Radar ranging in the Solar System

  • 234 Replies
  • 2160 Views
*

sokarul

  • 16172
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #90 on: November 21, 2019, 02:29:39 PM »
giberish
How many times are you going to post this nonsense? You know I already destroyed you on this and you had to know I would be back to do it again.

EM radiation is quantized. When an electron goes from an excited state to a less exited state aphoton is created. These will usually be in the energy range of X rays and lower. Gamma rays come from nuclear processes. We know this. We know it has a certain wavelength. we know certain wavelengths lead to different colors. Mixing can lead to other colors. We know all this.

People use this to perform various tasks. You already know I use different wavelengths to analyze samples.




See all the different wavelengths and what element it corresponds to? EM radiation is well understood. 
 

Think you are still right?

Come find me at:
http://icpinformation.org/Winter_Conference.html

Until then STFU. You have nothing.

Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

rabinoz

  • 22861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #91 on: November 21, 2019, 02:39:47 PM »
You have just been shown that Kepler FAKED/FUDGED all of his entries in the Nova Astronomia.

It doesn't get much worse than that.

Yet here you are ignoring this crucial evidence, at least as it relates to your own beliefs.

Everything you know about heliocentrism is based on KEPLER'S LIES and FAKED ENTRIES.
No, it isn't!
  • The Solar System of the 1800s was based far more on Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation than on anything Kepler wrote.!
    Kepler's Laws strictly apply to two-body systems where the orbiting body's mass is negligible compared to the central mass.
    The planetary orbits out to Saturn's do approximate Kepler's orbits but by no means exactly.

  • Are you sure that what you call "KEPLER'S LIES and FAKED ENTRIES" are not observations where Tycho Brahe made simple mistakes - as we all do at times.
    Some of these are not so much mistakes in the observation but in using incorrect refraction for astronomical objects near the horizon.
    In particular, he tried to measure the closest distance of Mars to Earth using the parallax from observations just after Mars's rising and just before Mar's setting. These were of necessity very close to the horizon where, as Tycho Brahe was well aware, there was large atmospheric refraction.
    Tycho Brahe did try to measure this refraction first using the Sun and then Jupiter but even his own tables did not agree with each other.

    Hence, while Tycho Brahe could resolve down to one minute of arc, many of his measurements effectively had far more error than that.

    See The great Martian catastrophe and how Kepler fixed it

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 870
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #92 on: November 21, 2019, 03:11:59 PM »
giberish
How many times are you going to post this nonsense? You know I already destroyed you on this and you had to know I would be back to do it again.

EM radiation is quantized. When an electron goes from an excited state to a less exited state aphoton is created. These will usually be in the energy range of X rays and lower. Gamma rays come from nuclear processes. We know this. We know it has a certain wavelength. we know certain wavelengths lead to different colors. Mixing can lead to other colors. We know all this.

People use this to perform various tasks. You already know I use different wavelengths to analyze samples.




See all the different wavelengths and what element it corresponds to? EM radiation is well understood. 
 

Think you are still right?

Come find me at:
http://icpinformation.org/Winter_Conference.html

Until then STFU. You have nothing.

ooh! Spectroscopy! Fun!
Nullius in Verba

*

Stash

  • 3472
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #93 on: November 21, 2019, 03:16:55 PM »


Something about this doesn't seem to fit with reality.

*

rvlvr

  • 1441
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #94 on: November 21, 2019, 09:13:46 PM »
But Tenderloin ain’t nice, man.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #95 on: November 21, 2019, 10:09:13 PM »
Are you sure that what you call "KEPLER'S LIES and FAKED ENTRIES" are not observations where Tycho Brahe made simple mistakes - as we all do at times.

Very sure.

The author of your reference did not do his homework at all.

Here is how Kepler intentionally FABRICATED/FUDGED/FAKED all of his entries in the Nova Astronomia:








Kepler faked/fudged/falsified the entire set of data obtained from Brahe, and used the ellipse to calculate the final entries for his tables.

Kepler FAKED THE ENTIRE SET OF DATA, and announced to the world he got it from a nonexistent elliptical orbit.

The elliptical orbit WAS NOT based on observational astronomical data.

It was simply written in by Kepler.

As such, his book is a work of FICTION.

No science involved.

The observational input is nil.

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

That is why Kepler's work is a total fraud.

Kepler used the elliptical hypothesis to calculate the tables.


That is not the same as computing the Mars-Sun distances from Brahe's observational data (directly from observations).

Moreover the longitudes in Kepler's tables were calculated with the aid of the area law of the ellipse AND NOT from direct observational values.


