The distance to the stars in FE theory

In FE theory the stars are described as 'luminous elements' which are apparently a lot closer than RE theory maintains. I would like to ask the FE side what the term 'luminous element' actually means, what causes them to be luminous (because I'm assuming you don't attribute it to nuclear fusion), and just how far away do you think these luminous elements are.

What is your evidence?

Earth-Sirius distance, under 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

Earth-Sirius distance, under 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

The only thing in those links to indicate that 50 km is the assertion at the start.

How did you arrive at the value of 50 km?

So if Sandokhan is correct and Sirius is just 50km from Earth, then why is it then that after typing in 'Sirius distance' into Google I get over 400,000 results (non of which are links to the Flat Earth Society) which tell me that Sirius is actually around 8.6 lightyears from Earth?

If its 3 against over 400,000 the laws of statistics say I should go with the 8.6 lightyears distance.

If its 3 against over 400,000 the laws of statistics say I should go with the 8.6 lightyears distance.

Truth isn't decided by popular vote.

What you need to focus on is the evidence and justification for it.

We know Sirius is 8.6 light years away from Earth due to the observed stellar parallax.

However, FEers typically claim that celestial objects are 5000 km above Earth, as if you go 5000 km away from a point directly below, it appears at an altitude of 45 degrees.
However that relies upon assuming Earth is flat.

'Since mainstream physics doesn't know what composes 95% of the universe, you would expect them to be at least 95% wrong about any given question."

M. Mathis

We know Sirius is 8.6 light years away from Earth due to the observed stellar parallax.

So those 400,000+ websites are right for a reason then. 

I don't see what the composition of 95% of the Universe has got to do with knowing the distances of the nearest stars. I understand that many on the FE side will say that there is no way that the stars can be so distant if the Earth was flat.  But it isn't and we know that.  We have done for many centuries and long before any Societies for FE theory were formed. So that is one reason that rather negates any argument that the FE side have about how near they say the stars are.  You can make yourself believe in anything if you try hard enough, but you cannot change the truth.

Sirius is an A0 type main sequence star which is larger than the Sun. Using my own spectroscopic equipment I have recorded the spectrum of Sirius myself and confirmed it.

Just to add, dark matter (whose physical properties are currently a topic of research) is only thought to comprise 85%, not 95% of the Universe. Not knowing something in science is not a sign of weakness is it.  It is the unknown that forms the motivation for study. Just because mainstream science/cosmology/astronomy does not agree with the view of FE Theory, that is no reasons to conclude it is wrong. We are allowed to have different opinions about the Universe aren't we?

Earth-Sirius distance, under 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

Wow. Sirius is in the stratosphere (stratoplane?)?

How has no one but you noticed this?  It should be pretty easy to work out even from the ground by triangulating from locations only a few miles apart.

triangulation

Then, you'd be making the same mistake that many other FE have committed (using triangulation to find the distance to some heavenly body).

An allowance must be made for ether refraction, however.

The experiment carried out by Martin Ruderfer proved the first NULL RESULT in ether drift theory:

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

The density of ether increases greatly at higher altitudes.


Spectroscopy methods errors:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489346.html#msg1489346

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html


If you do not know what 95% of the universe consists of, then you have no idea about any of the distances to the stars commonly quoted: the redshift could be caused by tired light, or by the ether drift.


Positively Sirius must be very near to Earth, since it is IMMUNE to the acceleration of the rate of precession:


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662


In FE theory that would be under 50 km.

In RE theory the distance is under 150,000,000 km.

'Since mainstream physics doesn't know what composes 95% of the universe, you would expect them to be at least 95% wrong about any given question."

M. Mathis

So I'll take that as you have absolutely no justification for your claim and are just pulling numbers out of thin air.

If you do not know what 95% of the universe consists of, then you have no idea about any of the distances

That is not how anything works, and is a blatant misrepresentation of what is known.
Just because you don't know everything, that doesn't mean that you can't know anything.

P.S. The distance to Sirius doesn't use redshift.

Positively Sirius must be very near to Earth

I agree, at an astronomical scale.
8.6 light years is very near. Especially when you realise that the milky way is over 100 000 light years across.

So that agrees with a RE quite well.

