The distance to the stars in FE theory

  • 81 Replies
  • 6365 Views
*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #30 on: October 28, 2019, 10:02:23 AM »
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.

First link refers to the Conference internationale des etoiles fondamentales in 1896, as I have already stated there are known issues in that figure, as more precise observations became available the aberrations became more pronounced, started to be phased out over 50 years ago.

Just for clarity Newcoms procession rate was 5,025.64 arcseconds per tropical century


5,028.796195 arcseconds per century is the figure adopted in 2000

Orders of magnitude in difference.

The current rate of procession is equal to one full precession circle in 25,771.57534 years which is one full circle of 360 degrees divided with 5,028.796195 arcseconds per century.

That is good enough for now, but again as already stated the figures go out of synch, currently the processional rate is increasing very slowly over time.

SLOWLY does not equate to exponential.


You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #31 on: October 28, 2019, 10:04:53 AM »
So it being the "crux", what does this "exponential" movement have to do with anything?

*

Macarios

  • 1896
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #32 on: October 28, 2019, 10:09:14 AM »
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

So, at which elevation and azimuth is Sirius seen from Portland, OR
and at which elevation and azimuth at the same moment from Miami, FL.
(Portland to Miami distance is 4352 kilometers.)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #33 on: October 28, 2019, 10:10:10 AM »
So it being the "crux", what does this "exponential" movement have to do with anything?

Nothing, as it patently is not happening.

But its being posited as a RE fact, which it isn't, dont get me started on the math.
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #34 on: October 28, 2019, 10:10:18 AM »
The crux of the matter is this: the increasing rate of precession is exponential.

No!

The question is about the alleged distance to the stars according to Flat Earthers.

While different Flat Earthers will give different numbers, you claimed that Sirius is 50km above the Earth.

Can you justify this claim or not?

Feel free to give your calculations for “ether refraction” or whatever.

Trying to poke holes in rate of precession compared to Newtonian mechanics, flawed of otherwise is an off topic distraction.

Try to control yourself before accusing other of trolling.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #35 on: October 28, 2019, 10:14:53 AM »
If the mods would be monitoring your messages you would have received a two week ban by now, for trolling.

Once I provided the data from the official RE sources, you understood that your previous posts (i.e., trolling) were debunked.

By now, you are down to this:

SLOWLY does not equate to exponential.

Exponential: increasing at an increasing rate.

Exactly what is happening to the rate of axial precession: it is accelerating at an exponential rate.

"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)."

Now, let us apply this data to Sirius:

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

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #36 on: October 28, 2019, 11:11:25 AM »
Anyone else lost the will to live yet?  There is one thing I do know however (no matter how much Sandokhan wishes to argue about it) and that it that Sirius is definitely not just a few km away. 

Only one word to describe that suggestion - ridiculous!  You come out with claims like that, expect everyone else to accept everything you say and then rattle on about the Earths precession.  Lets make this clear - Nothing to do with it, irrelevant!.

Sirius shows a parallax of just under 0.5" (0.38" to be exact). d=1/p so 1/0.38" = 2.63pc or 8.58 lightyears. A star which is 3.26 lightyears away shows a parallax of 1" (hence the term parallax second) so a star which is just over twice as far away will show a parallax half that of Alpha Centauri for example which is 4.3 lightyears away.  That has been proved, it is the correct answer so just deal with it!

Precession has nothing to with it whether it is exponentially increasing or not.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2019, 11:19:15 AM by Nucleosynthesis »


Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #38 on: October 28, 2019, 11:37:53 AM »
Quote
https://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Stellar-Parallax
Of course that is never shown in any science textbooks because it is wrong!

As for your link about negative parallaxes, that has also been put forward by FEers before and shown not to be related to actual physical angular measurements.  It is purely a statistical result. How could you get a negative angle exactly?

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #39 on: October 28, 2019, 11:55:02 AM »
If the mods would be monitoring your messages you would have received a two week ban by now, for trolling.

Once I provided the data from the official RE sources, you understood that your previous posts (i.e., trolling) were debunked.

By now, you are down to this:

SLOWLY does not equate to exponential.

