question about sun/moon

Also, I'm not sure if the FEers accept the sun is nuclear.

The evidence of solar-neutrinos argues strongly for a nuclear sun. H_e absorption lines in the spectragraph of subligt would also be evidence for this.

Quote from: Googleotomy on March 03, 2019, 05:09:45 PM

"How close are the sun/moon to the earth ?"
You have no idea ?
I remember reading FE figures of  from 100 or 200 miles to 3000 miles.
All you have to do is get the real figures from books , ...

Measurements such as Voliva's only have meaning if his a priori assumptions are true. I don't believe they are. So, no, that does not help me.

Quote

or some person who knows a bit about astronomy

See above.

Quote

"Who said we are accelerating indefinitely ? "
I thought FE said this is the FE idea in place of gravity ?

Why are you assuming the earth has always been accelerating or will continue to be accelerating at the same rate, or at all, really? We can measure earth's acceleration, but that value only has meaning for the time(s) of measurement. We would need to accelerate "literally" forever to need " infinite energy". So what? Noone said the earth has been or will be accelerating forever except a few dumbshoes who have not or will not apply themselves to understanding anything they rail against.

Why are globularists incapable of reading what my replies are in response to and generating context instead of trying to create their own fictional context?

Your replies seem to be different from the usual FE ideas on these subjects, especially those of Rowbotham.

But otherwise, I have no criticism because it is a well known fact the earth isn't a  flat disc .
I don't claim to be an expert or a genius but I have had enough education , training and experience to know that the shape of the earth is a globe and most of flat Earth is made up pure nonsense.

Well, Rowbotham postulates a fixed earth, and near-sun, so there significant discrepancies between our models is to be expected.

Infinite acceleration in a flat earth universe isn't a problem - you can only explain such a universe by invoking magic which, from everything I've ever read, doesn't involve the use of a power source.

Quote

To just get to near the speed of light would take an unimaginable amount of force

You all keep saying that as though the velocity means something. Do you have any evidence that the earth is being accelerated from an outside frame? If not, it's imaginable . Large, because the earth is large, but imaginable.

Also, the Orthodoxy full already full of un-imaginable large forces (from ANY frame).  Do you believe the universe is expanding? That this expansion is accelerating? That the mystery energy needed to make Orthodox physics work is so monumentally large that if you took all the total mass in the universe, you'd need to multiply it's energy-equivalence by a dozen or so. E=mc^2, so we're talking about unimaginably large amounts of energy, right? I can scarcely fathom the total mass in the universe, let alone an unobservable energy-equivalence over 12 times as large.  Are you prepared to reject the Orthodox model as "unimaginable" yet? Or are you applying different criteria for your beliefs and imaginings?

That sounds great except your UA model is not just accelerating the Earth. It is accelerating the entire Universe that we can see at least (however you want to define as existing or how much you want to deny, either way).  Not only a velocity since with no friction everything would just keep moving the same velocity indefinitely, but with acceleration.  In order to have continual acceleration the force applied to continue it has to increasing to keep accelerating.  You talk of reference frames, as if that just brushes the issue away.  What part of the Universe we can see wouldn’t be affected by your UA?  Then come back and scoff as if the energy needed to make the entire visible Universe (however you want to define it) accelerate indefinitely (as far as we know). 

Again, this UA fantasy also would have to create a spiraling force for all the objects in it to make them rotate around the Earth.

Again, how does UA help the Earth be flat?  UA makes FET weaker.  Star trails with 2 celestial axi both  90 degrees above the surface of the Earth mean either the Earth is spherical and stationary  with the Universe orbiting us or it is spherical and simply rotating. But we can ignore star trails since they are beyond the scope of the OP.

The OP is about the near Sun/Moon.  Explain how the near 32 mile wide Sun/Moon match the simplest of observations.

Why do their angular size not change for a near Sun and Moon?

Why doesn’t the near Moon follow the growing and shrinking near Sun’s circles since it needs to for solar eclipses at any time of the year and how would it wobble just right to block the Sun?

If the predictable periodic Super Moon is caused by a wobble bringing it closer to the Earth why doesn’t it moving thousands of miles each day make it shrink?

Why don’t the Sun and Moon visibly slow down as their paths get much shorter for the Northern Hemisphere summer and speed up for Southern Hemisphere summer as their path along the southern Tropic is MUCH longer?

How can the phases of the Moon be seen worldwide just shifted according to latitude with a near Sun/Moon system? 

Why do seasonal stars exist at all with a near Sun/Moon system as the Earth wouldn’t be orbiting a distant Sun?

This all assuming that a mystical force/gear could just keep everything as observed.  FET has zero explanation that matches reality for just these simple observations for which you and other FE proponents have no answer for.

