Strongest FE Evidence

  • 759 Replies
  • 6256 Views
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #690 on: December 04, 2019, 12:57:17 PM »
Quote
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.


What total crap!

You can't even explain HOW A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER WOULD STAY IN PLACE NEXT TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.


The evidence of such interactions was captures by a NASA spacecraft, in orbit around Saturn some 886 miles from the sun on average.

No, that spacecraft does not register/record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Therefore anything put by Nasa in orbit is flying below the Dome, it cannot go beyond the formidable ether shield/barrier.

If you disagree, explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


Its not proof of a flat earth.

It's proof that jet engines use the SCHAUBERGER-DEPALMA EFFECT.

Once again you make reference to LISA.
What is the purpose of LISA?
And where does it performed its duty?
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #691 on: December 04, 2019, 01:00:02 PM »
Plenty of proof for gravity exists,

At the present time of your life, you are UNABLE to explain how a single gallon of water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

Truly pathetic!

Until you do so, you cannot claim that the water stays curved.

Take a look at yourself, asking now for emissions from Jupiter.

What is your explanation for the emissions of gravitons from an iron or a nickel atom?

Have you ever thought about these things? Of course not.

I have posted the proof on how Jupiter emits radiation to Earth, using Nasa's own newly discovered process.

YOU HAVE NOTHING!

You are not able to explain how a single ounce of water stays on the surface of a sphere.


Dr. Neal Graneau, PhD, Oxford University
Dr. Peter Graneau, PhD, University of Nottingham

RAILGUN EXPERIMENT DISPROVES RELATIVISTIC ELECTROGMAGNETISM

Dr. Peter Graneau's railgun recoil experiment was published in the Journal of Physics D (IOP article/Institute of Physics):

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3727/20/3/023










Imagine this, to claim that a body of water stays curved, yet no explanation on how a single ounce of that water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #692 on: December 04, 2019, 01:16:18 PM »
Has anyone ever told you that you tend to overcomplicate things just a tad... O yes sorry... I see lots of people already have.  Silly me!

*

mak3m

  • 585
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #693 on: December 04, 2019, 01:24:34 PM »
Has anyone ever told you that you tend to overcomplicate things just a tad... O yes sorry... I see lots of people already have.  Silly me!

That's good old Sandy

Over complicates everything, check out his BD derivation, it's just simple pythagorean maths but hes gone over the top and I dont think he can remember why  ;D

Hence he never runs numbers through it and runs away
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #694 on: December 04, 2019, 01:31:34 PM »
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

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.

I have already answered your previous questions, so now you are spamming.
I will asked once more
Once again you make reference to LISA.
What is the purpose of LISA?
And where does it performed its duty?
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #695 on: December 04, 2019, 01:35:42 PM »
You have plenty of options at your disposal to satisfy your curiosity.

One of them lies here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1983786#msg1983786 (four consecutive messages)

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #696 on: December 04, 2019, 01:40:46 PM »
At the present time of your life, you are UNABLE to explain
Again, At the present time of your life, you are UNABLE to explain how a single gallon of water stays in place on the outer surface of a plate.
Truly pathetic!

Again, At the present time of your life, you are UNABLE to explain how the bottom of Toronto is hidden.
Truly pathetic!

Take a look at yourself, asking now for emissions from Jupiter.
What is your explanation
Take a look at yourself.
You are the one demanding explanations, yet providing none yourself.

If you want the lack of a mechanism to be a problem for the RE, you need to provide one yourself.

So far you have appealed to loads of "evidence" which relies upon a RE orbiting the sun, but still failed to provide a mechanism.

Again, what is causing this emission of bosons from Jupiter?

Until you provide that, you have nothing.
If you do manage to provide that, you will still have nothing as it will just raise another question.

But more importantly, if you want to claim Earth is flat, you need to deal with the bottom of Toronto being hidden.
The simple explanation is that the surface of the water is curved which obstructs the view, but that would mean Earth isn't flat.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #697 on: December 04, 2019, 01:50:50 PM »
Let's dig a hole and fill it with a single gallon of water, both on a flat earth surface, and then on a spherical earth surface.

FE: we dig the hole, fill it with water, no further explanations necessary

But I have provided more than enough, in fact a complete theory, on how terrestrial gravity works on a FE.

So you are lying.

Here is the link:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84051.msg2221091#msg2221091

FLAT EARTH TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY A - Z

RE: NOTHING AT ALL! You can't explain how a single molecule of water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

You are the one demanding explanations, yet providing none yourself.

I have provided everything.

Here on Earth.

Black Sun.

Now, you want Jupiter.

Here is the MAGNETIC ROPE FLUX TUBE theory from Nasa:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5111619/

Until you provide that, you have nothing.

NO!

You have to provide a mechanism for the gravitons here on Earth!

On the surface!

Can you explain how gravitons are being emitted by the iron/nickel core? YOU CANNOT.

