Does the picture of universe (Cosmology) same in all the religion of Abraham?

All is well justified clearly.

No, it isn't.
So far the only "justification" you have provided is by taking statements out of context, pretending a statement that applies for small objects on Earth should also apply when you drop a body the size of Earth onto Earth; completely misrepresenting how forces cancel where you pretend a force on one object can magically cancel with a force on another object to produce no net force; and a bunch of useless links which show nothing to support your case.
One of your most recent ones, in an attempt to prove Newton wrong, outright ignored a key part of the shell theorem, that if you are inside a spherically symmetric shell, then the force due to the shell is 0. Instead it pretended that the shell still magically contributes as if it was all located at the centre.

It all about mutual understanding however wording like “spouting nonsense” is not tolerable.

No, what is not tolerable is asserting something is wrong with no justification at all, and continually refusing to actually address the refutations of your claims.


Now, will you start actually justifying your claims and addressing the refutations of them?

The pretentious prick from Australia, jackblack, is very afraid, ghastly afraid, that the shape of the Earth might turn out to be different than spherical.

As such, this miserable paid shill has made the FES his second home, with the full complicity of the RE admin/mods.

He has lost each and every debate, yet he is here furiously throwing verbal attacks against anyone who dares to question his fallacious beliefs.

Here is the one of the most devastating arguments against Newtonian mechanics: THE DOUBLE FORCES OF GRAVITATION PARADOX.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1905467#msg1905467

Now, the complete demonstration that indeed there will be two forces acting on boat X, and two forces acting on boat Y.

Two boats on lake, boat X and boat Y, are being pulled toward each other using a single rope by the two men on each boat.


The force applied by the first man is force A.

The force applied by the second man is force B.

They are of different magnitude to start with, A does not equal B.


Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:

The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.

The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.

By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.

A cannot equal B.

Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.


The RE analysis leads to a total disaster, where the basic requirement is this |A|=|B|.

Which can NEVER be the case.

Force A can never equal force B.

Even if we had, as an example, force A = 100.000,000,000,021 N and force B = 100.000,000,000,034 N, it would still NOT satisfy the RE requirement which is this: |A|=|B|.

The RE analysis leads directly to the ONLY case which can never be experienced in reality.


Here is the correct FE analysis.

Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.

Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.

Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.

Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.


What are the forces acting on boat X?

To the left we will have a negative direction.

Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.


What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?

-A and -B.


What are the forces acting boat Y?

To the right we will have the positive direction.

Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.


What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?

A and B.


Net force on boat X: A + B

Net force on boat Y: -A - B


Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]


The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0


All forces balance out perfectly.

But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.

The man in boat X is pulling on the rope, while at the same time boat Y is pulling on that same rope with force B. The correct analysis must take these facts into account.

A perfect demonstration that there are indeed two forces acting on boat X, respectively on boat Y: the equations work out in total balance, no wild substitutions are to be made, no contradiction is to be reached at all.

Here is the 21 page annihilation of jackblack on this subject:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1908967#msg1908967

The pretentious prick from Australia

You mean the scared little Sandy needs to insult people to pretend they are brave and correct.


We have been over you complete lack of understanding of how a rope works countless times.
YOU ARE WRONG!

If you wish to assert such nonsense yet again, tell us what is providing the force on the end of the rope.
You have an end, where person 1 pulls with a force if A, and then by pure magic a force of B just magically appears for no reason at all.

Once more, the only thing that can be applying that force is the person pulling on the rope.
That means they are pulling on the rope with a force of A+B, and your premise is false as both people pull on the rope with an equal force, exactly as required to have a net force of 0 on the rope.

Your very hypothesis describes an impossibility, where there are unbalanced forces acting on a rope, yet the net force on the rope is 0. Your hypothesis is nonsense which demands that A+B=0, while |A|!=|B|, which is literally impossible. The only way to have no net force on the rope is if A+B=0, which demands that A=-B.
If A!=-B, then there will be a net force on the rope and thus the rope will accelerate. That is what actually happens in reality, with the rope moving as the people pull on it. Likewise in reality the rope isn't massless.
This is not a disaster for reality (including the RE). It is just a disaster for you as it destroys your argument and leaves you looking like a fool.

There is no magical doubling of forces, just your complete lack of understanding of basic mechanics.
Rather than being an attack on Newtonian gravity, it is an attack on your credibility.