Exponential: increasing at an increasing rate.

Exactly what is happening to the rate of axial precession: it is accelerating at an exponential rate.

"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)."

Now, let us apply this data to Sirius:

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

Nothing to explain how Sirius is 50km above the Earth. 

Try again.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #40 on: October 28, 2019, 12:00:50 PM »
If the mods would be monitoring your messages you would have received a two week ban by now, for trolling.

Once I provided the data from the official RE sources, you understood that your previous posts (i.e., trolling) were debunked.

By now, you are down to this:

SLOWLY does not equate to exponential.

Exponential: increasing at an increasing rate.

Exactly what is happening to the rate of axial precession: it is accelerating at an exponential rate.

"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)."

Now, let us apply this data to Sirius:

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

No RE sources.

No understanding of the term exponential.

None of the evidence, relates to the opening discussions or even your own claim.

Two week ban for pointing out you dont know how decimal points work

Guilty as charged
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #41 on: October 28, 2019, 12:05:12 PM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

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.


RE sources:

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, yet again, the upper forums.

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #42 on: October 28, 2019, 12:33:26 PM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

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

The topic is about Flat Earthers’ theories.

You made a claim at the beginning of the thread, now you are just  trying to avoid it completely.  What gives?

HOW or WHY is Sirius 50km above the Earth?

Where are your measurements, calculations, reasoning, etc?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #43 on: October 28, 2019, 12:58:11 PM »
The distance from Sirius to Earth cannot be measured in light years, millions of kilometers, thousands of kilometers, or even in the hundreds of kilometers: both the Sun and Sirius are linked/connected by the SAME FIELD, which makes it possible for both these heavenly bodies to precisely keep up with the exponentially increasing rate of precession.

The topic is about Flat Earthers’ theories.

Exactly.

Since both the Sun and Sirius must be connected by the same field, we have two choices:

1. FE - Earth-Sirius distance under 50 km

2. RE - Earth-Sirius distance under 150,000,000 km

Since you are not fully convinced that the surface of the Earth is flat, perhaps I could persuade you to change your mind, and you know what is coming up next: the Tunguska event, the photographs from Lake Ontario, English Channel, and much more.

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #44 on: October 28, 2019, 01:26:36 PM »
The crux

Please explain why the crux is the crux.

Thanks

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #45 on: October 28, 2019, 01:31:41 PM »
The distance from Sirius to Earth cannot be measured in light years, millions of kilometers, thousands of kilometers, or even in the hundreds of kilometers: both the Sun and Sirius are linked/connected by the SAME FIELD, which makes it possible for both these heavenly bodies to precisely keep up with the exponentially increasing rate of precession.

The topic is about Flat Earthers’ theories.

Exactly.

Since both the Sun and Sirius must be connected by the same field, we have two choices:

1. FE - Earth-Sirius distance under 50 km

2. RE - Earth-Sirius distance under 150,000,000 km

Since you are not fully convinced that the surface of the Earth is flat, perhaps I could persuade you to change your mind, and you know what is coming up next: the Tunguska event, the photographs from Lake Ontario, English Channel, and much more.

Finally.  Thank you.

So what field is this, and why is it 50km above a flat earth?

Let’s not start going over photos here.  Plenty of other threads on that.

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #46 on: October 28, 2019, 01:35:23 PM »
I think in "standard" FE theory the sun is around 5000 km away and the stars are somewhat further away than that. The 50km theory is just Sando's and is not really representative.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2019, 01:37:27 PM by kopfverderber »
You must gather your party before venturing forth

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #47 on: October 28, 2019, 01:57:13 PM »
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!
According to Sandy, the sun is much much smaller than people claim, as is Sirius.

Remember, FEers reject large portions of science/reality.

Here are the undeniable facts of science.
Posting a list of numbers is not an undeniable fact of science.
You haven't provided a single citation for these numbers and instead just pulled them out of thin air.

Also, you are just copying from another source.
A source which in no way claims Sirius is less than 50 km from Earth.
Instead it claims that the sun and Sirius are part of a binary star system and that the apparent precision is actually due to the motion of the solar system due to it actually being a binary star system.