I, at least, have a working theory on how that works on Jupiter (the bosons that is).

There will be no more questions from you, since you cannot explain how the flux of gravitons even originates from an iron atom.

You must explain how attractive gravity works.

On the surface of your hypothetical spherical Earth.

Unless you can do so, you can never, ever, claim that water stays curved.


Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #698 on: December 04, 2019, 01:58:34 PM »
Never mind “1 gallon of water”, you are citing ORBITAL SPACECRAFT such as Cassini and LISA in the “evidence” for your ideas.

These things cannot exist in your model at all, or at the very least would have to be so completely different that any discussion of them with respect to your proposals is completely meaningless.

How do you justify the logic behind this?

*

mak3m

  • 585
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #699 on: December 04, 2019, 02:12:42 PM »
We could debate Sagnac again I suppose.

Sorry when I say debate, i mean Sandy copy pastas wall of text, includes a number of basic errors in the math, and runs away from Jack's questions on an even larger scale than his BD formula in this thread.

Sandy is quite happy to use the heliocentric models existence as evidence that it indeed doesnt exist.

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

*

sokarul

  • 16209
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #700 on: December 04, 2019, 02:19:34 PM »
Let's dig a hole and fill it with a single gallon of water, both on a flat earth surface, and then on a spherical earth surface.

FE: we dig the hole, fill it with water, no further explanations necessary

But I have provided more than enough, in fact a complete theory, on how terrestrial gravity works on a FE.

So you are lying.

Here is the link:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84051.msg2221091#msg2221091

FLAT EARTH TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY A - Z

RE: NOTHING AT ALL! You can't explain how a single molecule of water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

You are the one demanding explanations, yet providing none yourself.

I have provided everything.

Here on Earth.

Black Sun.

Now, you want Jupiter.

Here is the MAGNETIC ROPE FLUX TUBE theory from Nasa:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5111619/

Until you provide that, you have nothing.

NO!

You have to provide a mechanism for the gravitons here on Earth!

On the surface!

Can you explain how gravitons are being emitted by the iron/nickel core? YOU CANNOT.

I, at least, have a working theory on how that works on Jupiter (the bosons that is).

There will be no more questions from you, since you cannot explain how the flux of gravitons even originates from an iron atom.

You must explain how attractive gravity works.

On the surface of your hypothetical spherical Earth.

Unless you can do so, you can never, ever, claim that water stays curved.


Gravitons are string theory....still.

Bent space time keeps water to the ground. Jump, and you defeat gravity.

You can’t explain how iron emits a wavelength of 259 nm why do you want to know how it emits gravitons?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

rabinoz

  • 23015
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #701 on: December 04, 2019, 03:01:31 PM »
Though I am not a scientist

That much is obvious, in addition you are troling this thread.
And obviously neither are you! A real scientist would either believe the paper quote or state where it goes astray.

You cherry-pick little bits from your references and then come to conclusions that deny even the basis of your reference.
One case in point is Su, C.-C. (2001). A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave. The European Physical Journal C. 21. 701-715. 10.1007/s100520100759.
In this local-ether model paper Su bases his work entirely a rotating Earth orbiting the distant Sun.
Yet you somehow it to "prove" that the Earth is stationary and does not orbit the Sun but were that the case Su's whole paper falls apart!

Quote from: sandokhan
and the other that the earth does not orbit the sun by virtue of a couple of lines in a previous post!

That is all it takes to prove that GPS satellites do not register the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
No, it does not!
Dr Su, Ching-Chuan does not accept Special Relativity partly because it fails to handle the Sagnac effect correctly.
This is no surprise because the Sagnac effect involves non-inertial reference frames.
Had Su accepted Einstein's General Relativity, as G. B. Malykin insist is needed to properly analyse the Sagnac effect he might have thought differently.
You do, I hope remember, this paper
Quote from: G. B. Malykin
The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations
Abstract: Different explanations for the Sagnac effect are discussed. It is shown that this effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of velocity composition and that it can also be explained adequately within the framework of general relativity. When certain restrictions on the rotational velocity are imposed, the Sagnac effect can be attributed to the difference in the time dilation (or phase change) of material particle wave functions in the scalar (or correspondingly vector) gravitational potential of the inertial forces in a rotating reference system for counterpropagating waves. It is also shown that all the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect, which are unfortunately sometimes found in scientific papers, monographs and textbooks, are wrong in principle, even though the results they yield are accurate up to relativistic corrections in some special cases.
You might find that "the relativists" accept General Relativity and so have no need of Dr Su's "local-ether model".