Quote from: Ski on March 04, 2019, 09:49:32 AM

Quote

To just get to near the speed of light would take an unimaginable amount of force

You all keep saying that as though the velocity means something. Do you have any evidence that the earth is being accelerated from an outside frame? If not, it's imaginable . Large, because the earth is large, but imaginable.

  In order to have continual acceleration the force applied to continue it has to increasing to keep accelerating. 

False. See above.

Again, how does UA help the Earth be flat? 

Gee, I wonder...  . i ask of you for the umpteenth time: Have you ever considered giving a modicum of thought to something before you post it?

The OP is about the near Sun/Moon.  Explain how the near 32 mile wide Sun/Moon match the simplest of observations.

How would a near Sun match the simplest of observations? It doesn't. Why harangue me over something I did not propose?

Quote from: JCM on March 04, 2019, 01:48:00 PM

Quote from: Ski on March 04, 2019, 09:49:32 AM

Quote

To just get to near the speed of light would take an unimaginable amount of force

You all keep saying that as though the velocity means something. Do you have any evidence that the earth is being accelerated from an outside frame? If not, it's imaginable . Large, because the earth is large, but imaginable.

Quote

  In order to have continual acceleration the force applied to continue it has to increasing to keep accelerating. 

False. See above.

Quote

Again, how does UA help the Earth be flat? 

Gee, I wonder...  . i ask of you for the umpteenth time: Have you ever considered giving a modicum of thought to something before you post it?

Quote

The OP is about the near Sun/Moon.  Explain how the near 32 mile wide Sun/Moon match the simplest of observations.

How would a near Sun match the simplest of observations? It doesn't. Why harangue me over something I did not propose?

So basically, you are saying UA is legitimate because it questions the need for Gravity.  Evidence for it is unnecessary and unimportant as long as it helps get rid of Gravity as we know it.  It’s issues are not important Got it.

Why question you about the near Sun/Moon?  Well, it is the OP, you are a moderator, it’s the point of the thread!  You would rather change the subject then address the OP’s question.  I ask you those questions because they are integral to make the near Sun/Moon work. 

Before any UA can even be considered, the simplest geometry of the flat Earth with a near Sun/Moon must be explained in a way that matches reality even a little.

Evidence for it is unnecessary

If I drop an apple, the earth accelerates to meet it at 9.8m/s/s.  No force is acting on the apple. That's pretty strong evidence.

I'm sorry that you think it's changing the subject to point out you are putting words in my mouth...   

In order to have continual acceleration the force applied to continue it has to increasing to keep accelerating.  You talk of reference frames, as if that just brushes the issue away.

Because that does "brush" that issue away.
The increase in force required increases if the acceleration is constant for an inertial reference frame.
However if you are having an accelerating reference frame accelerating at a constant rate relative to that frame, or more technically if the acceleration at an instant in an inertial reference frame where that object has a velocity of 0 in that instant remains constant, then the same constant force is required to be applied in that same inertial reference frame.

Quote

Evidence for it is unnecessary

If I drop an apple, the earth accelerates to meet it at 9.8m/s/s.  No force is acting on the apple. That's pretty strong evidence.

I'm sorry that you think it's changing the subject to point out you are putting words in my mouth...   

The classic experiment. If you're in a windowless room (with an apple) and feel one gee, you can't tell whether you're in a box on the ground or in a rocket accelerating at one gee. You've chosen the rocket explanation.

Of course, the Earth is not a windowless room.

Quote

Evidence for it is unnecessary

If I drop an apple, the earth accelerates to meet it at 9.8m/s/s.  No force is acting on the apple. That's pretty strong evidence.

Only if one assumes that the earth is accelerating to meet it at 9.8m/s². There could be, and are, other explanations.

The existence of alternative explanations does not make evidence stop being evidence. I know that is probably shock for people who treat Orthodox "science" as a credo. 

If you said "the fact I constantly copy and paste material of dubious relevance is evidence that I am a boor incapable of formulating an independent thought", the fact you constantly copy and paste material of dubious relevance does not magically stop being evidence for you being a bot.

Quote from: Ski on March 04, 2019, 03:56:37 PM

Quote

Evidence for it is unnecessary

If I drop an apple, the earth accelerates to meet it at 9.8m/s/s.  No force is acting on the apple. That's pretty strong evidence.

Only if one assumes that the earth is accelerating to meet it at 9.8m/s². There could be, and are, other explanations.

Why does the earth have to be accelerating and not moving at a constant velocity? Since the apple was moving with the tree, couldn’t it be the case that the apple is the one decelerating from the constant velocity that the Earth is moving at?

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2019, 04:37:47 PM

Quote from: Ski on March 04, 2019, 03:56:37 PM

Quote

Evidence for it is unnecessary

If I drop an apple, the earth accelerates to meet it at 9.8m/s/s.  No force is acting on the apple. That's pretty strong evidence.