Since, according to his own words Kepler had no idea of the correct form of the orbital path, HOW COULD HE KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW TO CALCULATE THE TABLES WITH THE AID OF THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS?


“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988). Writing of Donohue’s pathbreaking work in
The New York Times, William Broad (1990) summarized Donahue’s findings
saying that although Kepler claimed to have confirmed the elliptical orbit by
independent observations and calculations of the position of Mars, in fact Kepler
derived the data from the theory instead of the other way around . . .

After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical
."

Kepler faked his entire set of data to match the ellipse.

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''


There is no such thing as an elliptical orbit.




DONAHUE'S CALCULATIONS ARE BASED UPON TYCHO BRAHE'S DATA.

KEPLER'S FAKE ENTRIES RELY ON THE ELLIPSE.


How in the world could Kepler know in advance which geometrical path to use?

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

The only thing Kepler knew in advance was the fact that the circles with epicycles WERE EQUIVALENT TO THE ELLIPSE, and all he had to do is FAKE THE ENTRIES.

He faked all of the entries.




KEPLER MODIFIED THE ENTRIES IN THE FINAL TABLE FOR CHAPTER 53: HE SIMPLY ADJUSTED THEM TO FIT THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS WITH NO OBSERVATIONAL INPUT WHATSOEVER.



For the longitudes, Kepler claimed to have used the vicarious hypothesis: yet, the calculations show he used the area law for the ellipse.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988JHA....19..217D&db_key=AST&page_ind=12&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988JHA....19..217D&db_key=AST&page_ind=16&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

The only sheer work involved was that of faking and replacing the correct entries by fudged entries.

Kepler simply replaced everything with data which suited his purpose.

Is this what you call science?

There was no observational input at all.

None whatsoever.

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

That is why Kepler's work is a total fraud.





Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #96 on: November 21, 2019, 10:40:03 PM »
You are just rejecting reality with no rational basis at all.
Certainly not me
No, certainly you. That is your normal debate tactic. Reject reality and spout mountains of spam. Especially with your favourite brand of nonsense on the Sagnac effect.

Like I said, if you want to discuss your ignorance of the Sagnac effect then do so in a thread on it.

But it doesn't.
But it does. That is the only way to explain what is actually observed.
On the edges you see minimal overlap and thus see the colours.
In the middle there is considerable overlap and you see white.

Meanwhile, your explanation makes no sense at all.

Again, if it was just due to the aperture, you wouldn't need the prism at all, and more importantly, there wouldn't be red or blue on ether side as there is no reason for it to appear there.
The only reason to have red on one side and blue on the other is for refraction or diffraction to occur, and to bend the 2 wavelengths by a different amount, i.e. the mainstream explanation.

Again, repeating the same spam wont help you.
Ignoring the refutations of your claims wont help you.
Instead it just reinforces that you are rejecting reality and don't care about the truth at all.

Listen to Newton:
[/quote]
Fine, lets listen to Newton.
Newton clearly believed in a RE, which rotated and orbited the sun.
So lets listen to Newton and discard all your nonsense.

Don't want to, THEN STOP APPEALING TO NEWTON!

I have derived the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.
You mean you repeatedly failed.

And of course you now resort to the same pathetic off topic spam.

Are you capable of staying on topic for more than 5 posts?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #97 on: November 21, 2019, 10:53:24 PM »
It is very easy to debunk your failed statements.

That is the only way to explain what is actually observed.
On the edges you see minimal overlap and thus see the colours.
In the middle there is considerable overlap and you see white.


Not at all.

We have a double torsion of subquark waves: the colors on the outside and the aether in the middle.

The only reason to have red on one side and blue on the other is for refraction or diffraction to occur, and to bend the 2 wavelengths by a different amount, i.e. the mainstream explanation.

The local-aether model is a fact of science.

Then, the SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE, and we have an alternative explanation, the very one embraced by Newton.

In order to explain refraction, in fact, Newton's Opticks (1704) postulated an "Aethereal Medium" transmitting vibrations faster than light, by which light (when overtaken) is put into "Fits of easy Reflexion and easy Transmission" (causing refraction and diffraction).


You mean you repeatedly failed.

Let's put your word to the test.

2[(v1l1 - v2l2]/c2 = 4AωsinΦ/c2

Proof:






2[(V1L1 + V2L2]/c2)] = 2VL(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2

Proof:

V1 = VcosΦ1
V2 = VcosΦ2
L1 = LcosΦ1
L2 = LcosΦ2


Dr. Massimo Tinto, Principal Scientist at CALTECH, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)


Formula for the orbital SAGNAC EFFECT derived by Dr. Massimo Tinto, from CALTECH: 2VL

Formula for the rotational SAGNAC EFFECT derived by Dr. Daniel Shaddock, from CALTECH: 4Aω/c2


The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).



Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.




Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #98 on: November 21, 2019, 10:57:29 PM »
It is very easy to debunk your failed statements.
Is that why you have never managed to and instead just resort to repeating the same spam and repeatedly trying to derail the topic?

You don't actually bother to address anything that is on topic and instead just repeat the same refuted spam on the Sagnac effect and provide one line of nonsense as if it is an explanation.

Why is red on one side, blue on the other and white in the middle?
Why is a prism needed to produce this?
Why does reducing the gap so you don't have significant overlap produce a spectrum instead?

You have no explanation for any of that.
Meanwhile, mainstream science actually explains it and shows the index of refraction depends upon the wavelength.

*

Stash

  • 3472
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2019, 10:58:25 PM »
But Tenderloin ain’t nice, man.

Don't be capping on the Tenderloin, that's where the action is.

*

rabinoz

  • 22861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #100 on: November 21, 2019, 11:42:15 PM »
You are just rejecting reality with no rational basis at all.
Stop being lazy and start using the "Quote" function!
Quote from: sandokhan
<< Irrelevant to the topic, which is "Radar ranging in the Solar System"! >>
Instead it splits each individual beam coming into it.

But it doesn't.
Incorrect! This isn't too bad an illustration:

But the spectrum should be continuous and not made of discrete bands as in that diagram.

Let's not bother much with Newton because in his time they had little idea of the nature of light!
Quote from: sandokhan
Here is another experiment carried out at Cal State Long Beach, where the WHITE LIGHT  is seen coming out of the prism:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160312043114/http://web.csulb.edu/~percept/kyotocolor.html

Fine, that seems as it should be.
What looks to the eye like white light can be made from three discrete wavelengths as modern TV's and other displays do.
A wide beam of three discrete wavelengths, red, green and blue, enter the prism and on exiting the prism the take a short distance separate enough to show the individual colours.

Quote from: sandokhan
In your hare-brained analysis you are assuming A CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT.
The velocity of light is close enough to being a constant between the earth and the Moon, Venus, Mercury or the Sun except for a slight reduction of rarely more than 0.03% in the atmosphere, see Refractivity of Air.

Quote from: sandokhan
However, as you have been reminded previously, the speed of light is VARIABLE.
Who's ever denied that "the speed of light is VARIABLE"? But not from almost 300,000 km/sec down to 50 m/s or whatever!

Quote from: sandokhan
Listen to Newton:
Let's not because in Newton's time little was know about the nature of light.
Newton did estimate the refraction due to the atmosphere from astronomical refraction observations but it wasn't until almost a century later that "fairly accurate measurements first became available a century later, through the work of Arago and Biot."

Quote from: sandokhan
You seem to think that you know more than every astronomer, physicist, mathematician and everybody else ever born, but you don't.

Perhaps I do.
What total rubbish caused by an incurable case of the dreaded Dunning-Kruger-Syndrome! Doesn't it get a tad uncomfortable sitting on the "Peak of you-know-what ::)"!

Quote from: sandokhan
You, on the other hand, have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.
Remember this?
Certainly but there's nothing in there to prove that the Sun is 600 m in diameter so I'll delete all irrelevant material!
Quote from: sandokhan
If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.
Nothing in that, whether the Earth is orbiting the Sun or not could possibly be construed to mean that "a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO"
Quote from: sandokhan
Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.
Whether the GPS satellites ARE (or are) NOT registering/recording the missing or not (missing) ORBITAL SAGNAC bears no relation to whether or not "the Earth is not orbiting the Sun."

Your powers of logical deduction are appalling!
Quote from: sandokhan
Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.
What total utter garbage! You claimed that the Sun was 15 km from Earth and 600 m in diameter long before you distorted anything I said!

Would you please explain in detail your logic in deriving the values in:
Quote from: sandokhan
Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Reply #296 on: June 04, 2016, 10:38:17 PM »
SUN/BLACK SUN/MOON/SHADOW MOON/JUPITER: some 600 meters in diameter (we could choose 1000 sacred cubits, 636 meters)

MERCURY: some 30 meters in diameter

And here long before I was around:
Quote from: sandokhan
Alternative Flat Earth Theory « Reply #44 on: April 24, 2010, 07:22:59 PM »
In order to avoid situations like this ( http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38120.0 ) the FAQ must be modified to include the latest and best proofs provided in the alternative FAQ, flat earth maps, orbit/size of the sun, movements of the satellites, and much more.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The size (diameter) of the Sun, and the Earth - Sun distance in the FAQ must be modified to read: diameter of the Sun - 600 meters (to be elegant, we use 1000/PHI ~618 meters), Earth - Sun distance 10 - 12 km. HERE ARE THE PROOFS ::), real time videos of the ISS/Mercury Sun transits, also the ISS Moon transit.

FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no? « Reply #7 on: February 22, 2010, 03:03:43 AM »
FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no? « Reply #36 on: February 27, 2010, 03:13:34 AM »

Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #101 on: November 22, 2019, 12:02:03 AM »
Quote
However, as you have been reminded previously, the speed of light is VARIABLE

Yes it is variable, but not in the way or to the extent that Sandy insists. As light passes through mediums of different density (air to glass or air to water or vice versa) then the speed of light will change. That's what we call refraction. 

By the way just out of interest dos anyone actually understand all these fantastic equations that Sandy keeps on posting?  If so could they please explain so I can try and understand them!  I'm happy that Sandy is a mathematical genius but not all of us are.  If he actually understands them then perhaps he could explain them in PLAIN English.

*

Stash

  • 3472
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #102 on: November 22, 2019, 12:29:58 AM »
It is very easy to debunk your failed statements.

It's hard to escape the fact that if your calculations are correct, Venus would be able to fit on a flatbed truck:


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #103 on: November 22, 2019, 01:12:34 AM »
Question: why is rabinoz answering the responses provided to jackblack? And he is answering them PERSONALLY, as we can see very clearly.

Is this not proof that we are dealing with one and the same person?

Has there ever been an instance where one user answered the messages meant for someone else, in such a precise manner?


But not from almost 300,000 km/sec down to 50 m/s or whatever!

Everything depends on the DENSITY OF THE ETHER.

Nothing in that, whether the Earth is orbiting the Sun or not could possibly be construed to mean that "a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO"

Whether the GPS satellites ARE (or are) NOT registering/recording the missing or not (missing) ORBITAL SAGNAC bears no relation to whether or not "the Earth is not orbiting the Sun."


Not according to your own message.

You EQUATED the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity.

Let me remind you of the very precise facts.


You, on the other hand, have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.

Remember this?

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.


You have just proven that indeed the diameter of the Sun is some 600 meters.


It's hard to escape the fact that if your calculations are correct, Venus would be able to fit on a flatbed truck

The Sun, stars, planets are much smaller in FET; they have to be.

Remember that the diameter of the Sun has to be less than the distance between the tropics divided by 180, in fact less than 1.5 km (total annual solar precession).

So, obviously that the planets are even smaller than that.

*

Stash

  • 3472
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #104 on: November 22, 2019, 01:27:11 AM »
It's hard to escape the fact that if your calculations are correct, Venus would be able to fit on a flatbed truck

The Sun, stars, planets are much smaller in FET; they have to be.

Remember that the diameter of the Sun has to be less than the distance between the tropics divided by 180, in fact less than 1.5 km (total annual solar precession).

So, obviously that the planets are even smaller than that.

But can Venus really be so small that it could be loaded up onto a flatbed truck and hauled away?

Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #105 on: November 22, 2019, 01:29:16 AM »
Quote
Remember that the diameter of the Sun has to be less than the distance between the tropics divided by 180, in fact less than 1.5 km (total annual solar precession).

So, obviously that the planets are even smaller than that.

Since you are so confident that you are right about all that you say.  Why don't you compile an article or paper on it and try and approach Nature magazine.  As I'm sure you know very well, and to quote from their website:

Quote
Nature is the world’s foremost international weekly scientific journal and is the flagship journal for Nature Research. It publishes the finest peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology on the basis of its originality, importance, interdisciplinary interest, timeliness, accessibility, elegance and surprising conclusions.

Seems like the natural place for you to challenge the views of the mainstream scientific community which you are so keen to do. Show them all how they have been wasting their careers up to now and prove to them who is the real boss!
« Last Edit: November 22, 2019, 01:33:33 AM by Nucleosynthesis »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #106 on: November 22, 2019, 01:37:31 AM »
But can Venus really be so small that it could be loaded up onto a flatbed truck and hauled away?

You'd be surprised at just how little you know about Venus.

Ammizaduga Venus tables which show that the orbit followed by Venus in the past was markedly different from that observed in the present.

Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky) has a great deal to
say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C.
Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":

     "The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document
     of early Babylonian astronomy.  These tablets, of which we
     possess several copies of different origin, report the dates
     of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during
     a period of 21 years...