If you wish to claim it is an undeniable fact of science, provide valid citations to scientific journals which state (or better yet prove) that it is happening.
Don't just assert it is.
Don't just dump in a bunch of numbers.
Don't just link to some other random website.
And certainly don't link to yourself.

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.
No, we can't. Even if we accept those values as true and accurate and precise, all that shows is that the rate increased. It doesn't show how the rate increased. It doesn't show if it was exponential or some other function.

But it could just as easily be that Newcomb was wrong.

A TOTAL AND COMPLETE DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN ORBITAL MECHANICS.
Pure nonsense. This is nothing more than yet another baseless assertion from you.
You have not substantiated it in any way.

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:
You mean showing the distortion due to the lenses used, but otherwise being 100% consistent with a RE?

Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):
That isn't his data.
That is him being mentioned 4 times.
Regarding precession all it states is that Newcomb needed more research and eventually the value settled on was 50.2564"/yr

There is no indication of his 0.000222" figure.

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).
Following your link I get a page not available error.
Looking http://asa.usno.navy.mil/static/files/2018/Astronomical_Constants_2018.pdf
I get the value 50.280"
Quite different from your claim.
It seems the value you are using is from the past, which has been projected forwards to 2000.

But that gives a change of 0.000236.

Exponential: increasing at an increasing rate.
No, exponential means increasing at a rate that is proportional to the value.
i.e. something of the form y=a^x, where a is a constant.
There are many different was to increase at an increasing rate.
For example, y=x^1.00000000001.
That is not an exponential function. It grows much more slowly than an exponential function.
You can even just have part of a function, for example, y=sin(x), where then between -pi/2 and -pi/2, x is increasing, with the rate increasing between -pi/2 and 0, and then decreasing between 0 and pi/2.

And again, none of that is relevant to the topic at hand as you are yet to show how it relates to your 50 km value.

How do you arrive at your 50 km value?
Is it just a number you think is reasonable?

Also, if you want to try and use all the above data to try and show it, just remember that that data relies upon a round Earth.

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #48 on: October 28, 2019, 02:03:15 PM »
Come on Sandy. Throw some Sagnac math into the "debate".

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #49 on: October 28, 2019, 02:23:31 PM »
Come on Sandy. Throw some Sagnac math into the "debate".

Oh.  Is that going to be the answer to my question?

Never mind.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #50 on: October 28, 2019, 02:33:25 PM »
In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

Exactly, and the link works just fine.

This is the IMPROVED value.

Google search with "rate of precession julian century".

Not only does my reference appear as well (fully accesible), but also the explanation is given as to the difference observed.

It all comes down to the formula used to calculate the precession: the 50.290966 figure uses a more precise formula.


Sure it is A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN 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.


Modern science cannot explain the acceleration of the rate of axial precession, and neither can the RE in this thread.



http://www.saturndaily.com/reports/Saturns_bulging_core_implies_moons_younger_than_thought_999.html

“The moons are migrating away much faster than expected.”

The team also found that Saturn moon Rhea is moving away 10 times faster than the other moons.

Not even Saturn can come to the rescue.


One cannot bring the influence of the planets into the acceleration of the rate of precession, since the distances have not changed, and the mass of Jupiter, as an example, has decreased (and not increased) over time.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/article/space/jupiter%E2%80%99s-gravity-pulls-so-much-matter-planet-growing

The mass of Jupiter is DECREASING.

Heliocentrists have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, and also have to account for these facts:

1. Solar mass is decreasing

2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding

3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing

4. Saturn's moons are receding at an increasing rate

Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.

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.


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.


Now, not only do the RE have to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces, but also to come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #51 on: October 28, 2019, 02:45:50 PM »
In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).
Not according to the source I provided, which is a more recent one.
Again, the value you quote is from a calculation predicting what it would be in 2000.

But as pointed out, all of this irrelevant.
It doesn't help you establish that Sirius is just 50 km from Earth.

You have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate this value and all your talk on precession is just a massive distraction from the issue at hand.