Only if one assumes that the earth is accelerating to meet it at 9.8m/s². There could be, and are, other explanations.

Why does the earth have to be accelerating and not moving at a constant velocity? Since the apple was moving with the tree, couldn’t it be the case that the apple is the one decelerating from the constant velocity that the Earth is moving at?

What would cause the apple to decelerate? A force would be required to slow it down.

When I said, "There could be, and are, other explanations" the other explanations might be Newtonian Gravitation or General Relativity.
These boil down to the same thing for the relatively low gravitational fields near earth.

A FE could possibly explain it, but this is how I  have read it.
It is just the sun that changes its orbit to change the seasons ?
Does the moon always stay in the same orbit ?

The moon doesn't wobble to block the sun ?
The moon wobbles to avoid blocking the sun ?
Isn't the eclipse caused by the ''shadow object''  ?

Answers, please, FE's ?

I was under the impression that the subject was "Question about the sun/moon"  ?

Quote from: AroundWeGo on March 04, 2019, 05:05:31 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2019, 04:37:47 PM

Quote from: Ski on March 04, 2019, 03:56:37 PM

Quote

Evidence for it is unnecessary

If I drop an apple, the earth accelerates to meet it at 9.8m/s/s.  No force is acting on the apple. That's pretty strong evidence.

Only if one assumes that the earth is accelerating to meet it at 9.8m/s². There could be, and are, other explanations.

Why does the earth have to be accelerating and not moving at a constant velocity? Since the apple was moving with the tree, couldn’t it be the case that the apple is the one decelerating from the constant velocity that the Earth is moving at?

What would cause the apple to decelerate? A force would be required to slow it down.

When I said, "There could be, and are, other explanations" the other explanations might be Newtonian Gravitation or General Relativity.
These boil down to the same thing for the relatively low gravitational fields near earth.

One FE explanation I have read was that when you jump off a chair, the earth accelerates upward and the floor moves up and meets your foot.
Same thing with the apple ?

Who will explain this from the position of the earth of the ball?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=I07Q7vpSz14

Who will explain this from the position of the earth of the ball?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=I07Q7vpSz14

Explanation is it is above the Arctic Circle, so the amount of daylight they get varies dramatically, from near 24 hours of visible sun, to the opposite.   This is due to the spherical shape of the tilted Earth orbiting the Sun.   At this particular time, that light they see in the darkness, is an incredibly large forest fire?  It is well documented and a simple query would find this information.  The Sun did not mysteriously rise when it wasn’t expected to just for that location on the planet.

Who will explain this from the position of the earth of the ball?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=I07Q7vpSz14

It doesn't need separate explanations.
There was a bunch of forest fires.
Not only can these produce a reddish glow, they also produce a lot of smoke which can easily block out the sun.

Jack Black - do you know what your trouble is? You speak memorized phrases. Not having examined the subject of the dispute. Read what the original publications in Russian are writing about this case. You will understand that all your statements about fires are bullshit. Sori.

Just getting back to the subject of "question about moon/sun"
I would like to see if I understand this .
Would some FE please comment and correct me if I'm wrong on any point.

(1) Starting with the basic premise that the earth is flat.
(2)And the earth is stationary and does not move?
(3);And if the earth does not move, the moon, the sun and the planets (some FE's say there are no planets ?) must move around in a circle above the earth ?
(4) This could go on and on, but it ends up with the questions of day and night and seasons for the sun ; how does the moon get it's light ; what causes eclipses, et cetera, et cetera and so forth ?

Perhaps a FE or some FE's could come up with a summation of the above

Google Tomy - below the surface. The earth is flat. At the top, space itself is curving and time flows differently. As a matter of fact, no one really knows everything. Since the satellites quietly fly in calculated orbits - for the earth of the ball. But the calculations were performed not according to the theory but according to practical examples. Since the theory does not coincide and all missile launches according to calculations on the theory have failed. I had to replace theory with practice.

below the surface. The earth is flat.

There is no indication the Earth is flat at all.

Since the satellites quietly fly in calculated orbits - for the earth of the ball. But the calculations were performed not according to the theory

No, the calculations are primarily based upon theory. However the theory isn't perfect as it doesn't account for all the mass perfectly.
The moon is one such satellite.

And how well does your hypothetical sound pressure level travel in space instead of the atmoplane? 

Actually, sound travels through space just fine; but only at frequencies in which the wavelengths are further apart than the average distance between particles of matter. In space,particles of matter are very far apart; but they are there. So sound would indeed travel between the Sun and Moon but would be far below the 20hz threshold of human hearing. It would be comfortably into infrasound. You would need specialized equipment to pick it up.