     "Since the first effort at explanation of Archibald Henry
     Sayce in 1874, these figures have challenged the wit of a
     score of experts of astronomy and cuneiform philology.
     (Father Franz Xavier) Kugler (1862 - 1929), a recognized major
     authority on Babylonian and biblical astronomy, chronology and
     mythology, opposed the contention of those who claim that
     these documents must be dismissed as nonsense."  [because they
     do not conform to present orbital patterns for Venus]

 "Let me give some typical passages from the tablet:

 
     "In the month of Sivan, on the twenty fifth day, Ninsianna
     [that is, Venus] disappeared in the east; she remained absent
     from the sky for two months, six days; in the month Ulul on
     the 24'th day, Ninsianna appeared in the West - the heart of
     the land is happy. In the month Nisan on the 27'th day,
     Ninsianna disappeared in the West; she remained absent from
     the sky for seven days; in the month Ayar on the third day,
     Ninsianna appeared in the east - hostilities occur in the
     land, the harvest of the land is successful.


     "The first invisibility mentioned in these lines involves a
     disappearance in the east, an invisibility of two months, six
     days, and a reappearance in the west.  This seems to be a
     superior conjunction. The second invisibility involves a
     disappearance in the west, an invisibility of seven days, and
     a reappearance in the east.  This seems to be an inferior
     conjunction.  Most of the data in groups one and three on the
     tablet are of this form.  But the lengths and spacings of
     these invisibilities have a certain irregularity about them,
     and they do not conform to the manner in which Venus moves at
     present.

     "The data given in the second group on the tablet do have
     regularity - even too much regularity to be believable, - but
     they do not conform to the present state of affairs
     either.....


'How explain these observations of the ancient astronomers, modern astronomers and historians have asked. Were they written in a conditional form ("If Venus disappeared on the 11th of Sivan . . .") ? No, they were expressed categorically.
The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months.

The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months. "The invisibility of Venus at superior conjunction is given as 5 months 16 days instead of the correct difference of 2 months 6 days," noted the translators of the text, wonderingly."



If the tables are true, then both the attractive law of gravity AND Kepler's third law of motion are completely wrong; if they have been falsified, then we have another extraordinary proof of how the "ancient" history has been forged.


VENUS' ARGON-36 AND ARGON-40 AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938506#msg1938506

VENUS' CARBON DIOXIDE AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938793#msg1938793

VENUS' NEON KRYPTON AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938826#msg1938826

VENUS AND EARTH SPIN-ORBIT RESONANCE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939336#msg1939336


*

Stash

  • 3472
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #107 on: November 22, 2019, 01:49:00 AM »
But can Venus really be so small that it could be loaded up onto a flatbed truck and hauled away?

You'd be surprised at just how little you know about Venus.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised, I know very little about Venus. But are you really saying that Venus is this big:


*

rvlvr

  • 1441
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #108 on: November 22, 2019, 02:01:49 AM »
I think I have had bigger meals than that.

I dub myself "World Eater".

Oh, and Go 'Bama! Roll Tide!
« Last Edit: November 22, 2019, 02:05:01 AM by rvlvr »

*

rabinoz

  • 22861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #109 on: November 22, 2019, 02:15:36 AM »
Question: why is rabinoz answering the responses provided to jackblack? And he is answering them PERSONALLY, as we can see very clearly.

Is this not proof that we are dealing with one and the same person?
No it is "not proof that you are dealing with one and the same person"

Now start using the "Quote" function provided!

Quote from: sandokhan
But not from almost 300,000 km/sec down to 50 m/s or whatever!

Everything depends on the DENSITY OF THE ETHER.
Oh really? What is "the DENSITY OF THE ETHER" near the Moon and near Venus and how did YOU measure it?
Please show the properties of your imaginary ether that might cause c to fall to 50 m/s.

Quote from: sandokhan
Nothing in that, whether the Earth is orbiting the Sun or not could possibly be construed to mean that "a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO"

Whether the GPS satellites ARE (or are) NOT registering/recording the missing or not (missing) ORBITAL SAGNAC bears no relation to whether or not "the Earth is not orbiting the Sun."


Not according to your own message.

You EQUATED the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity.
No, I never "EQUATED the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity."
I would never do such a thing because one simply cannot equate angular velocity, with dimensions Time-1, with  surface gravity, with dimensions Length •Time-2.

Since you are talking of an adsurdity I'll ignore the rest.

Quote from: sandokhan
You, on the other hand, have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.
No, I did not! Nothing I wrote could possibly come up with a "diameter of the Sun is 600 meters".

Quote from: sandokhan
You have just proven that indeed the diameter of the Sun is some 600 meters.
Stop talking utter balderdash! I showed that the Sun's surface gravity was 274 m/s2 anything else is your own twisted logic!

Quote from: sandokhan
It's hard to escape the fact that if your calculations are correct, Venus would be able to fit on a flatbed truck

The Sun, stars, planets are much smaller in FET; they have to be.

