Why do asteroids fall down and Sun not ????

I think that you have no explanation for that (hopefully). Why even can exist something like asteroids in your model of Earth and what makes them fall on Earth and if they do why Sun doesnt??

The sun is not aimed at the Earth.

Did you ever see an asteroid downed in land? I mean in land, not in sky. They are sliding in dome, not falling.

Meteor hunting is a hobby performed by many people.

Meteor hunting is a hobby performed by many people.

They are only watching the move of meteors only in sky, not took them at camera when they are on land. Yes, there are hundreds of thousands meteor fanatics took them camera, but zero of them has followed them till they reached to land and then took them camera again. Because they are not falling, they are just moving.

Prove me wrong.

They are traveling towards the earth. The sun is not.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=meteorite+hunting

It is not a proof.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sokarul+is+a+liar

Did you ever see an asteroid downed in land? I mean in land, not in sky. They are sliding in dome, not falling.

This one is not "sliding in dome"!

Towards an Understanding of the Fall Circumstances of the Hoba Meteorite

Hoba Meteorite, Namibia, Meteoritical Bulletin Database

Abstract
Using the observed attributes of the Hoba meteorite, that it is a single mass which survived impact intact, we investigate the possible conditions leading to its fall.
Specifically, we assess the scenario in which the Hoba progenitor is envisioned as encountering Earth’s atmosphere at a shallow angle of entry, with a low velocity and stabilized profile to the oncoming airflow. In order to physically survive impact we find, via the planar impact approximation, that the Hoba meteorite must have landed with a speed smaller than a few hundred meters per second.
We find that the envisioned model can satisfy, in its extreme limit of low entry speed, maximum area profile and near
horizontal entry angle the required landing conditions. We deduce that the progenitor mass for the Hoba meteorite was likely of order 5x10⁵ kg, and that a simple impact crater, now eroded, having a diameter of some 20 meters and a depth of about 5 meters was produced upon impact.

And these aren't "sliding in dome" either:

Meteorite Worth $100,000 Used As Door Stop

his five-inch-long chunk was recovered from Siberia.

Rare 70 pound meteorite sells for record $237,500 at Christie's

This 9980-kilogram meteorite, crashed into Australia

Where are these meteors or asreroids "sliding in dome"?

They are traveling towards the earth. The sun is not.

But why the difference? Where were these asteroids/meteors before they started "traveling towards the earth"?

Did you ever see an asteroid downed in land? I mean in land, not in sky. They are sliding in dome, not falling.

Lonar lake, in India.

This lake is made by a meteor falling down. It even looks like a crater.

Flat earthers are just fuck*d now

Quote from: John Davis on March 29, 2019, 10:21:35 PM

They are traveling towards the earth. The sun is not.

But why the difference? Where were these asteroids/meteors before they started "traveling towards the earth"?

In the sky, in a location that was not the same as that of the Sun.

Eh, all this really comes down to is stability, even in models without a dome. Certain dome models, this is trivial.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 30, 2019, 01:51:37 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 29, 2019, 10:21:35 PM

They are traveling towards the earth. The sun is not.

But why the difference? Where were these asteroids/meteors before they started "traveling towards the earth"?

In the sky, in a location that was not the same as that of the Sun.

Eh, all this really comes down to is stability, even in models without a dome. Certain dome models, this is trivial.

Really? That does not answer why the Sun circles and the asteroids fall down.

How do you know that asteroids cannot come from the direction of the sun?

Bright Meteor Rocks The Sky In Daytime
In any case, they can and do seem to come from the same direct as the stars or the moon and the

Geminid meteor shower lights up northeast China sky CGTN


Watch: Meteor shower lights up European skies, the "Perseids"

Really? That does not answer why the Sun circles and the asteroids fall down.

How do you know that asteroids cannot come from the direction of the sun?

No one said anything about the direction of the Sun, just the physical location.

There's not nearly enough of a question there for more of an answer to be merited. It's the obvious response; why would the Sun fall down if asteroids do? Why wouldn't asteroids fall if the Sun doesn't? They're different objects, in different locations, with differnet velocities. Beyond the easier models, you don't even need to get specific with the physics, whatever force makes everything else stay up in repeating motions, the chances of it being stable everywhere for all things are kinda absurdly small.