Again, if you wish to assert such garbage yet again, answer the very simple question:
You have the person on one side of the rope pulling with a force of A. Where does the force of B magically get applied to the rope at this end, if not by that person?

Remember, by your insane, physically impossible scenario, it cannot be the person, nor can it be anything else. You must have this force arise out of pure magic, with absolutely nothing pulling the rope, in complete defiance of the known laws of the universe.

Then, if you can do the impossible and do that, you can tell us why the same thing doesn't happen with that end of the rope free.
If the garbage you present was correct it would be impossible to move a rope, because any time you tried, the rope would just magically produce a force countering that on the other end and just pull the rope tight, and then you pulling would just pull you and the non-existent object closer together.

One of your most recent ones, in an attempt to prove Newton wrong, outright ignored a key part of the shell theorem, that if you are inside a spherically symmetric shell, then the force due to the shell is 0. Instead it pretended that the shell still magically contributes as if it was all located at the centre.

Didn’t I mention, stick to the ““Force ON the particle and Force BETWEEN particles” in the following. There is a difference between "ON" and "BETWEEN"".

Here is detail of analysis of mass m inside hollow sphere that I did in this forum.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74267.msg2027970#msg2027970
I thought I added this to my previous post before your latest response.

Similarly, we know F = GMm/d2. As “F” is inversely proportional to on-center distance “d” therefore both “M” and “m” should start to decelerate upon the reduction in constant F on either side but it is said they both accelerate towards each other [gravitational force “F” decreases when on-center distance “d” decreases].

Quote

One of your most recent ones, in an attempt to prove Newton wrong, outright ignored a key part of the shell theorem, that if you are inside a spherically symmetric shell, then the force due to the shell is 0. Instead it pretended that the shell still magically contributes as if it was all located at the centre.

Didn’t I mention, stick to the ““Force ON the particle and Force BETWEEN particles” in the following. There is a difference between "ON" and "BETWEEN"".

Here is detail of analysis of mass m inside hollow sphere that I did in this forum.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74267.msg2027970#msg2027970
I thought I added this to my previous post before your latest response.

Similarly, we know F = GMm/d2. As “F” is inversely proportional to on-center distance “d” therefore both “M” and “m” should start to decelerate upon the reduction in constant F on either side but it is said they both accelerate towards each other [gravitational force “F” decreases when on-center distance “d” decreases].

I think you are still confuses about the force pulling on two bodies.

That force is like  a rubber band.

If you attach a rubber band to a bowling ball and a ping pong ball, then pull both away and let them go what happens?  The ping pong ball gets pulled to the bowling ball, and the bowling ball will move just a tiny tiny bit in the direction of the ping pong ball.

Analogies only go so far but this gets the basic idea across. Gravity is a force, measured in Newtons in these equations, that act on BOTH bodies simultaneously.

You are claiming that they somehow cancel out and so there is no net force, but that is not how it works, and that is what you are being asked to justify.

jackblack, you must be very confused about your anatomy: your mouth is masquerading  as a rear end.

You miserable paid shill, I have the equations to prove my assertion.

Two boats on lake, boat X and boat Y, are being pulled toward each other using a single rope by the two men on each boat.


The force applied by the first man is force A.

The force applied by the second man is force B.

They are of different magnitude to start with, A does not equal B.


Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:

The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.

The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.

By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.

A cannot equal B.

Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.


The RE analysis leads to a total disaster, where the basic requirement is this |A|=|B|.

Which can NEVER be the case.

Force A can never equal force B.

Even if we had, as an example, force A = 100.000,000,000,021 N and force B = 100.000,000,000,034 N, it would still NOT satisfy the RE requirement which is this: |A|=|B|.

The RE analysis leads directly to the ONLY case which can never be experienced in reality.


Here is the correct FE analysis.

Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.

Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.

Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.

Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.


What are the forces acting on boat X?

To the left we will have a negative direction.

Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.


What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?

-A and -B.


What are the forces acting boat Y?

To the right we will have the positive direction.

Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.


What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?

A and B.


Net force on boat X: A + B

Net force on boat Y: -A - B


Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]


The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0


All forces balance out perfectly.

But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.

The man in boat X is pulling on the rope, while at the same time boat Y is pulling on that same rope with force B. The correct analysis must take these facts into account.