Remember that the diameter of the Sun has to be less than the distance between the tropics divided by 180, in fact less than 1.5 km (total annual solar precession).
And why would that be,  pray tell?

There's not the slighteat connection  between the "diameter of the Sun" and "the distance between the tropics divided by 180".

If you disagree, prove it!

And I suggest that one day you leave your dungy basement and watch a sunrise and note that the angular size of that Sun is roughly 0.5°.
Now whatever the shape of the earth that has to be more than a few thousand kilometers away, let's say > 5000 km - it would be more like 15,000 km on the usual flat Earth model.

At noon when the sun is near overhead the sun, when observed through a filter to protect your eyes you will find that the angular Suze of the Sun is still about 0.5°.

But how would this real life, easily made observation, fit with your 600 m diameter Sun only 15 km above the Earth?

The obvious answer is that it simply does not fit your model in the slightest!

Now stop pretending that you know more than every astronomer from Aristarchus of Samo to say William Herschel, Pierre-Simon Laplace and Georges Lemaître - you've proven that you don't.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #110 on: November 22, 2019, 02:34:22 AM »
No it is "not proof that you are dealing with one and the same person"

Now start using the "Quote" function provided!


You responded VOLUNTARILY to someone's else responses.

The fact that you now have to rely on the "quote function" means you haven't got a clue as to what is happening, yet you claim to know reality.

No, I never "EQUATED the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity."

But you did, and I have you on record.

No, I did not! Nothing I wrote could possibly come up with a "diameter of the Sun is 600 meters".

But it is everything you wrote, as I shall immediately prove to you.

I showed that the Sun's surface gravity was 274 m/s2 anything else is your own twisted logic!

Not at all.

YOU EQUATED THE ORBITAL ANGULAR VELOCITY WITH THE SOLAR SURFACE GRAVITY.

You did this to yourself.

Are you calling THE MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, "twisted logic"?

Now, it is my pleasure to let you know that you did indeed prove that a(sun) = ZERO.

You actually have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.

Remember this?

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta



In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.




Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.


You have just proven that indeed the diameter of the Sun is some 600 meters.


Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #111 on: November 22, 2019, 02:43:57 AM »
This is interesting. The Schwarzschild radius is the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse. In other words it is effectively the radius at which a body of a given mass effectively becomes a black hole.

We have measured the mass of the Sun very precisely and if you insert that mass into the equation for calculating the Schwarzschild radius (=2GM/c^2) you get 2,816 metres or 2.816km.  Obviously that gives a diameter of just over 5.5km

So that makes Sandys assertion of 600 metres not just wrong but actually physically impossible by quite a considerable amount.  A star cannot be compressed so much that it becomes smaller than its own Schwarzschild radius.

*

Shifter

  • 11360
  • ASI
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #112 on: November 22, 2019, 03:00:26 AM »
A star cannot be compressed so much that it becomes smaller than its own Schwarzschild radius.

That is literally the definition of a black hole  ::)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
Quote
Any object whose radius is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is called a black hole. The surface at the Schwarzschild radius acts as an event horizon in a non-rotating body (a rotating black hole operates slightly differently). Neither light nor particles can escape through this surface from the region inside, hence the name "black hole".

Black holes can be classified based on their Schwarzschild radius, or equivalently, by their density. As the radius is linearly related to mass, while the enclosed volume corresponds to the third power of the radius, small black holes are therefore much more dense than large ones. The volume enclosed in the event horizon of the most massive black holes has an average density lower than main sequence stars.

*

rabinoz

  • 22861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #113 on: November 22, 2019, 03:05:26 AM »
But can Venus really be so small that it could be loaded up onto a flatbed truck and hauled away?

You'd be surprised at just how little you know about Venus.

Ammizaduga Venus tables which show that the orbit followed by Venus in the past was markedly different from that observed in the present.

Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky) has a great deal to
say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C.
Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":
I'm amazed that you dare link the names of Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky in that way, as though Carl Sagan supports Immanuel Velikovsky's ridiculous ideas!
Quote
Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky by Charles Ginenthal

Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky's unconventional theories of the origin of the solar system have generated immense interest and bitter controversy. One of his best know critics has been Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornel University.
Look at a little of what Carl Sagan says about Immanuel Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision:


Quote
Carl Sagan’s criticisms of Worlds in Collision

Sagan’s “Ten Problems” summarized
Introduction
The Uniformitarians and the Catastrophists
The Method of Concordances in Myth and Legend
Velikovsky’s Principal Hypothesis
  • Problem I. The Ejection of Venus by Jupiter
  • Problem II. Repeated Collisions among the Earth, Venus, and Mars
  • Problem III. The Earth’s Rotation
  • Problem IV. Terrestrial Geology and Lunar Craters
  • Problem V. Chemistry and Biology of the Terrestrial Planets
  • Problem VI. Manna Problem
  • VII. The Clouds of Venus
  • Problem VIII. The Temperature of Venus
  • Problem IX. The Craters of Venus
  • Problem X. The Circularization of the Orbit of Venus and Nongravitational Forces in the Solar System

I think I'll ignore Velikovsky’s interpretations of the "Venus tablets of Ammizaduga",  thank you.