Let's just take the simplest possible case of a bunch of rocks rotating around the Sun. They go in a circle. When they complete one revolution, they are a couple of inches off where they started. There's your answer. Pretty much exactly what we would expect for literally any force. As for the Sun, same as for all the asteroids that haven't become meteors yet, even if you want to say there are no other differences, it's in a more stable location.

even if you want to say there are no other differences, it's in a more stable location.

Which raises the question of why?
Why are there so many stable locations with so many stars all over the place, but then these unstable meteors?

Quote from: Jane on March 30, 2019, 02:44:10 PM

even if you want to say there are no other differences, it's in a more stable location.

Which raises the question of why?
Why are there so many stable locations with so many stars all over the place, but then these unstable meteors?

'So many?' Pretty sure there are more locations and paths without stars in than with.
What would you expect a star in an unstable location to look like? What would you expect a meteor in a stable location to look like? Personally my money's on a) not there, b) an asteroid. Best case scenario you just get stars being more likely to form in stable, consistent environments which, ok, that much is going to depend on what model the FE model has for the formation of stars, but it's hardly extravagant, and all this only matters for non-dome models anyway.

'So many?' Pretty sure there are more locations and paths without stars in than with.
What would you expect a star in an unstable location to look like? What would you expect a meteor in a stable location to look like? Personally my money's on a) not there, b) an asteroid. Best case scenario you just get stars being more likely to form in stable, consistent environments which, ok, that much is going to depend on what model the FE model has for the formation of stars, but it's hardly extravagant, and all this only matters for non-dome models anyway.

No where in here do you address the question, so I will ask again:
WHY?
Why are there so many different stable locations with all these stars, yet the meteors are still falling?

If these stable locations were very rare you might have an argument.

Quote from: Jane on March 30, 2019, 05:03:54 PM

'So many?' Pretty sure there are more locations and paths without stars in than with.
What would you expect a star in an unstable location to look like? What would you expect a meteor in a stable location to look like? Personally my money's on a) not there, b) an asteroid. Best case scenario you just get stars being more likely to form in stable, consistent environments which, ok, that much is going to depend on what model the FE model has for the formation of stars, but it's hardly extravagant, and all this only matters for non-dome models anyway.

No where in here do you address the question, so I will ask again:
WHY?
Why are there so many different stable locations with all these stars, yet the meteors are still falling?

If these stable locations were very rare you might have an argument.

I addressed it, you just ignored it because it wasn't the kind of answer you wanted.
You're the one that objects when I zero in on a specific model, so I didn't, you got a general answer. Sure, no exact equations or anything given, but they don't need to be. Stable locations are comparatively rare, the vast majority of the sky tends to utterly lack any kind of visible star. Once more, what do you expect a star in an unstable location to look like? What do you expect a meteor in a stable location to look like?
And that's ignoring the rest of my post.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 30, 2019, 02:35:28 PM

Really? That does not answer why the Sun circles and the asteroids fall down.

How do you know that asteroids cannot come from the direction of the sun?

No one said anything about the direction of the Sun, just the physical location.

There's not nearly enough of a question there for more of an answer to be merited. It's the obvious response; why would the Sun fall down if asteroids do? Why wouldn't asteroids fall if the Sun doesn't? They're different objects, in different locations, with differnet velocities. Beyond the easier models, you don't even need to get specific with the physics, whatever force makes everything else stay up in repeating motions, the chances of it being stable everywhere for all things are kinda absurdly small.

So what holds the sun to its highly complicated path over the flat earth - spiralling from the Tropic of Capricorn north to the Tropic of Cancer and back each year?

And it's not just the sun. Are there these special unmarked stable highways in the sky for each of the innumerable celestial objects?

Genesis 15:5
‘Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them': and He said unto him, 'So shall thy seed be’.

There are estimated to be 6000 visible stars, 10 times that visible with a modest telescope and an estimated 250 billion in the Milky Way.
And all within you "dome"? So there seems little "space" among these stable "physical locations" for these unstable asteroids.

You are correct in the sense that all of the objects could be said to be in orbits and asteroids just happen to hit the earth when these orbits intersect.