A perfect demonstration that there are indeed two forces acting on boat X, respectively on boat Y: the equations work out in total balance, no wild substitutions are to be made, no contradiction is to be reached at all.


Your hare-brained analysis reaches a contradiction right away.

My analysis works perfectly.

Your hypothesis is nonsense which demands that A+B=0, while |A|!=|B|, which is literally impossible.


You are insane, jackblack.

My hypothesis: A does NOT equal B.

You are insane, jackblack.

My hypothesis: A does NOT equal B.

You made up an incorrect hypothesis, attributed it to "Round Earth Theory" whatever that is, and claim victory by disproving your own broken idea.

This is pretty much an extreme case of a strawman argument.

Your not understanding how physics works doesn't make it wrong. It makes you wrong.

Lets take the Earth and Moon as examples.

G = 0.00000000006674
M = 5972000000000000000000000 kg
m = 73476730900000000000000 kg
d = 384400000 m

The force between them is 198193345664504055673 N.

Note that both objects experience this force.

This is from the report sent to Nasa by Dr. Maurice Allais, Nobel prize winner:



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


So, your calculations are a piece of shit.

During a solar eclipse, Newton's supposed law of gravity is circling the drain.

Quote from: JJA on August 10, 2020, 08:06:02 AM

Lets take the Earth and Moon as examples.

G = 0.00000000006674
M = 5972000000000000000000000 kg
m = 73476730900000000000000 kg
d = 384400000 m

The force between them is 198193345664504055673 N.

Note that both objects experience this force.

This is from the report sent to Nasa by Dr. Maurice Allais, Nobel prize winner:



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


So, your calculations are a piece of shit.

During a solar eclipse, Newton's supposed law of gravity is circling the drain.

LOL.

So your attempt to prove my math wrong is to just copy-paste some random article. How unsuprising.

And you pick the "Allais Effect" this time for some strange reason.  I guess because it's a favorite of conspiracy theorists.  It's also not been confirmed, and other experiments with more precise equipment have NOT shown this effect.

Since you ended off with an insult, I'll hand one back. Your references are all bullshit.

The pretentious prick from Australia, jackblack, is very afraid, ghastly afraid, that the shape of the Earth might turn out to be different than spherical.

As such, this miserable paid shill has made the FES his second home, with the full complicity of the RE admin/mods.

He has lost each and every debate, yet he is here furiously throwing verbal attacks against anyone who dares to question his fallacious beliefs.

Here is the one of the most devastating arguments against Newtonian mechanics: THE DOUBLE FORCES OF GRAVITATION PARADOX.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1905467#msg1905467

Now, the complete demonstration that indeed there will be two forces acting on boat X, and two forces acting on boat Y.

Two boats on lake, boat X and boat Y, are being pulled toward each other using a single rope by the two men on each boat.


The force applied by the first man is force A.

The force applied by the second man is force B.

They are of different magnitude to start with, A does not equal B.


Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:

The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.

The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.

By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.

A cannot equal B.

Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.


The RE analysis leads to a total disaster, where the basic requirement is this |A|=|B|.

Which can NEVER be the case.

Force A can never equal force B.

Even if we had, as an example, force A = 100.000,000,000,021 N and force B = 100.000,000,000,034 N, it would still NOT satisfy the RE requirement which is this: |A|=|B|.

The RE analysis leads directly to the ONLY case which can never be experienced in reality.


Here is the correct FE analysis.

Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.

Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.

Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.

Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.


What are the forces acting on boat X?

To the left we will have a negative direction.

Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.


What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?

-A and -B.


What are the forces acting boat Y?

To the right we will have the positive direction.

Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.


What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?

A and B.


Net force on boat X: A + B

Net force on boat Y: -A - B


Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]


The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0


All forces balance out perfectly.

But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.

The man in boat X is pulling on the rope, while at the same time boat Y is pulling on that same rope with force B. The correct analysis must take these facts into account.

A perfect demonstration that there are indeed two forces acting on boat X, respectively on boat Y: the equations work out in total balance, no wild substitutions are to be made, no contradiction is to be reached at all.

Here is the 21 page annihilation of jackblack on this subject:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1908967#msg1908967

We’ve been through this nonsense at length before.  That’s not how it works and just shows you are incapable of doing the simplest mechanical problems.

What’s really remarkable is you apparently thinking that all the world’s engineers have been calculating half the real forces for hundreds of years, and one has ever noticed.