So stop talking poppy-cock about the relativists being forced to accept the local-ether model. You've no idea what you're talking about!
Quote from: sandokhan
You might as well call frauds the physicists over at CalTech, not to mention ESA.
No, we do not call them frauds but you implicitly claim that those Caltech and ESA physicists are wrong.
Quote from: sandokhan
How many times does an answer need to be run by you before it dawns on you?
How many times do you have to be told that a stationary Earth that is not orbiting the Sun destroys the whole basis of the LISA system!
Quote from: sandokhan
Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case << Please note this, Mr Sandokhan!  The  orbiting case! NO orbit, no 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
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Are you able, scientifically, to understand what I have just posted?
Sure, but are you capable of understanding the implications of what you are claiming?
If YOU what accept the implications of what you have just posted you must accept that the Earth orbits the Sun!
Quote from: sandokhan
Here are the direct quotes:
<< No need to repeat these ad nauseam! We've seen them. >>

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.
But what you seem incapable of understanding is that the whole LISA system is based on The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swinging about the Sun at 30 km/sec.

To base your ideas on LISA YOU must accept that the LISA array and implicitly the Earth orbit the Sun at about km/sec.
If you don't accept that your whole argument falls flat but if you do accept that you MUST accept that the Earth orbits the Sun - you cannot have it both ways.

Quote from: sandokhan
As for the discoidal Sun, here is your pal proving exactly this point:
Stop your continued lying! You change the parameters that I used for totally incorrect ones that no astrophysicist would accept.
Quote from: sandokhan
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
No it does not as YOU have been told numerous times but you seem totally incapable of learning anything or even believing you own reference.
Didn't you notice this bit, "And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity."

So, as usual, you are totally incorrect and intentionally deceptive with you claim "Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT".
Did you forget this:
There are other ways to calculate gsun!
For example I could use that value of G given by Rick Bradford or better the "official one" of 6.67430 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 and
the Sun's physical parameters from your authority on such matters, Phillips A.C. in his "The physics of stars" (Wiley,1994), Table 1.2:


He also kindly shows the equation to use (though we knew thatm didn't we?):

So gsun = (6.67430 x 10-11 x 1.99 x 1030)/(6.96 x 108)2 = 274.2 m/s2 - funny that!

Bye bye Mr Spammer!
And please note that it is based on, the Sun's physical parameters from your authority on such matters, Phillips A.C. in his "The physics of stars" (Wiley,1994), Table 1.2!

And did you forget this post:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quote from: sandokhan
M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:

Yes, if you do it correctly "Everything works out fine".
You wrote that
    M = 1.989 x 1030,
    G = gr2/m(r) or g = G.m(r)/r2,
    R = 700,000,000 m (695,510,000 m is more accurate) - implicitly in "Using P(700,000,000) = . . . . . ".
and Rick Bradford used G = 6.67 x 10-11 N.m2/kg2.

So simply solve those for g = 6.67 x 10-11 x 1.989 x 1030/695,510,0002 = 274.25 m/s2 using R = 695,510,000 m.
And  "Everything works out fine"!

So stop wasting everybody's time with this repeated spam!
Quote from: sandokhan
This is the third time, today, where I have answered those specific questions.
<< And got it wrong every time? >>
If you are unable to follow scientific papers, or to understand them, use the CN. Here you are spamming this thread.
Well, you are clearly unable to understand the implications of scientific papers so, as usual, you are continually spamming this thread.

But understand these simple things, Mr Sandokhan:
  • I did not prove that the sun is discoidal' YOU attempted to do so and failed!
  • Dr Su, Ching-Chuan does not prove the Earth to be stationary. Your misinterpretation of Dr Su, Ching-Chuan paper attempts to but fails!
  • The LISA system does not prove that the Earth is stationary.  Your misinterpretation of it attempts to but fails!
Bye-bye and please stick to the truth in future!

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #702 on: December 04, 2019, 03:04:40 PM »
Plenty of proof for gravity exists,

At the present time of your life, you are UNABLE to explain how a single gallon of water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

Truly pathetic!

Until you do so, you cannot claim that the water stays curved.

Take a look at yourself, asking now for emissions from Jupiter.

What is your explanation for the emissions of gravitons from an iron or a nickel atom?

Have you ever thought about these things? Of course not.

I have posted the proof on how Jupiter emits radiation to Earth, using Nasa's own newly discovered process.

YOU HAVE NOTHING!

You are not able to explain how a single ounce of water stays on the surface of a sphere.


Dr. Neal Graneau, PhD, Oxford University
Dr. Peter Graneau, PhD, University of Nottingham

RAILGUN EXPERIMENT DISPROVES RELATIVISTIC ELECTROGMAGNETISM

Dr. Peter Graneau's railgun recoil experiment was published in the Journal of Physics D (IOP article/Institute of Physics):

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3727/20/3/023










Imagine this, to claim that a body of water stays curved, yet no explanation on how a single ounce of that water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.
Currently, you are unable to provide any evidence for your astonishing claim the sun is a paltry 600meters in diameter.

*

Sunset

  • 726
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #703 on: December 04, 2019, 03:06:46 PM »
Sandokhan, I've noticed how much you love digging your hole. I've lost count of how many holes you've dug, in this thread alone.