But it's a bit hard to explain the annual meteor showers on the flat earth.
With the heliocentric system it's not an issue. The earth's orbit just intersects the highly elliptical orbit of these bits of comets
On the flat earth, however, there does not seem to a plausible mechanism to hold any of these objects up there.
There are lots of guesses and hand-waving but little else.

And yes, I read the rest of your post and chose to ignore it.

I addressed it, you just ignored it because it wasn't the kind of answer you wanted.
You're the one that objects when I zero in on a specific model, so I didn't, you got a general answer. Sure, no exact equations or anything given, but they don't need to be. Stable locations are comparatively rare, the vast majority of the sky tends to utterly lack any kind of visible star. Once more, what do you expect a star in an unstable location to look like? What do you expect a meteor in a stable location to look like?
And that's ignoring the rest of my post.

No, you dodged it, like you typically do.

I'm not asking what they look like in stable vs unstable regions.
They don't seem comparatively rare. Not all stars are visible with the naked eye. A star not being visible with the naked eye doesn't mean it isn't there.
And they move in the sky. So how many regions of the sky are always dark, never having any star there? A massive region of the celestial sphere is taken up by the sun and moon. So I wouldn't say it is rare at all.
If you do want to pretend they are rare then the question just goes the other way, why are these regions stable?

Quote from: JackBlack on March 30, 2019, 02:48:20 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 30, 2019, 02:44:10 PM

even if you want to say there are no other differences, it's in a more stable location.

Which raises the question of why?
Why are there so many stable locations with so many stars all over the place, but then these unstable meteors?

'So many?' Pretty sure there are more locations and paths without stars in than with.
What would you expect a star in an unstable location to look like? What would you expect a meteor in a stable location to look like? Personally my money's on a) not there, b) an asteroid. Best case scenario you just get stars being more likely to form in stable, consistent environments which, ok, that much is going to depend on what model the FE model has for the formation of stars, but it's hardly extravagant, and all this only matters for non-dome models anyway.

So if I'm understanding, would it be that the meteors find the slots of 'unstable' space, and slip into the slot and ride it down to earth? If so, seems kinda reasonable. The meteors would be zooming about across all kinds of stable slots and then come across an unstable one and drop, well, like a stone, down the unstable slot. I'm not sure I'm making sense.

I think that you have no explanation for that (hopefully). Why even can exist something like asteroids in your model of Earth and what makes them fall on Earth and if they do why Sun doesnt??

Because the big guy in the sky apparently makes mistakes.

By the way, questions like this have been asked hundreds of times. They'll avoid the question and go off topic or they come with an answer that is so ridiculous that you'll give up. And then they will say that they won again.

Quote from: Jane on March 30, 2019, 05:03:54 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 30, 2019, 02:48:20 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 30, 2019, 02:44:10 PM

even if you want to say there are no other differences, it's in a more stable location.

Which raises the question of why?
Why are there so many stable locations with so many stars all over the place, but then these unstable meteors?

'So many?' Pretty sure there are more locations and paths without stars in than with.
What would you expect a star in an unstable location to look like? What would you expect a meteor in a stable location to look like? Personally my money's on a) not there, b) an asteroid. Best case scenario you just get stars being more likely to form in stable, consistent environments which, ok, that much is going to depend on what model the FE model has for the formation of stars, but it's hardly extravagant, and all this only matters for non-dome models anyway.

So if I'm understanding, would it be that the meteors find the slots of 'unstable' space, and slip into the slot and ride it down to earth? If so, seems kinda reasonable. The meteors would be zooming about across all kinds of stable slots and then come across an unstable one and drop, well, like a stone, down the unstable slot. I'm not sure I'm making sense.

Not really a slot, just that over a full revolution the net upwards force wouldn't be the same as the net downwards so it's just a little off when it gets back to where it started. It completes one circle and ends up a little lower, completes another circle and ends up a bit lower than that, eventually it'll end up low enough that it's not held aloft by whatever force you want to appeal to. At the end of the day that's all it comes down to, the precise details as to what the force is will depend on whichever model you want to follow and just listing them off would be kinda pointless.
Any kind of system where an object doesn't end up exactly where it started is theoretically unstable. Just a matter of how long it takes for it to fall out.

Sure -- just make up whatever you want. Somebody here will believe it.