Truly delusional.

What’s really remarkable is you apparently thinking that all the world’s engineers have been calculating half the real forces for hundreds of years, and one has ever noticed.

Present this formula to those engineers: it has been derived by the greatest mathematician of the 20th century, Hermann Weyl.

Using Hermann Weyl's electrovacuum solutions, Professor S.D. Majumdar found the relationship between gravitational and electrostatic forces (Biefeld-Brown effect).

https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.72.390



The Weyl-Majumdar-Papapetrou-Ivanov solution is the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:





https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov


It's also not been confirmed, and other experiments with more precise equipment have NOT shown this effect.


You miserable troll, it has been confirmed, even by the post-doctoral student of Albert Einstein, Dr. Erwin Saxl.

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.

What’s really remarkable is you apparently thinking that all the world’s engineers have been calculating half the real forces for hundreds of years, and one has ever noticed.

Present this formula to those engineers: it has been derived by the greatest mathematician of the 20th century, Hermann Weyl.

More random copy-paste.

How do buildings and bridges stay up if everyone is so completely wrong, according to you? 

None of that has anything to do with 2 people pulling on a rope.

Just more pointless spam.

And you pick the "Allais Effect" this time for some strange reason.  I guess because it's a favorite of conspiracy theorists.

This must be Sandokhans favoured 'effect' this week as he's also mentioned it in another discussion about satellite orbits..  what's that about?  I wondered what it had to do with that as well...  but I'm sure he will invent some relevance that shows how naďve and clueless we all are.

what's that about?



http://allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

This is the legendary 84 page Allais-to-NASA memoir of 1999, translated from its original French to English. Now the general public can read Allais himself telling about the results of his pendulum experiments, detailing what happened during the eclipses of 1954 and 1959, and giving suggestions for future researches. This document is an excellent introduction to the subject, although it involves quite technical matter.


Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory) for even the 180-degree, "opposite" alignment of the sun and moon.

Dr. Erwin Saxl, "1970 Solar Eclipse as 'Seen' by a Torsion Pendulum"

This is the legendary 84 page Allais-to-NASA memoir of 1999, translated from its original French to English. Now the general public can read Allais himself telling about the results of his pendulum experiments, detailing what happened during the eclipses of 1954 and 1959, and giving suggestions for future researches. This document is an excellent introduction to the subject, although it involves quite technical matter.

And future research by other scientists with much better equipment showed there was no effect.

It's just another old, discredited, unsupported reference, which has nothing to do with this discussion. Just random copy-paste spam.

Whilst I'm sure that Sandokhan is convinced by it, the maintream Wiki page seems less admiring of his work...

The veracity of the Allais effect remains controversial among the scientific community, as its testing has frequently met with inconsistent or ambiguous results over more than five decades of observation.

Inconclusive or negative results
Louis B. Slichter, using a gravimeter during the solar eclipse of February 15, 1961 in Florence, Italy, failed to detect an associated gravitational signal.[20]

During the solar eclipse of July 22, 1990, no anomalous period increase of a torsion pendulum was detected independently by a team in Finland[21] and another team in Belomorsk, USSR.[22]

Maurice Allais states that the eclipse effect is related to a gravitational anomaly that is inexplicable in the framework of the currently admitted theory of gravitation, without giving any explanation of his own.[31] Allais' explanation for another anomaly (the lunisolar periodicity in variations of the azimuth of a pendulum) is that space evinces certain anisotropic characteristics, which he ascribes to motion through an aether which is partially entrained by planetary bodies.

Hmmmm OK.  I don't think I'll start chucking away my physics books just yet.

You better throw away all of your physics books.

All gravitons are entangled through aether wormholes.

You better throw away all of your physics books.

All gravitons are entangled through aether wormholes.

You better throw away all your occult dream magic books.

Quote from: E E K on August 11, 2020, 04:48:05 AM

Quote

One of your most recent ones, in an attempt to prove Newton wrong, outright ignored a key part of the shell theorem, that if you are inside a spherically symmetric shell, then the force due to the shell is 0. Instead it pretended that the shell still magically contributes as if it was all located at the centre.

Didn’t I mention, stick to the ““Force ON the particle and Force BETWEEN particles” in the following. There is a difference between "ON" and "BETWEEN"".

