical Earth?

How do you know that the mechanism of terrestrial gravity is attractive?

Please explain the physics to your readers.

1.  Things fall down, wherever you are on the spherical earth.

2.  Mass attracts mass, as demonstrated by things like the cavendish experiment.

Quote
Do you want to use gravitons?

To be determined. 

Quote
Please provide an explanation which justifies your claim, "note how all the water is attracted to the surface of the spherical earth".

You can see it in the picture.


Quote
Gravity is fundamental, it is the main theory. The secondary, supporting theory (sun, moon, eclipses, ocean waves, neutrino beams) comes into play only when you are able to provide an explanation for gravity.

Wrong.  Learn how to science.

We can only work with what we determine through experiment and observation.

Finding evidence of a quantum theory of gravity (or equivalent) is very difficult and requires things like interpreting tiny flashes of energy in particle accelerators.

Are you really saying it’s impossible to know that things like planetary orbits are a thing until we’ve completed all the work on elementary particles?

That’s ridiculous.  Think about what you are saying for a moment.

Tip for Flat Earthers:  Start at the beginning with trying to explain what can easily be seen, like where do I look in the sky to find the sun?

Quote
The existence of the shadow object is a direct consequence of the fact that there are two anomalies present during the lunar eclipse, completely unexplained by heliocentrism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

LOL

And you have the cheek to say I need to explain fundamental quantum physics before I can understand anything.

The shadow object is nothing but a wild guess and excuse for how busted flat earth explanations are for the most basic of observations.

Quote
The unwarranted belief in attractive gravity, incurred by the scientists you mention during decades of being inoculated with false information, would be ripped to shreds in seconds once they understand that there is no possible mechanism for attractive gravity.

I await hundreds of years of scientific progress to come crashing down with baited breath.

Quote
Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of sphere.

If you cannot, then we are dealing with a fanatical and dogmatic agenda.

Pot calling the highly polished optical mirror black.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2019, 02:47:50 AM »
The unnecessary quoting of an entire message, to post two lines, is against the rules, actually it is a form of trolling.

Why can't mass attract mass?

You used the word attract.

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

Explain right now how attractive gravity works.

Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.


Have you ever thought about these issues? If not, now is the time.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2019, 02:58:37 AM »
Things fall down, wherever you are on the spherical earth.

Wonderful.

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

2.  Mass attracts mass, as demonstrated by things like the cavendish experiment.

The Cavendish experiment can be explained by ether theory even better:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751

Here is the Lamoreaux effect experiment, carried out in full vacuum: two plates are PUSHED against each other by outside forces.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616174#msg1616174

And you still have to explain the attractive mechanism.

You are claiming that gravity is attractive.

Please explain how.

You can see it in the picture.

You think you are able at the present time to get into a debate about the fake space program with me?

You are not.

You still have to explain that gravity is attractive, and not due to some other phenomenon (pushing gravity, as an example).

Finding evidence of a quantum theory of gravity (or equivalent) is very difficult and requires things like interpreting tiny flashes of energy in particle accelerators.

Forget the evidence: you have to explain HOW two gravitons attract each other. In one of my previous messages I enumerated the tremendous difficulties inherent in such an approach, in fact the use of gravitons leads directly to the defiance of the law of conservation of energy.

You have to explain how attractive gravity works, not dodge the issue to the quantum theory of gravity.

As for the subquark ether quantum theory here is the real deal:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998110#msg1998110

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998179#msg1998179

The shadow object is nothing but a wild guess


Not at all.

In case you didn't know, modern science cannot explain the two main anomalies of the lunar eclipse:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2019, 03:15:29 AM »

In case you didn't know, modern science cannot explain the two main anomalies of the lunar eclipse:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

I have, as posted above, shown your quote of Herschel to be wrong. I'd like your response to that.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #47 on: January 23, 2019, 03:21:25 AM »
You are trolling the upper forums.

The quote from Herschel is correct:

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

He thought that invisible moons do exist in the firmament. Now choose your own definition of the word "firmament" as it applies to possible invisible moons.




*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2019, 03:25:09 AM »
I don't need to explain gravitation for it to be true.
You need to explain right away your claim that it is attractive.
All I need say is that is has been experimentally many more than enough times to call gravitation a scientific law.
Quote
                                                 
A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world.
A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.
Newton presented no "Theory of Gravitation" only a "Law of Gravitation".
There have been hundreds of demonstrations and accurate measurements along the lines of the original Cavendish Experiment though modern ones are far more sophisticated.

And that same Law fits a the oceans great mass or a falling weight just as well as an orbiting satellite or the water in a cloud.

But, say again that this thread is, "Tonight's lunar eclipse.." not gravitation so make your own thread on gravitation.

Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2019, 03:26:55 AM »
Things fall down, wherever you are on the spherical earth.

Wonderful.