But to answer your question, the explanation is the collective mass of the earth pulls on the mass of each individual water molecule, thus pulling the water into the hole. The combined mass of the planet creates a gravity field which is strongest at the surface, just like our moon does. What more is there to explain???????
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 03:35:44 PM by Sunset »

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #704 on: December 04, 2019, 03:28:16 PM »


Example:



At a higher altitude the laevorotatory longitudinal strings have a greater than normal rate of vibration, while the pressure of the dextrorotatory strings decreases.

At the higher altitude, the antigravitational strings have a greater effect on the air inside the plastic bottle; at the lower elevation, the dextrorotatory receptive vortices of the atoms of air inside the container will be activated to a greater extent, practically causing the plastic bottle to implode, absorbing all of the available aether in the sealed bottle.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2037796#msg2037796

Really?
The KISS answer (keep it simple stupid) Is:
The Air pressure at 14,000 feet, is less than air pressure at 1,000 feet, the plastic bottle can’t hold against it, the bottle  collapses. no gibberish required.
P.S.
Do to gravity; the air pressure is greater at lower altitudes.
This increase in air pressure, is evidence of gravity.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #705 on: December 04, 2019, 04:03:15 PM »
You have plenty of options at your disposal to satisfy your curiosity.

One of them lies here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1983786#msg1983786 (four consecutive messages)

I was asking for your thoughts, in the simplest of terms.
From what you put it out, I see that we disagree, on how it works and what it's for.
The what it is for, would be good starter.

The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

rabinoz

  • 23015
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #706 on: December 04, 2019, 05:25:21 PM »
Let's dig a hole and fill it with a single gallon of water, both on a flat earth surface, and then on a spherical earth surface.

FE: we dig the hole, fill it with water, no further explanations necessary
Really?
Quote from: sandokhan
But I have provided more than enough, in fact a complete theory, on how terrestrial gravity works on a FE.
No, you have provided no more than a hypothesis "on how terrestrial gravity works on a FE" but:
  • You have never provided experimental evidence that your hypothesis is correct.
  • The Earth is not flat - that is just one more of your unproven assumptions!
     
Quote from: sandokhan
You are the one demanding explanations, yet providing none yourself.
I have provided everything.
Here on Earth. Black Sun.
That's not an explanation and you have provided no credible evidence that a "Black Sun" even exists!
Quote from: sandokhan
Now, you want Jupiter.
Here is the MAGNETIC ROPE FLUX TUBE theory from Nasa:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5111619/
That has nothing to do with gravitation! Try reading and understanding the paper for a change! Look at even this bit of the abstract:
Quote from: A. W. Smith, corresponding author C. M. Jackman, and M. F. Thomsen
Magnetic reconnection in Saturn's magnetotail: A comprehensive magnetic field survey
Abstract

Reconnection within planetary magnetotails is responsible for locally energizing particles and changing the magnetic topology. Its role in terms of global magnetospheric dynamics can involve changing the mass and flux content of the magnetosphere. We have identified reconnection related events in spacecraft magnetometer data recorded during Cassini's exploration of Saturn's magnetotail. The events are identified from deflections in the north‐south component of the magnetic field, significant above a background level. Data were selected to provide full tail coverage, encompassing the dawn and dusk flanks as well as the deepest midnight orbits.
There is no mention of gravity of gravitation in the whole paper!

Quote from: sandokhan
Until you provide that, you have nothing.
NO!
You have to provide a mechanism for the gravitons here on Earth!
On the surface!
I/we do not have to because as yet gravitons are no more than the hypothesised "energy carriers" of gravitational waves in a Quantum mechanical theory of gravitation.

Quote from: sandokhan
Can you explain how gravitons are being emitted by the iron/nickel core? YOU CANNOT.
See above!
Quote from: sandokhan
I, at least, have a working theory on how that works on Jupiter (the bosons that is).
No you do not have "a working theory on how that works on Jupiter". All you have is a worthless unverified hypothesis.
Quote from: sandokhan
There will be no more questions from you, since you cannot explain how the flux of gravitons even originates from an iron atom.
See above!
Quote from: sandokhan
You must explain how attractive gravity works.
On the surface of your hypothetical spherical Earth.
Done and did numerous times!
If you refuse to accept Einstein's General Relativity that explains what we call the gravitational force as an inertial force that's your problem, not mine!

Quote from: sandokhan
Unless you can do so, you can never, ever, claim that water stays curved.
Incorrect! That water is curved is simply an observation based on:
  • Objects, be they ships, buildings, mountains or even the Sun becoming hidden by curved water as in:
    If the earth were flat I can't see how the sun (and moon, planets and stars) could appear to be hidden "behind something" and slowly rise up top first as in this video (click anywhere, it links to a video):

    An then the sun sets near the west with the bottom disappearing first:

    Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm
           
    Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm
    The Sunrise video is from the Black Sea, the Sunset photos are from North Queensland.