Here is detail of analysis of mass m inside hollow sphere that I did in this forum.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74267.msg2027970#msg2027970
I thought I added this to my previous post before your latest response.

Similarly, we know F = GMm/d2. As “F” is inversely proportional to on-center distance “d” therefore both “M” and “m” should start to decelerate upon the reduction in constant application of F on either side but it is said they both accelerate towards each other [gravitational force “F” decreases when on-center distance “d” decreases].

I think you are still confuses about the force pulling on two bodies.

That force is like  a rubber band.

If you attach a rubber band to a bowling ball and a ping pong ball, then pull both away and let them go what happens?  The ping pong ball gets pulled to the bowling ball, and the bowling ball will move just a tiny tiny bit in the direction of the ping pong ball.

Analogies only go so far but this gets the basic idea across. Gravity is a force, measured in Newtons in these equations, that act on BOTH bodies simultaneously.

You are claiming that they somehow cancel out and so there is no net force, but that is not how it works, and that is what you are being asked to justify.

No, I’m not confused however no idea if you are but this is how we learned. Newton formulated the equation of weight force W=F=mg of an object on the surface of earth using his universal law of gravitation between the earth and the object.

When an apple falls on earth:
Gravitating mass is earth while falling mass is an apple
W1=F1=GMm/d^2 = mg; where g = GM/d^2 is the gravitational of earth, d= diameter of earth

When earth falls on apple:
Gravitating mass is apple while falling mass is an earth
W2=F2=GMm/d^2 = Mg1; where g1 = Gm/d^2 is the gravitational acceleration of an apple at distance d,

Both W1=W2=F1=F2

You can have all above checked with someone else.

Forces do cancel out becuase both earths turned into new single mass with different gravitational acceleration of "g".

If the theory is not true even for small objects then how comes it is true for celestial bodies.

Quote from: JJA on August 11, 2020, 04:59:24 AM

Quote from: E E K on August 11, 2020, 04:48:05 AM

Quote

One of your most recent ones, in an attempt to prove Newton wrong, outright ignored a key part of the shell theorem, that if you are inside a spherically symmetric shell, then the force due to the shell is 0. Instead it pretended that the shell still magically contributes as if it was all located at the centre.

Didn’t I mention, stick to the ““Force ON the particle and Force BETWEEN particles” in the following. There is a difference between "ON" and "BETWEEN"".

Here is detail of analysis of mass m inside hollow sphere that I did in this forum.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74267.msg2027970#msg2027970
I thought I added this to my previous post before your latest response.

Similarly, we know F = GMm/d2. As “F” is inversely proportional to on-center distance “d” therefore both “M” and “m” should start to decelerate upon the reduction in constant application of F on either side but it is said they both accelerate towards each other [gravitational force “F” decreases when on-center distance “d” decreases].

I think you are still confuses about the force pulling on two bodies.

That force is like  a rubber band.

If you attach a rubber band to a bowling ball and a ping pong ball, then pull both away and let them go what happens?  The ping pong ball gets pulled to the bowling ball, and the bowling ball will move just a tiny tiny bit in the direction of the ping pong ball.

Analogies only go so far but this gets the basic idea across. Gravity is a force, measured in Newtons in these equations, that act on BOTH bodies simultaneously.

You are claiming that they somehow cancel out and so there is no net force, but that is not how it works, and that is what you are being asked to justify.

No, I’m not confused however no idea if you are but this is how we learned. Newton formulated the equation of weight force W=F=mg of an object on the surface of earth using his universal law of gravitation between the earth and the object.

Newton's formula "F=GMm/d^2" expresses the force between two bodies.

F is measured in Newtons.  I'm not sure why you are splitting out W1 and F1 when they are the same term.

When an apple falls on earth:
Gravitating mass is earth while falling mass is an apple
W1=F1=GMm/d^2 = mg; where g = GM/d^2 is the gravitational of earth, d= diameter of earth

When earth falls on apple:
Gravitating mass is apple while falling mass is an earth
W2=F2=GMm/d^2 = Mg1; where g1 = Gm/d^2 is the gravitational acceleration of an apple at distance d,

Both W1=W2=F1=F2

You can have all above checked with someone else.

Forces do cancel out becuase both earths turned into new single mass with different gravitational acceleration of "g".

What you are saying with your math above can be simplified to this...