Quote from: sandokhan
     "The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document of early Babylonian astronomy.  These tablets, of which we
     possess several copies of different origin, report the dates of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during
     a period of 21 years...

But I've no doubt that any of those you are quoting, including Velikovsky, from would consider you quite unbalanced of mind to even suggest that the sun is only 600 m in diameter and only 15 km above the Earth.

*

rabinoz

  • 22861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #114 on: November 22, 2019, 03:11:41 AM »
No it is "not proof that you are dealing with one and the same person"

Now start using the "Quote" function provided!


<< Already answered! >>
Now you provide evidence that the Sun's diameter is 600 m and it is 15 km above the Earth because you claimed that long before I said anything about it!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #115 on: November 22, 2019, 03:19:23 AM »
to even suggest that the sun is only 600 m in diameter

You PROVED this to be true.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU have just provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.


I think I'll ignore Velikovsky’s interpretations of the "Venus tablets of Ammizaduga",  thank you.

You can't ignore these very well-known facts of astrophysics:

VENUS' ARGON-36 AND ARGON-40 AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938506#msg1938506

VENUS' CARBON DIOXIDE AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938793#msg1938793

VENUS' NEON KRYPTON AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938826#msg1938826

VENUS AND EARTH SPIN-ORBIT RESONANCE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939336#msg1939336

THE UPPER AGE LIMIT OF VENUS IS 2000 YEARS.

A fact proven directly, and profusely illustrated with bibliographical references.

The problem with Venus’ atmosphere is argon-36. Argon-36 is a primordial product from ancient times. “The atmosphere of Venus contains as much argon-36 as you would expect to find in the planet’s original atmosphere” (according to M. McElroy, Pioneer experimenter in the Washington Post, Dec. 11, 1979, p. A6). If Venus were 4.6 billion years old, its Argon-36 would have decayed to a level comparable to that found on the Earth. Venus has hundreds of times as much Argon-36 as the Earth. In fact, it has what appears to be exactly the amount of Argon-36 that Venus would have if it were born in the last few thousand years.

Neglecting for a moment the effect of trace gases in Venus’ atmosphere, CO2, CO, and O2 are nonreactive with each other and we therefore expect a fairly rapid transition (on geologic time scales) of the CO2 atmosphere to one dominated by CO and O2. CO2 would disappear from the upper atmosphere within a few weeks, and from the entire middle atmosphere in a few thousand years.

John and Walter Gould specifically state:

“Pioneer Venus showed that the atmosphere as a whole consists of about 98% carbon dioxide, 1-3% nitrogen with a few parts per million . . . of helium, neon, krypton and argon. Although the amounts of neon, krypton, and argon are small they indicate very much greater amounts of primordial neon, krypton, and argon than those found in the Earth’s atmosphere. This is currently raising problems concerning the established view of the origin of the solar system.”

Anthony Feldman further informs us in this general context:

“A recent discovery about the composition of the Venusian atmosphere has cast doubt on the popular theory accounting for the formation of the solar system. The theory suggests that the Sun and planets formed at the same time [4.6 billion years ago].

“The inner planets – Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars – are thought to be small because the Sun drew their lighter constituents away. If this idea is correct, the closer a planet is to the Sun, the less likely there is to be lighter gases in its atmosphere. But in the atmosphere of Venus, the opposite is true. In particular, there seems to be 500 times as much argon gas and 2,700 times as much neon as in the atmosphere of Earth.

“So far, scientists cannot explain why these gases were not drawn away from the planet during the birth of the solar system . . . Further discoveries about Venus may soon force a revision of the most basic ideas about how the Sun and planets formed.”

In terms of their noble gases – neon, krypton and argon, Venus is unique. While a
stable solar system, wherein if Venus was born in its present orbit, it should have less of these gases than the Earth. It has 2,700 times as much neon and krypton exhibits a similar tendency.293

There is no explanation in terms of a stable solar system that accounts for the ratios of these noble gases.

*

rvlvr

  • 1441
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #116 on: November 22, 2019, 03:21:21 AM »
So, if we wanted, we could blow it out of the sky with, for example, a 155mm howitzer?