In FE theory that would be under 50 km.

In RE theory the distance is under 150,000,000 km.

And again, you are pulling numbers from no where.

Do you have any justification for these numbers at all?

This is all fascinating stuff I'm sure. However it doesn't explain how a star which is larger than the Sun can exist just 50km away. Does that make sense to anyone? Even in the centre of globular clusters the stars aren't that close!
 

This is all fascinating stuff I'm sure. However it doesn't explain how a star which is larger than the Sun can exist just 50km away. Does that make sense to anyone? Even in the centre of globular clusters the stars aren't that close!
 

He cant explain it, its all word salad, selective referencing, self referencing and poor maths

triangulation

Then, you'd be making the same mistake that many other FE have committed (using triangulation to find the distance to some heavenly body).

An allowance must be made for ether refraction, however.

The experiment carried out by Martin Ruderfer proved the first NULL RESULT in ether drift theory:

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

The density of ether increases greatly at higher altitudes.


Spectroscopy methods errors:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489346.html#msg1489346

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html


If you do not know what 95% of the universe consists of, then you have no idea about any of the distances to the stars commonly quoted: the redshift could be caused by tired light, or by the ether drift.


Positively Sirius must be very near to Earth, since it is IMMUNE to the acceleration of the rate of precession:


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662


In FE theory that would be under 50 km.

In RE theory the distance is under 150,000,000 km.

50km?
Thats a 30min drive on the hwy.

However it doesn't explain how a star which is larger than the Sun can exist just 50km away.

In FE theory, the stars are much smaller than the Sun.


All of you here have not done their homework.

Here are the undeniable facts of science.



"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

And the data is this:

Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula to get it to match the increasing rate of precession that was observed leading up to his era.

The “constant” amount was .000222 arc seconds per year.

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


A TOTAL AND COMPLETE DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN ORBITAL MECHANICS.


The mass of the Sun/Moon/planets has not increased (we all know that the mass of the Sun is actually constantly decreasing).

The orbital distances are the same (and the Moon is constantly receding from the Earth).


Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.


Sirius does NOT undergo precession at all:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

However it doesn't explain how a star which is larger than the Sun can exist just 50km away.

In FE theory, the stars are much smaller than the Sun.

Just because FE theory says something like this doesn't make it right does it.  That is just a claim.  A claim that is made without as far as I can tell, any real world based evidence to back it up.

Anything 50km up would fall pretty fast to the horizon as you move away from it
directly under it is 90 degrees above you
at 50km its at 45 degrees
100km it is at 22.5
500km it is under 6 degrees.

So as far as he is concerned, only people at about 500km radius would be able to see it at all! Anyone further than that would have its view obscured by anything taller than a small tree.

As usual Sandy reads up to a point that appears to match his hypothesis and stops reading.

Precession is most certainly not increasing exponentially.

They pick Sirius as it looks odd, brightest star in the sky, 5th closest to earth, also moving towards earth currently and is circumpolar which makes it less subject to the wobble in the axial rotation of the earth.

But once again Sandy I concede your argument, the earth is a globe thanks for clearing that up.

Sirius has a declination of -16D so it is only circumpolar from locations on Earth with a latitude = or south of 74S which means it is only visible all night and all year from Antarctica.

The RE are denying reality.

The rate of axial precession is accelerating exponentially.

This is an undeniable fact of science.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

The ether provides the distortion/refractive indices necessary to view all of the stars on a FE.

Here are some star trails portraying that type of distortion:

Since you are clearly so interested in the nature of the Earths precession, here is a slightly less lengthy (and arguably clearer) explanation of the nature and cause of axial precession than your links typically provide.

http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/lec-precession.html

I note that some of E CHENGs star trail images are taken with very short (virtually fisheye) f/length lenses (14mm for example) which will inevitably create distortions of true paths.  Nothing to do with 'ether distortion' or refractive indexs. Just optical distortion caused by a very wide angle lens.

Of course you can chose to interpret that as something else if it suits you. And any denial which is going on is coming from your side of the table I would suggest.

You don't seem to understand what we are discussing here.

The rate of axial precession is increasing exponentially (the rate is accelerating).