F = GMm/d^2 = GmM/d^2

Which is obvious, yes you can swap those two m and M terms in the middle and it makes no difference.

X*Y = Y*X

This isn't anything unusual, it's how multiplication works.

We already went over that F is a force in Newtons that BOTH OBJECTS feel, so why is is a surprise you can swap those two variables back and forth and not change anything? That's how the formula works, both feel the same force.

So what exactly is the problem here?

If the theory is not true even for small objects then how comes it is true for celestial bodies.

You haven't shown it to be not true for small bodies.

All gravitons are entangled through aether wormholes.

Oh absolutely... I couldn't agree more.  What I can't figure out is why not everyone realises that!  I've just been talking my neighbour about it all and she said she's written a scientific paper on it for Nature magazine..  (she doesn't even know what gravity is let alone gravitons... and I won't repeat what she said about wormholes!).

What you are saying with your math above can be simplified to this...

F = GMm/d^2 = GmM/d^2

Which is obvious, yes you can swap those two m and M terms in the middle and it makes no difference.

X*Y = Y*X

This isn't anything unusual, it's how multiplication works.

We already went over that F is a force in Newtons that BOTH OBJECTS feel, so why is is a surprise you can swap those two variables back and forth and not change anything? That's how the formula works, both feel the same force.

So what exactly is the problem here?

Quote from: E E K on Today at 10:11:11 AM
If the theory is not true even for small objects then how comes it is true for celestial bodies.

You haven't shown it to be not true for small bodies.

Because you were insisting on that F is between the two objects and didn’t conform to my detail split analysis that I had done multiple times for clarification. You also told me “You are getting your units and forces and masses all mixed up” Anyway, here is the recap
 
Heliocentric model overthrew geocentric model just because of the Galileo statement of falling bodies and the Newton law of gravitation

Galileo is wrong because “Two objects don’t fall at the same rate”

Let drop object A (steel sphere of diameter of 1000 m) from a height of h =1000 meter

Let drop object B (feather) from a height of h =1000 meter as well
 
Both objects are dropped in the absence of air but not simultaneously.

I believe, you can do the math however its not necessary because it quite clear that the striking time of earth and steel sphere will be less than the striking time of earth and feather.

Newton is also wrong because he failed to state what he supposed to state in his law of gravitation. He thought both point masses fall towards each other with just simple accelerations (earth and apple is the example) but according his mathematical conclusion (F=GMm/d^2) “Two point masses of the subject fall towards each other at the rate of higher derivatives (higher types) of motion, not just acceleration”.  This is because on-center distance decreases on both sides. Falling object accelerates when the gravitating object is at rest. This will be clear when you try to solve “calculate the striking time of two identical point masses separated by on-center distance “d” with the help of Newton’s law of gravitation (F=GMm/d^2)? - For convenience, you can choose your own numerical values of mass and distance.”

Two forces cancel each other if they are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. Same thing here in the universal law of gravitation why would two point masses move towards each other at first place when they pull each other equally but opposite in direction? Force doesn’t generate automatically inside object (A) upon observing the other mass (B), which causes it (A) to fall toward that foregoing mass (B). This should be the case but anyway, Newton says A pulls B (there is an external force on B) and B pulls A (there is an external force on A) simultaneously. Both pulls are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. There exist continuous actions and reactions according to Newton's third law of motion, but scientists are in agreement with Newton that both masses should have to move toward each other despite the cancellation of forces. There must exist imbalance net force on an object for it to be in motion. How does it possible for a mass to move in the absence of force?

Shell theorem: Newton says in universal law of gravitation  “ Force between two objects”. But he says in shell theorem “Force on the object” inside shell. There is a huge difference between “ Force between two objects” and Force on the object”. I’m not sure if you had gone through earlier but I had it explained clearly how newton was wrong  in the link of https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74267.msg2027970#msg2027970

If the universal law of gravitation is wrong then automatically gravitational acceleration “g” of earth , which has lots of applications in our daily life including weight scales. The formula F= GMm/d2 was used to determine the masses and gravitational accelerations of all planets including earth’s moon. So if we don’t know the “g” of the moon then why astronauts pretended their moonwalks similar to the celestial body which has 1/6th gravity of earth.

The following diagram shows a glitch in the solar system and hence in the solar calendar as well. The occurrences of midnights are more than the noons. Both axial and orbital rotations of earth are independent of each other. The diagram doesn't need an explanation as it is quite clear.