That is ridiculous. How can anyone think that?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2019, 03:40:55 AM by rvlvr »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #117 on: November 22, 2019, 03:40:21 AM »
Ovid, Metamorphoses (transl. F. J. Miller), Book II:

"The chariot of the sun, driven by Phaethon, moved "no longer in the same
course as before." The horses "break loose from their course" and "rush aimlessly, knocking
against the stars set deep in the sky and snatching the chariot along through uncharted ways."
The constellations of the cold Bears tried to plunge into the forbidden sea, and the sun's chariot
roamed through unknown regions of the air. It was "borne along just as a ship driven before the
headlong blast, whose pilot has let the useless rudder go and abandoned the ship to the gods and
prayers."

"The earth bursts into flame, the highest parts first, and splits into deep cracks, and its moisture is
all dried up. The meadows are burned to white ashes; the trees are consumed, green leaves and
all, and the ripe grain furnishes fuel for its own destruction. . . . Great cities perish with their
walls, and the vast conflagration reduces whole nations to ashes."

"The woods are ablaze with the mountains. . . . Aetna is blazing boundlessly . . . and twin-peaked Parnassus. . . . Nor does its chilling clime save Scythia; Caucasus burns . . . and the heaven-piercing Alps and cloud-capped Apennines."
The scorched clouds belched forth smoke. Phaethon sees the earth aflame. "He can no longer
bear the ashes and whirling sparks, and is completely shrouded in the dense, hot smoke. In this
pitchy darkness he cannot tell where he is or whither he is going." "It was then, as men think, that the peoples of Aethiopia became black-skinned, since the blood was drawn to the surface of their bodies by the heat."
"Then also Libya became a desert, for the heat dried up her moisture. . . . The Don's waters
steam; Babylonian Euphrates burns; the Ganges, Phasis, Danube, Alpheus boil; Spercheos' banks
are aflame. The golden sands of Tagus melt in the intense heat, and the swans . . . are scorched. .

. . The Nile fled in terror to the ends of the earth . . . the seven mouths lie empty, filled with dust;
seven broad channels, all without a stream. The same mischance dries up the Thracian rivers,
Hebrus and Strymon; also the rivers of the west, the Rhine, Rhone, Po and the Tiber. . . . Great
cracks yawn everywhere. . . . Even the sea shrinks up, and what was but now a great watery
expanse is a dry plain of sand. The mountains, which the deep sea had covered before, spring
forth, and increase the numbers of the scattered Cyclades."

Phaeton is the Morning Star.

This is the world-wide cataclysm that Venus and Typhon (Mercury) can cause at the end of a world age.

*

rabinoz

  • 22861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #118 on: November 22, 2019, 04:19:06 AM »
to even suggest that the sun is only 600 m in diameter

You PROVED this to be true.
<< Nothing that I posted or you posted PROVES that the sun is 600 m in diameter >>
So no, I did not PROVE "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter" and neither have you so stop talking rubbish.

The sun simply cannot be 600 m in diameter and only 15 km above the Earth!

Quote from: sandokhan
I think I'll ignore Velikovsky’s interpretations of the "Venus tablets of Ammizaduga",  thank you.

You can't ignore these very well-known facts of astrophysics:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938826#msg1938826

VENUS AND EARTH SPIN-ORBIT RESONANCE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939336#msg1939336

THE UPPER AGE LIMIT OF VENUS IS 2000 YEARS.
I can note them but they do not PROVE that "THE UPPER AGE LIMIT OF VENUS IS 2000 YEARS"!

But what if it did? The topic is "Radar ranging in the Solar System" and the age of Venus is quite irrelevant to that!

Quote from: sandokhan
Anthony Feldman further informs us in this general context:

“A recent discovery about the composition of the Venusian atmosphere has cast doubt on the popular theory accounting for the formation of the solar system. The theory suggests that the Sun and planets formed at the same time [4.6 billion years ago].
So what? The topic is "Radar ranging in the Solar System" and "doubt on the popular theory accounting for the formation of the solar system" is quite irrelevant to that!

Quote from: sandokhan
<< All quite irrelevant to "Radar ranging in the Solar System". >>
Stop wasting time by posting with totally irrelevant material and start posting something on topic!


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #119 on: November 22, 2019, 04:32:23 AM »
So no, I did not PROVE "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter"

You sure did, so it's too late to file a complaint now.

The sun simply cannot be 600 m in diameter

According to you, IT SURE IS!

You PROVED, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that a(sun) = ZERO.

It's your own doing, you should be proud of your achievement.

You actually have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.

Remember this?

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta



In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.




Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.


You have just proven that indeed the diameter of the Sun is some 600 meters.