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

No.  I've explained how this is not necessary to observe the effects.   Refuse to accept this if you like, but that is my position.

Quote
2.  Mass attracts mass, as demonstrated by things like the cavendish experiment.

The Cavendish experiment can be explained by ether theory even better:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751

Here is the Lamoreaux effect experiment, carried out in full vacuum: two plates are PUSHED against each other by outside forces.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616174#msg1616174

And yet no real scientists accept your explanation.

Quote
And you still have to explain the attractive mechanism.

You are claiming that gravity is attractive.

Please explain how.

Repeat this as much as you like, I have explained my position.

Quote
You can see it in the picture.

You think you are able at the present time to get into a debate about the fake space program with me?

You are not.

Dismissal of inconvenient evidence.  Not a great place to be.  Actually I was mainly curious to know if you subscribed to the conspiracy theory, since I've seen you quoting NASA scientists and data from satellites to support your claims.

Regardless, there are plenty of observations anyone can do on the ground to confirm the heliocentric model is vastly superior to flat eartherism in explaining the shape of the Earth and how the solar system works.

May I suggest buying a telescope?

Quote
You still have to explain that gravity is attractive, and not due to some other phenomenon (pushing gravity, as an example).

See above.

Quote
Finding evidence of a quantum theory of gravity (or equivalent) is very difficult and requires things like interpreting tiny flashes of energy in particle accelerators.

Forget the evidence: you have to explain HOW two gravitons attract each other. In one of my previous messages I enumerated the tremendous difficulties inherent in such an approach, in fact the use of gravitons leads directly to the defiance of the law of conservation of energy.

"Forget evidence"

Hahahaha

Quote
You have to explain how attractive gravity works, not dodge the issue to the quantum theory of gravity.

Sigh. 

And you've failed to explain any of the things I asked about the sun.

Quote
As for the subquark ether quantum theory here is the real deal:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998110#msg1998110

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998179#msg1998179

As accepted by no one.

Quote
The shadow object is nothing but a wild guess


Not at all.

In case you didn't know, modern science cannot explain the two main anomalies of the lunar eclipse:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

Meh.  You pick and choose which scientists to believe, while dismissing the combined findings of tens if not hundreds of thousands more.  Confirmation bias in action.

Edit:  Oh wait.  I didn't pay enough attention to your link.

You are relying on Herschel to defend your position?  The founder of the Royal Astronomical Society who discovered moons orbiting Saturn and Uranus?

Brilliant.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 04:10:36 AM by Unconvinced »

Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2019, 03:41:10 AM »
You are trolling the upper forums.

The quote from Herschel is correct:

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

He thought that invisible moons do exist in the firmament. Now choose your own definition of the word "firmament" as it applies to possible invisible moons.

I am simply pointing out that Herschel did not think the Earth was flat. And the term "Invisible" simply refers to it not being seen with the naked eye. He also mentioned invisible stars and planets and used the telescope to find them.

Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2019, 04:44:41 AM »
But, say again that this thread is, "Tonight's lunar eclipse.." not gravitation so make your own thread on gravitation.

Apologies for my part in that.

I'll stop now.

Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #52 on: January 23, 2019, 05:13:39 AM »
Why would "4 trillon gallons of water" stick to a flat earth? What magic force keeps everything from floating?


The spherical earth model can predict eclipses for the thousand years and beyond and they are always correct. How does the flat earth model predict them? Does it?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42013
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #53 on: January 23, 2019, 06:39:11 AM »
Truth = a mathematical proof, that is what John was referring to: this truth never expires.

You are simply trolling the upper forums.

Your questions were answered many times before:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76954.msg2081202#msg2081202

Gauss' Easter formula is the truth: the most accurate astronomical dating available. This formula proves immediately that the official chronology of history has been totally faked/falsified.

Except that it doesn't.
Using the Gauss's Easter algorithm for years prior to 1583 is historically pointless since the Gregorian calendar was not utilised for determining Easter before that year. Using the algorithm far into the future is questionable, since we know nothing about how different churches will define Easter that far ahead. Easter calculations are based on agreements and conventions, not on the actual celestial movements nor on indisputable facts of history.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16467
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #54 on: January 23, 2019, 06:50:01 AM »
Take the water discussion to another thread please. This one is about the lunar eclipse.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #55 on: January 23, 2019, 07:15:03 AM »
Truth = a mathematical proof, that is what John was referring to: this truth never expires.

You are simply trolling the upper forums.

Your questions were answered many times before:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76954.msg2081202#msg2081202

Gauss' Easter formula is the truth: the most accurate astronomical dating available. This formula proves immediately that the official chronology of history has been totally faked/falsified.

Except that it doesn't.
Using the Gauss's Easter algorithm for years prior to 1583 is historically pointless since the Gregorian calendar was not utilised for determining Easter before that year. Using the algorithm far into the future is questionable, since we know nothing about how different churches will define Easter that far ahead. Easter calculations are based on agreements and conventions, not on the actual celestial movements nor on indisputable facts of history.