I suggested to look for alternate model together

Quote

What you are saying with your math above can be simplified to this...

F = GMm/d^2 = GmM/d^2

Which is obvious, yes you can swap those two m and M terms in the middle and it makes no difference.

X*Y = Y*X

This isn't anything unusual, it's how multiplication works.

We already went over that F is a force in Newtons that BOTH OBJECTS feel, so why is is a surprise you can swap those two variables back and forth and not change anything? That's how the formula works, both feel the same force.

So what exactly is the problem here?

Quote from: E E K on Today at 10:11:11 AM
If the theory is not true even for small objects then how comes it is true for celestial bodies.

You haven't shown it to be not true for small bodies.

Because you were insisting on that F is between the two objects and didn’t conform to my detail split analysis that I had done multiple times for clarification. You also told me “You are getting your units and forces and masses all mixed up” Anyway, here is the recap
 
Heliocentric model overthrew geocentric model just because of the Galileo statement of falling bodies and the Newton law of gravitation

Galileo is wrong because “Two objects don’t fall at the same rate”

Let drop object A (steel sphere of diameter of 1000 m) from a height of h =100 meter

Let drop object B (feather) from a height of h =100 meter as well
 
Both objects are dropped in the absence of air but not simultaneously.

I believe, you can do the math however its not necessary because it quite clear that the striking time of earth and steel sphere will be less than the striking time of earth and feather.

You are saying if you drop two objects at different times they will strike the ground at different times.

How is this a problem?

The experiment drops both at the same time, and they both land at the same time.

You can go on YouTube and see plenty of videos of this being demonstrated. Two objects when dropped at the same time, fall at the same rate, land at the same time.

Didn’t I mention, stick to the ““Force ON the particle and Force BETWEEN particles” in the following. There is a difference between "ON" and "BETWEEN"".

That in no way addresses what I have said and just appears to be playing semantics.

Here is detail of analysis of mass m inside hollow sphere that I did in this forum.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74267.msg2027970#msg2027970

And it is still just as wrong.

The miscalculation in shell theorem is that HS attracts M but M doesn’t attract HS.

Where have you pulled this from?

According to the shell theorem, and just the proof of it, there is no net force on a point mass M inside a hollow, spherically symetric shell, due to that shell; and there is no net force on the shell from the point mass.

The same math is involved for both.
It is literally identical, because for any 2 masses, the gravitational force of mass m acting on mass M is the same as the gravitational force of mass M acting on mass m.
So if either are 0, both must be 0.

For the gravitational force on the point mass:
Yes, the nearer section of the shell exerts a greater force than the more distant part, but there is more of the more distant part to cancel it out, resulting in a net force of 0.
For the gravitational force on the shell:
Yes, the nearer section of the shell experiences a greater force than the more distant part, but there is more of the more distant part to cancel it out, resulting in a net force of 0.

Forces do cancel out becuase both earths turned into new single mass with different gravitational acceleration of "g".

Do you mean when the apple and Earth combine and have no net force acting on them?
That doesn't mean Earth doesn't experience a force and the apple doesn't experience a force. All it means is that the combined object has no net force from the parts inside it.
If you are considering them as separate objects then the forces don't cancel as the forces are acting on separate objects.

If the theory is not true even for small objects

That is a very big IF as you are yet to show any problem.

Galileo is wrong because “Two objects don’t fall at the same rate”
Let drop object A (steel sphere of diameter of 1000 m) from a height of h =100 meter
Let drop object B (feather) from a height of h =100 meter as well
Both objects are dropped in the absence of air but not simultaneously.

And then both objects take basically the same time to fall to Earth.
Once more, the acceleration of Earth is insignificant.
Even with a weight of 1 000 000 kg, falling from 1 km; Earth moves less than the radius of a proton.

Thus any difference is insignificant.

Newton is also wrong because he failed to state what he supposed to state in his law of gravitation. He thought both point masses fall towards each other with just simple accelerations

Because they do.
Having both objects accelerate towards each other doesn't magically change the acceleration of each object.
This is why Earth and the moon orbit their common barycenter rather than just having the moon orbit the centre of Earth.

Two forces cancel each other if they are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. Same thing here in the universal law of gravitation why would two point masses move towards each other at first place when they pull each other equally but opposite in direction?