Sure -- just make up whatever you want. Somebody here will believe it.

I'm a REer, this isn't anything I'm making up, it's the existing models and the immediately obvious conclusions of them. Pretending FEers haven't given answers to these questions just makes us look stupid. No one's expecting you to believe it.

Quote from: Stash on March 30, 2019, 08:25:26 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 30, 2019, 05:03:54 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 30, 2019, 02:48:20 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 30, 2019, 02:44:10 PM

even if you want to say there are no other differences, it's in a more stable location.

Which raises the question of why?
Why are there so many stable locations with so many stars all over the place, but then these unstable meteors?

'So many?' Pretty sure there are more locations and paths without stars in than with.
What would you expect a star in an unstable location to look like? What would you expect a meteor in a stable location to look like? Personally my money's on a) not there, b) an asteroid. Best case scenario you just get stars being more likely to form in stable, consistent environments which, ok, that much is going to depend on what model the FE model has for the formation of stars, but it's hardly extravagant, and all this only matters for non-dome models anyway.

So if I'm understanding, would it be that the meteors find the slots of 'unstable' space, and slip into the slot and ride it down to earth? If so, seems kinda reasonable. The meteors would be zooming about across all kinds of stable slots and then come across an unstable one and drop, well, like a stone, down the unstable slot. I'm not sure I'm making sense.

Not really a slot, just that over a full revolution the net upwards force wouldn't be the same as the net downwards so it's just a little off when it gets back to where it started. It completes one circle and ends up a little lower, completes another circle and ends up a bit lower than that, eventually it'll end up low enough that it's not held aloft by whatever force you want to appeal to. At the end of the day that's all it comes down to, the precise details as to what the force is will depend on whichever model you want to follow and just listing them off would be kinda pointless.
Any kind of system where an object doesn't end up exactly where it started is theoretically unstable. Just a matter of how long it takes for it to fall out.

So if you take EA as one of the models, it may work like this:

- Dark energy is pushing up the earth causing what we commonly refer to as gravity occurring on the surface.
- This dark energy kind of curls up and over the edges of the finite plane and kind of swoops up and inward and meets again high over the earth surface - The earth disk a shield so to speak and the dark energy reconnects high above almost like a dome.
- Celestial objects ride the dark energy that is above this 'dome'
- An asteroid is moseying about up there with the other celestial objects but progressively drops lower
- The asteroid ultimately drops low enough that it's now below the dark energy and drops down into our shielded bubble.
- In doing so, it falls down to earth as we observe them today.

What causes the asteroid to move into an unstable path and not other celestial bodies, don't know.
What causes the celestial bodies to remain stable and make the coordinated/predictable movements they do, also don't know.

But would that be the gist for EA as an example?

What causes the asteroid to move into an unstable path and not other celestial bodies, don't know.
What causes the celestial bodies to remain stable and make the coordinated/predictable movements they do, also don't know.

But would that be the gist for EA as an example?

It's less 'what causes,' more just the fact something has to be on an unstable path, something has to be on a more stable path. Honestly you could argue everything's on an unstable path, it's just taking way longer for stars etc to get knocked off; if anything they could be slowly being pushed up, which would have a similar effect.
But otherwise, yep, that's the gist.

The only real question is why it is exclusively asteroids rather than stars that fall, and honestly all that really needs is some justification as to it being easier for stars to form in stable areas, which is a pretty minimal assumption.

The only real question is why it is exclusively asteroids rather than stars that fall, and honestly all that really needs is some justification as to it being easier for stars to form in stable areas, which is a pretty minimal assumption.

Maybe there's like a size/mass 'filter'. If smaller that x size and y mass, instability is assured. And stars form far enough away that by the time they get near the filter they are above the stability threshold and are filtered out and remain stable.

Actually the dome models are much easier because you can just say meteors are pieces of it falling away. No-Dome models, trickier for sure.

Quote from: wise on March 29, 2019, 09:34:59 PM

Did you ever see an asteroid downed in land? I mean in land, not in sky. They are sliding in dome, not falling.

Lonar lake, in India.

This lake is made by a meteor falling down. It even looks like a crater.

It is a lake. You was not there when its falling. It just looks like a crater. There is not a real proof its being a fallen asteroid.