  • The dip angle to the horizon increases predictably with increased altitude and this is easily observed.
    FAQ:: The Flat Earth Society answers it this way:
    Quote from: The Flat Earth Society FAQ
    What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
    There are several readily apparent proofs of the planets flatness. The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth. The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case. There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes. We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space! One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?

    That claims that The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth.

    But there is plenty of evidence that the horizon falls below "eye-level" (meaning the local horizontal) as the altitude of the observer increases.

    Here is just one example:

    Flat Earth? Mountains rising to meet eye-level. Andrew Eddie

    Andrew Eddie found that, from Flaxton Gardens (418 m above sea-level), Mount Coolum (208 m above sea-level) lines up with the horizon.
    This makes it certain that the horizon is below the local horizontal.

    You seem to believe a NASA paper and the papers on LISA, so assume a time-lapse from a NASA satellite is equally acceptable ::):

    Moon and Earth from EPIC on DSCOVR

    That seems to verify that:
    • Water (the oceans) are most definitely curved!
    • The Earth most certainly seems to be a rotating Globe.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 07:57:37 PM by rabinoz »

*

rabinoz

  • 23015
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #707 on: December 04, 2019, 09:54:36 PM »
Plenty of proof for gravity exists,
I have posted the proof on how Jupiter emits radiation to Earth, using Nasa's own newly discovered process.
So what? That has nothing to do with gravitation!
Quote from: sandokhan
YOU HAVE NOTHING!
You are not able to explain how a single ounce of water stays on the surface of a sphere.
No, "YOU HAVE NOTHING!" You just repeat the same old nonsense.
Quote from: sandokhan
Dr. Neal Graneau, PhD, Oxford University
Dr. Peter Graneau, PhD, University of Nottingham
RAILGUN EXPERIMENT DISPROVES RELATIVISTIC ELECTROGMAGNETISM
Dr. Peter Graneau's railgun recoil experiment was published in the Journal of Physics D (IOP article/Institute of Physics):
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3727/20/3/023
No it doesn't! The velocities in the rail gun are far too low for relativistic effects to be even slightly significant.
You might read Galilean Electrodynamics 1 . 93-95 ( 1992 ) 93 On the Mechanism of Railguns by Andre Koch Torres Assis (pdf)

Quote from: sandokhan
<< Answered repeatedly!  >>
What on Earth have rail guns to do with the shape of the Earth?
Now the topic is "Strongest FE Evidence" so stop all this irrelevant blabbering about rail guns etc and post some "FE Evidence".

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #708 on: December 04, 2019, 10:15:13 PM »
how iron emits a wavelength of 259 nm


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36931.msg919169#msg919169 (the tremendous mistakes committed by both Rutherford and Bohr)

The Rydberg formula for the spectral emission lines of atomic hydrogen is an effect of the aether vortex theory of atoms, and cannot be linked with an impossible hypothesis created by N. Bohr, who NEVER demonstrated the energy source for the orbiting electrons.

In point, Bohr suggested a means preventing the atom exploding when charges neutralise. Although the concept of a central positively charged nucleus surrounded by orbiting negatively charged electrons seemed to remove the acceptance problems in Thomson's model, explaining the theory of octaves by deception, it won some academic acceptance. Many found the model very difficult to use, having inherent real world animation problems. By 1912, Rutherford's education, his acceptance of the Bohr construct and his subsequent experiments on thin metal foils, led him to introduce this construct as his revolutionary atomic model; where the negative electrons orbit the positive nucleus. On paper, the static atomic model seems to satisfy the chemist's bonding requirements, placing the bonding electrons in the atom's outer orbital shell. Unfortunately, as Chemical theory promoted the fact of an indivisible atom, Rutherford's atomic model won popular appeal through default, due to the fact that the daily news carried various headlines stating in bold type, 'Rutherford splits the atom.' Because Chemistry got it so wrong, gullible people assumed that Rutherford's other claims must be right, and therefore, electrons do orbit the nucleus. Enthusiastically, the youth of the day accepted the assumption as an assertion of fact, and with these preconditioned beliefs, many knowledge viruses spread and mutated.

More details here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1830498#msg1830498

I was asking for your thoughts, in the simplest of terms.


But what you seem incapable of understanding is that the whole LISA system is based on The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swinging about the Sun at 30 km/sec.

How many times do you have to be told that a stationary Earth that is not orbiting the Sun destroys the whole basis of the LISA system!


LISA is a huge interferometer: since the cost runs into the billions of euros, the very best scientists were assembled to provide the theoretical calculations.

And then, EVERYTHING CHANGED!

FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE SAGNAC, THE PHYSICISTS AT CALTECH AND ESA REALIZED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MUCH LARGER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.

LISA rotates around its own axis and then around the Sun. This is the hypothesis.

But in heliocentrism, the Earth is supposed to do the very same thing.

Since the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much larger than the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT, we know now that the GPS satellites do not register/record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Then, THE EARTH IS STATIONARY!

That is why Dr. C.C. Su and many other relativists have immediately been forced to accept the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL.