You haven't got a clue as to the subject discussed here, have you?

Gauss' Easter formula calculates with extreme precision the Paschal Moon for both Julian and Gregorian dates. It is the Julian dates we need. Why?

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76954.msg2081202#msg2081202

See also:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652 (more information)

« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 07:16:42 AM by sandokhan »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #56 on: January 23, 2019, 01:08:11 PM »
But, say again that this thread is, "Tonight's lunar eclipse.." not gravitation so make your own thread on gravitation.
Apologies for my part in that.
I'll stop now.
And for my part. I should never have responded in this thread, but . . . .

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42013
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #57 on: January 23, 2019, 08:21:26 PM »
You haven't got a clue as to the subject discussed here, have you?

Gauss' Easter formula calculates with extreme precision the Paschal Moon for both Julian and Gregorian dates. It is the Julian dates we need. Why?
What does Gauss's Easter formula have to do with a lunar eclipse (the subject of this thread)? ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #58 on: January 24, 2019, 03:12:35 AM »
The most direct way to observe that lunar eclipses are not caused by the Earth is to study the acceleration of the moon's elongation as it applies to solar/lunar eclipses of the past and also to lunar occultations.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1927373#msg1927373

The study was published in some of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world by Dr. Robert Newton (Johns Hopkins University).

This leaves three possibilities:

1. There are unknown gravitational forces

2. The laws of physics have changed since the past millenium

3. The astronomical recordings/observations pertaining to the period 200 BC - 1200 AD
    are false

Physicists will never endorse the first two choices: they will be content to accept that there are no astronomical observations prior to 1200 AD.

Historians, on the other hand, will never consent to choice #3: they will much rather accept that Newtonian gravitation is wrong.

Either way the RE have a huge problem: a direct proof, using the acceleration of the moon's elongation, that the phenomenon of the lunar eclipse has extraordinary anomalies which cannot be explained by modern science.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2019, 03:15:38 AM by sandokhan »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« Reply #59 on: January 24, 2019, 04:42:41 AM »
The most direct way to observe that lunar eclipses are not caused by the Earth is to study the acceleration of the moon's elongation as it applies to solar/lunar eclipses of the past and also to lunar occultations.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1927373#msg1927373

The study was published in some of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world by Dr. Robert Newton (Johns Hopkins University).

This leaves three possibilities:

1. There are unknown gravitational forces

2. The laws of physics have changed since the past millenium

3. The astronomical recordings/observations pertaining to the period 200 BC - 1200 AD
    are false

Physicists will never endorse the first two choices: they will be content to accept that there are no astronomical observations prior to 1200 AD.

Historians, on the other hand, will never consent to choice #3: they will much rather accept that Newtonian gravitation is wrong.

Either way the RE have a huge problem: a direct proof, using the acceleration of the moon's elongation, that the phenomenon of the lunar eclipse has extraordinary anomalies which cannot be explained by modern science.
Your possibilities include:
"1. There are unknown gravitational forces" but they ignore forces other than "gravitational forces", why when Robert Newton specifically mentions some?.

Quote
Mathematical Methods in the Study of Historical Chronology Florin Diacu, p 441 ff
The Moon’s Acceleration
He was concerned with the acceleration, D'', of the moon’s elongation, which is the angle between the moon and the sun as viewed from Earth. This acceleration D'' is computable from observations, and its past behavior can be determined from records of eclipses. Its values vary between −18 and +2 seconds of arc per century squared. Also, D'' is slightly above zero and almost constant from about 700 BC to AD 500, but it drops significantly for the next five centuries, to settle at around −18 after AD 1000. Unfortunately this variation cannot be explained from gravitation, which requires the graph to be a horizontal line.
. . . .
Robert Newton either ignored Fomenko’s results or never learned about them. For the rest of his life, he continued to present evidence for the unpredictable changes of the moon’s acceleration. Among the potential factors that change the values of D'', he suggested the Earth’s magnetic force, the tidal friction between water and sea bottoms, the growth of the Earth’s core, and the withdrawal of the ice caps, but he offered no computations towards proving their influence on the behavior of D''.
So I see nowhere that says that it that "RE have a huge problem" or "the phenomenon of the lunar eclipse has extraordinary anomalies which cannot be explained by modern science" because:
  • The deviations are so small (at "−18 and +2 seconds of arc per century squared") that only astronomers who study the topic in detail would be aware of it.

  • It states that "Unfortunately this variation cannot be explained from gravitation" but that is no big problem as there are other known forces and some are mentioned, though not calculated by Robert Newton.
    That is no great mystery to modern science especially with recent laser lunar ranging measuring the distance to the moon to centimetre accuracy.
And there are still unanswered variations but their magnitude is extremely small so there is certainly no "huge problem".