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #52 on: October 28, 2019, 02:49:21 PM »
In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

Exactly, and the link works just fine.

This is the IMPROVED value.

Google search with "rate of precession julian century".

Not only does my reference appear as well (fully accesible), but also the explanation is given as to the difference observed.

It all comes down to the formula used to calculate the precession: the 50.290966 figure uses a more precise formula.


Sure it is A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN 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.


Modern science cannot explain the acceleration of the rate of axial precession, and neither can the RE in this thread.



http://www.saturndaily.com/reports/Saturns_bulging_core_implies_moons_younger_than_thought_999.html

“The moons are migrating away much faster than expected.”

The team also found that Saturn moon Rhea is moving away 10 times faster than the other moons.

Not even Saturn can come to the rescue.


One cannot bring the influence of the planets into the acceleration of the rate of precession, since the distances have not changed, and the mass of Jupiter, as an example, has decreased (and not increased) over time.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/article/space/jupiter%E2%80%99s-gravity-pulls-so-much-matter-planet-growing

The mass of Jupiter is DECREASING.

Heliocentrists have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, and also have to account for these facts:

1. Solar mass is decreasing

2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding

3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing

4. Saturn's moons are receding at an increasing rate

Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.

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.


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.


Now, not only do the RE have to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces, but also to come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.

What does this have to do with anything?

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #53 on: October 28, 2019, 02:51:44 PM »
Come on Sandy. Throw some Sagnac math into the "debate".

Oh.  Is that going to be the answer to my question?

Never mind.

More likely to be Alias effect the way hes steering it.

You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #54 on: October 28, 2019, 02:53:57 PM »
The other source does not benefit from the input of the best experts in the field.

The references I provided explain quite clearly how the formulas are to be used: a more advanced formula will provide the figure I included in my messages.

The distance from Sirius to Earth cannot be measured in light years, millions of kilometers, thousands of kilometers, or even in the hundreds of kilometers: both the Sun and Sirius are linked/connected by the SAME FIELD, which makes it possible for both these heavenly bodies to precisely keep up with the exponentially increasing rate of precession.

Since both the Sun and Sirius must be connected by the same field, we have two choices:

1. FE - Earth-Sirius distance under 50 km

2. RE - Earth-Sirius distance under 150,000,000 km

Since you are not fully convinced that the surface of the Earth is flat, perhaps I could persuade you to change your mind, and you know what is coming up next: the Tunguska event, the photographs from Lake Ontario, English Channel, and much more.

What is the nature of that field? EXACTLY the one mentioned by Newton himself.

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.



*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #55 on: October 28, 2019, 03:00:19 PM »
1. FE - Earth-Sirius distance under 50 km

I'm still confused. How is 50 km calculated?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #56 on: October 28, 2019, 03:02:42 PM »
In one sentence.
State why the the crux is the crux.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #57 on: October 28, 2019, 03:03:57 PM »
Hes also assuming all movement is generated by the axial rotation of the Globe Earth.

Failing to take into account that Sirus is a Binary star, gravitationally unbound from the cluster where it formed. Its moving towards the solar system and will do for tens of thousands of years, it won't be visible in the northern hemisphere in about 4000 years.

Sandy keeps dropping hints towards calendars, so dont be surprised if it moves in that direction.  It's hard for somebody who thinks all of history only goes back 300 years to think in astronomical timescales
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #58 on: October 28, 2019, 03:23:45 PM »
Failing to take into account that Sirus is a Binary star, gravitationally unbound from the cluster where it formed. Its moving towards the solar system and will do for tens of thousands of years, it won't be visible in the northern hemisphere in about 4000 years.

Sure.

Please explain why Sirius does 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.

*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« Reply #59 on: October 28, 2019, 03:42:03 PM »
Failing to take into account that Sirus is a Binary star, gravitationally unbound from the cluster where it formed. Its moving towards the solar system and will do for tens of thousands of years, it won't be visible in the northern hemisphere in about 4000 years.

Sure.

Please explain why Sirius does 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.

That doesn't answer the question as to how you arrived at 50 km. How is this figure calculated?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.