No other way out.



The Air pressure at 14,000 feet, is less than air pressure at 1,000 feet, the plastic bottle can’t hold against it, the bottle  collapses. no gibberish required.
P.S.
Do to gravity; the air pressure is greater at lower altitudes.
This increase in air pressure, is evidence of gravity.


Can't be air pressure.

WHY DOESN'T A SIMPLE SCALE THEN RECORD THE 2000 LBS. PRESSURE?

You still have to explain attractive gravity.

You see, you just accepted what was written on wikipedia as truth, and then came back here and repeated it.


But to answer your question, the explanation is the collective mass of the earth pulls on the mass of each individual water molecule, thus pulling the water into the hole. The combined mass of the planet creates a gravity field which is strongest at the surface, just like our moon does. What more is there to explain?

HOW DOES THE EARTH PULL THE WATER MOLECULE?

YOU LEFT OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL PART!

YOU HAVE NOTHING!

EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM!!!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #709 on: December 04, 2019, 10:17:44 PM »
you are unable to provide any evidence for your astonishing claim the sun is a paltry 600meters in diameter.

But I have already provided the answer four times.

Which means you are trolling this thread.

How many times does an answer need to be run by you before it dawns on you?


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.


Are you able, scientifically, to understand what I have just posted?

Here are the direct quotes:







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

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

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


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 formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ

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)


As for the discoidal Sun, here is your pal proving exactly this point:

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.


This is the fourth time, today, where I have answered those specific questions.

If you are unable to follow scientific papers, or to understand them, use the CN. Here you are spamming this thread.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #710 on: December 04, 2019, 10:32:40 PM »
You have never provided experimental evidence that your hypothesis is correct.

BUT I HAVE!

The missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, the ALLAIS EFFECT, the DEPALMA EFFECT, the exact formula for the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, the two STREAMS OF PARTICLES WHICH MAKE UP THE MAGNETIC FIELD, AND MUCH MORE.

The Earth is not flat - that is just one more of your unproven assumptions!

Then, explain how an explosion which took place in Tunguska was seen from a distance of 5,200 km from London, INSTANTANEOUSLY!

YOU HAVE NOTHING AT ALL!

YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER STAYS IN PLACE NEXT TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE!

Then, my claim IS TRUE!

That has nothing to do with gravitation!

But it does with the explanation on how the plasma flux does occur on Jupiter.

I/we do not have to because as yet gravitons are no more than the hypothesised "energy carriers" of gravitational waves in a Quantum mechanical theory of gravitation.

NO!

YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE BUT GRAVITONS!

FEYNMAN PROVED THAT MUCH.

No explanation on how "mass bends space time" forthcoming.

That is why Feynman understood that the only way out is something which must include the gravitons.


SO, YES, YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER!

No you do not have "a working theory on how that works on Jupiter". All you have is a worthless unverified hypothesis.

Not at all. Don't you understand?

Now, even NASA agrees that there are magnetic plasma ropes between Jupiter and Earth and every planet.

If you refuse to accept Einstein's General Relativity that explains what we call the gravitational force as an inertial force that's your problem, not mine!

Einstein NEVER explained how mass affects space time.

He provided NOTHING AT ALL.

No mechanism.

You can no longer use inertia.

The electrodynamic Hamiltonian of a particle in ZPF (zero point energy field/ether) was obtained for the first time in 1994, and was published in the Physical Review A:

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.678

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf

Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force

Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff
Phys. Rev. A 49, 678

Bernhard Haisch

Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory
Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik


You have no EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR TGR!

I HAVE DEBUNKED EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR CLAIMS.

No TGR for you anymore.

Now, explain attractive gravity!

That water is curved is simply an observation based on:

EXPLAIN TO YOUR READERS HOW WATER STAYS CURVED!

EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM!

YOU CANNOT.

Then, YOU GOT NOTHING AT ALL!

NOT EVEN A WORTHLESS ASSUMPTION OR HYPOTHESIS!

No it doesn't! The velocities in the rail gun are far too low for relativistic effects to be even slightly significant.
You might read Galilean Electrodynamics 1 . 93-95 ( 1992 ) 93 On the Mechanism of Railguns by Andre Koch Torres Assis (pdf)


You haven't done your homework on this subject have you now?

DR. NEAL GRANEAU DESTROYED THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED BY A. TORRES RIGHT HERE:

More details, including an analysis of other physicists' response to the experiment:

https://archive.org/stream/NewtonianElectrodynamics/Newtonian%20Electrodynamics#page/n0/mode/1up  (pg. 169-172)

See also:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00N15PDF/V00N15ISS.pdf

What on Earth have rail guns to do with the shape of the Earth?

It proves that TGR, General Relativity, IS COMPLETELY FALSE!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #711 on: December 04, 2019, 11:06:33 PM »
Andrew Eddie found that, from Flaxton Gardens (418 m above sea-level), Mount Coolum (208 m above sea-level) lines up with the horizon.
This makes it certain that the horizon is below the local horizontal.