Please read very carefully:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776108#msg1776108

Then, we apply these facts to Sirius:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

The RE are denying reality.

The rate of axial precession is accelerating exponentially.

This is an undeniable fact of science.

So your flat earth model rotates on its axis 

Precession is cyclical.

Can you show me the angular observations you are using to derive that it is exponentially growing?

You don't seem to understand what we are discussing here.

I don't think anyone understands what you are discussing here. You go of on all sorts of tangents to 'prove' one of your obscure points.  Say whatever you like but please don't patronise me. I'm only saying what I believe in just the same way as you are. 

Quote

You don't seem to understand what we are discussing here.

I don't think anyone understands what you are discussing here. You go of on all sorts of tangents to 'prove' one of your obscure points.  Say whatever you like but please don't patronise me. I'm only saying what I believe in just the same way as you are.

He does this a lot.

The Newcombe Formula is from 1895, Tables of the Sun, which predicted precession for the four inner planets. It was phased out nearly 50 years ago as it wasn't terribly accurate.

The tables he is showing is from the binary research institute. If he can he will move the conversation more towards the Alias effect, then present his real premis which is there are two suns, the other being the black sun that causes eclipses.

The Binary research figures are gibberish, they are applying an outdated formula to a huge time period, most precessional  forulas can cover a 300 year period before needing corrections, due to random variations in the precession itself.



 

The acceleration of the rate of axial precession is a fact of science (RE science).

Please read up:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776108#msg1776108

Then, we apply these facts to Sirius:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032


It is very easy to prove that, before 1700 AD, the Earth did not ever undergo any axial precession movement:

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

The acceleration of the rate of axial precession is a fact of science (RE science).

Please read up:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776108#msg1776108

Then, we apply these facts to Sirius:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032


It is very easy to prove that, before 1700 AD, the Earth did not ever undergo any axial precession movement:

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

First two links refer to the Binary Research Insitute, not RE science. You should quote your sources.

The latter is word salad.

Quoting yourself does not make the reference stand up.

If you are correct in your predictions show me the angualr observations used to confirm.

Before 1700 AD, the Sothic Cycle, ancient Egyptians  used Sirius as its key stone over 6000 years ago.

You are trolling the upper forums.

I have already displayed the data (yes, RE science):



"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

The data comes from the Astronomical Almanac.

The crux of the matter is this: the increasing rate of precession is exponential.

Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):

http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/pdf/ProcJournees2008.pdf (pg 75)

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

Data for 2000 (AA):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=OvTjLcQ4MCQC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=astronomical+almanac+2000+precession+50.290966%22&source=bl&ots=lnlt1jmDYz&sig=d9xLTsLP-xb83lOIv5C0Xb0FVls&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0JDlpMfMAhUI7RQKHVwGBdgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=astronomical%20almanac%202000%20precession%2050.290966%22&f=false

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.

You are trolling the upper forums.

I have already displayed the data (yes, RE science):



"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

The data comes from the Astronomical Almanac.

Once again, this is not RE science.

You have cut and pasted graphs, from another site and are using them out of context.

http://binaryresearchinstitute.com/bri/calculations/precession-data-analysis/

This is not mainstream science.

You post the same thing endlessly, it doesn't make it right, not even close.

Your theory regarding the easter calculation, your third link, has been debunked numerous times, yet still its rolled out to diffuse and distract from what you originally claimed.

Yet im the one who gets warnings 

The crux of the matter is this: the increasing rate of precession is exponential.

Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):

http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/pdf/ProcJournees2008.pdf (pg 75)

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

Data for 2000 (AA):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=OvTjLcQ4MCQC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=astronomical+almanac+2000+precession+50.290966%22&source=bl&ots=lnlt1jmDYz&sig=d9xLTsLP-xb83lOIv5C0Xb0FVls&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0JDlpMfMAhUI7RQKHVwGBdgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=astronomical%20almanac%202000%20precession%2050.290966%22&f=false

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


Your theory regarding the easter calculation, your third link, has been debunked numerous times

Provide a link. You won't be able to.

And that is because it cannot be debunked.

The GAUSS EASTER FORMULA is the most accurate astronomical formula in existence.

You are trolling the upper forums, as usual, that is why you are receiving warnings.