You must be dreaming.



Tallest building in Oshawa: Summit Place, 64.5 meters


CURVATURE: 184 METERS

Distance Grimsby - Oshawa: 97 kilometers

THE COMPUTED VISUAL OBSTACLE FOR THE OSHAWA PHOTOGRAPH IS 200 METERS.

That is, from an altitude of 170 meters (Grimsby), over a distance of 97 km, nothing under 200 m could be seen from Oshawa.

There is no curvature whatsoever between Grimsby and Oshawa.

No refraction formula is going to help you with this one.


EXPLAIN THIS.

MUSKEGON - RACINE/MILWAUKEE

Distance Muskegon - Milwaukee: 84.7 miles = 135.5 km

Curvature = 360 meters

VISUAL OBSTACLE: 1.31 KILOMETERS, from an altitude of 3 meters, right on the beach






Tallest building in Milwaukee: 183 meters

Tallest building in Racine: 40 meters

"Mosier told FOX6 News he took the photo with his Samsung Galaxy S7 — using a ten-second exposure and ISO of 400. He indicated he could see lights flashing on the tops of buildings with his naked eye."

"The lights appeared to stretch from Kenosha, Wis. on the south to south Milwaukee on the north. At times, Racine, Wis. was so brilliant that a lighthouse or a navigational aid flashed on the horizon as it if was 10 miles off shore."

https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2012/05/the_lights_of_milwaukee_seen_t.html


1310 METERS - 40 METERS = 1270 METERS (1.27 KM) TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR


EXPLAIN THE MISSING 1270 METERS.



AERIAL VIEW OF KENOSHA, WI:



Tallest building: Kenosha National, 25 meters

DISTANCE MUSKEGON - KENOSHA: 91 miles = 145.6 km

VISUAL OBSTACLE: 1.5 KM = 1,500 METERS

"The lights appeared to stretch from Kenosha, Wis. on the south to south Milwaukee on the north. At times, Racine, Wis. was so brilliant that a lighthouse or a navigational aid flashed on the horizon as it if was 10 miles off shore."


Moon and Earth from EPIC on DSCOVR

That seems to verify that:
Water (the oceans) are most definitely curved!
The Earth most certainly seems to be a rotating Globe.


You are bamboozling your readers with CGI!

EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM FOR A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER!

What, I can't hear you.

NO EXPLANATION FORTHCOMING FROM YOU?

IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THE PRESENCE OF A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER ON THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERICAL EARTH, CERTAINLY YOU NO LONGER CAN EXTRAPOLATE YOUR FAILURE TO OCEANS.

THE GPS SATELLITES DO NOT RECORD/REGISTER THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Then the Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.

Very direct proof.

Which means you haven't got the faintest idea of where you are, of what is going on.


Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #712 on: December 04, 2019, 11:58:45 PM »
Let's dig a hole and fill it with a single gallon of water, both on a flat earth surface, and then on a spherical earth surface.
FE: we dig the hole, fill it with water, no further explanations necessary
RE: we dig the hole, fill it with water, no further explanations necessary.

Why apply such an obvious double standard?

FE needs to explain it just as much as RE does.

But I have provided more than enough, in fact a complete theory, on how terrestrial gravity works on a FE.
If that was the case why have you repeatedly avoided such a simple question.
Again, how are the bosons emitted from Jupiter?

Now, you want Jupiter.
Yes, just like you aren't happy with the RE explanation and want to go back another step.
I will do the same for you and show ultimately you are in the same position, not having an answer.

You have to provide a mechanism for the gravitons here on Earth!
No, I don't.
This is a thread for FE evidence.
So far all you have done is shown that FE is worse of than RE because FE doesn't have a mechanism to explain gravity and FE cannot explain why the bottom of Toronto is hidden.

If you want to make demands of us to provide a mechanism for gravity, then you need to do the same, going all the way back to the source.

But it seems I have stumped you there, as you can't explain how these bosons are emitted from Jupiter, or you have realised that no matter what answer you provide all it will do is raise another question.

Now again, care to address your failures from this thread?
How did you arrive at 600 m for you sun? Did you just pull the number from thin air, because nothing you have provided so far shows it should be 600 m.

How are the bosons emitted from Jupiter? If you have no answer you have no mechanism.

How is the bottom of Toronto hidden, as if obscured by curving water?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #713 on: December 05, 2019, 12:26:41 AM »
RE: we dig the hole, fill it with water, no further explanations necessary.

It doesn't work like that.

You have to explain the presence of that body of water on the OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.

Explain the attractive mechanism.

If you cannot do so, you are left with a worthless hypothesis.


On a FE, there is no explanation required. The water stays neatly and beautifully in that indentation. Nothing else to explain.

A huge difference.


I have already presented the proof that Jupiter indeed emits plasma flux tubes.

I have already explained the mechanism: did you read it? It's in the "Journey inside a boson" link.

I will do the same for you and show ultimately you are in the same position, not having an answer.

I provided EVERYTHING, read it again.

I have explained how the ether/aether interplay works out, what happens inside the center of a boson.

I have ALL OF THE ANSWERS.

If you want to make demands of us to provide a mechanism for gravity, then you need to do the same, going all the way back to the source.

I just did.

YOU HAVE NOTHING ON THE OTHER HAND!


Do you have an explanation as to how gravitons are being created/emitted by an iron atom?

Then, you are in no position to ask for anything similar, of the same nature.


I am not going to take you to task to explain how that atom of iron came about, how it emits gravitons.

Modern physics tells us, and this was proven by Feynman, that you must resort to gravitons to explain attractive gravity.

Now, on the surface of that SPHERICAL EARTH, please explain how two gravitons attract each other.


Let me be of some help.

Are the strings of gravitons tied to each object, or does an object/living being simply slide through a fixed stream of strings of gravitons?


YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE OUNCE OF WATER STAYS ON THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.

Then, your claims for "curved water" are just that: a USELESS HYPOTHESIS.


You have some real explaining to do here.

*

Stash

  • 3507
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #714 on: December 05, 2019, 12:37:36 AM »
It doesn't work like that.
(Followed by many copy and paste words)

So, back to the matter at hand, the matter being "Strongest FE Evidence".

- How did you arrive at 600 m for you sun? Did you just pull the number from thin air, because nothing you have provided so far shows it should be 600 m.
- How is the bottom of Toronto hidden, as if obscured by curving water?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #715 on: December 05, 2019, 12:45:14 AM »
as if obscured by curving water?

You must provide the attractive mechanism.

Explain how that body of water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

Unless you can do that, all you have is a worthless, useless hypothesis.

How did you arrive at 600 m for you sun? Did you just pull the number from thin air, because nothing you have provided so far shows it should be 600 m.

First we have to prove that the shape of the Sun is discoidal.

Your tag team partner did just that.

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.


Now, we are left with this:



What is the diameter of the Sun?

It has to be smaller than the distance between the two tropics.

It has to be smaller than this distance divided by 180.

In fact it has to be smaller than the total annual westward precessional shift of the Sun which is 1.5 km.


Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #716 on: December 05, 2019, 12:56:10 AM »
Quote
What is the diameter of the Sun?

It has to be smaller than the distance between the two tropics.

It has to be smaller than this distance divided by 180.

In fact it has to be smaller than the total annual westward precessional shift of the Sun which is 1.5 km.

I truly admire your commitment and dedication to your beliefs, but that doesn't change the simply fact that your hypothesis is wrong.  I know that might surprise you because clearly you have never stopped for just a moment to consider the small possibility that you are not always right in what you say, but I can promise you 100% that in in this case, you are wrong. Nothing that you can link us to will change that.  Three words:  you are wrong.  End of.  And that's all I have to say on the matter.

Oh yes, just one more thing... I have done my homework.

*

mak3m

  • 585
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #717 on: December 05, 2019, 01:00:32 AM »
Or you dont understand sagnac, GPS and no part of your hypothesis can be observed, measured or be experimentally demonstrable.

In addition a serial avoider of answering the simplest of questions for well over a decade gets to demand answers to your questions which are based on partial fringe views, huge assumptions, misrepresented  or misquoted quotes, papers from a verified scammer made to look like a peer reviewed journal, occultism, lack of scientific understanding,  lack of rudimentary math and straight up lies.

Flat earth Scientist? I think FE might want there badge back.
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #718 on: December 05, 2019, 01:32:32 AM »
I am not asking you to explain how an atom of iron was formed. Nor how it emits gravitons. Indeed, no one can explain how the element iron was created. No one can explain how a single atom of hydrogen was created.

I am not asking you to explain how a proton, baryon, meson, quark or subquark was created.

Dig a hole in the ground on a spherical Earth. Fill the hole with a single gallon of water.

Then, you must explain this: how does the single gallon of water stay in place on the outer surface of a sphere?

Explain the attractive mechanism using gravitons, since you now have no other option left.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #719 on: December 05, 2019, 02:19:12 AM »
Quote
Dig a hole in the ground on a spherical Earth. Fill the hole with a single gallon of water.

Then, you must explain this: how does the single gallon of water stay in place on the outer surface of a sphere?

Ok I've just done that.  I filled a bucket with water, dug a hole and filled it with the water.   Observation:  the water soaked through into the earth under the hole.   Now what?  I suspect if I dig a deeper hole and fill it with two buckets of water the same thing will happen.  That's my hypothesis anyway.

I didn't take any photos of the experiment, but it is easily reproducible (most people are capable of digging holes in the ground) and so you can try it yourself.  I suspect the same thing will happen.  The rate of soaking of course will depend on how much air there is in the ground where you dig the hole.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 02:24:14 AM by Solarwind »