Why do you repeat the same refuted BS again and again as if it hasn't been refuted countless times already?
This is no longer you simply making a mistake. It is you intentionally ignoring facts that get in the way of your argument.

Once more, THEY DO NOT CANCEL!
As these forces are acting on DIFFERENT OBJECTS they do not cancel.
It is only if the 2 forces are acting on the same object that they cancel.

Your insanity would indicate all motion is impossible. Go try and push a box, well, when you apply a force to the box, the box applies a reactionary force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This means that you have 2 equal and opposite forces which by your insanity cancel out meaning there is no motion.

This means all the nonsense you spout following this completley false statement is likewise unjustified nonsense.
Scientists do not accept that the forces cancel.
Scientists accept that there is a net force, or an unbalanced force, acting on the object which moves it.

Now are you actually going to acknowledge that this entire line of "reasoning" of yours is based upon a false premise and thus amounts to nothing more than nonsense?
Or will you continue to ignore it and continue to pretend that forces acting on different objects magically cancel?

If the universal law of gravitation is wrong

And you are yet to establish it is. So any further speculation based upon that is useless, unless you want to use that further speculation to show that it can't possibly be wrong.

The following diagram shows a glitch

No it doesn't.
It shows your dishonesty yet again.
We have already been over this. You are wrong. There are not magically more midnights.

For any angle you pick there is exact 1 midday and 1 midnight.
If you use a period of time, then the "midday" section of Earth will have travelled a shorter distance than the "midnight" portion of Earth.

So what is clear is that you are spouting whatever nonsense you can come up with to pretend there is problem while completely ignoring the refutation of it.

Until you start addressing these refutations of your arguments I see no reason to look for an alternative model as the one we have now works quite well.

jackblack, you must be very confused

No, that is still you.
You seem very confused and think that it is impossible to pull a rope because if you try, the rope will magically create an extra force on the other end and hold it there.

There is no need for you continually repeat the analyses as it gives no additional information.
We all know that my analysis like the analysis of many others leads to the correct conclusion that the net force on the rope is A+B, and thus if there is no net force on the rope A=-B, and thus the premise you build your entire faulty argument on is false.
If A!=-B, then there is a net force on the rope.

Again, that is not a problem for us. That is a problem for you.

In order to save your complete failure of an argument is answer the simple question I provided, without all the spam.
Once more, you claim that at boat X, the man is pulling on the rope with a force of A. This is the only force being applied to the rope at this end.
Yet magically, the rope at this end experiences a force of A-B.
Just what is providing the force of -B to this end of the rope?
We know it can't be anything, as the person at this end is only providing a force of A, and there is nothing else at this end pulling on the rope.
It can't be the other person as they are pulling on the other end, not this end.
So again:
Just what is providing the force of -B to this end of the rope?

Until you answer that, all you have is pathetic spam, insults and denial.

If the theory is incorrect then everything it explains is insignificance. Anyway, forget the rest for now.

If you use a period of time, then the "midday" section of Earth will have travelled a shorter distance than the "midnight" portion of Earth.

Shorter distance means noon doesn't happen instantly. For how long does it (noon) stay (glide in orbit) right in front of the sun.

If the theory is incorrect then everything it explains is insignificance. Anyway, forget the rest for now.

The point is that you are yet to show any actual problem with it.
If you want to forget it, then go ahead, but don't bring it up again as if it hasn't already been refuted.

Quote

If you use a period of time, then the "midday" section of Earth will have travelled a shorter distance than the "midnight" portion of Earth.

Shorter distance means noon doesn't happen instantly. For how long does it (noon) stay (glide in orbit) right in front of the sun.

No, deciding to use a time period rather than an instant means it isn't an instant.
If instead you used an instant then as I already said each would have a single midday and a single midnight.

Again, your argument is effectively saying that rotational motion is impossible because the outside has to travel further.

If Earth orbited the sun at a radius of 150 000 000 km, with a radius of 6400 km, and completely an orbit once every 365 days, with it rotating once during that period (to mimic simpler rotational motion) then the mid-point of Earth would travel at 29.7758 km/s.
The inner part of Earth, due to the combination of the translation of the orbit and rotation of Earth, would travel at 29.8845 km/s and the outer part at 29.8871 km/s.
This is the 29.7758 km/s due to the orbit (at the middle), with the rotation of Earth (0.0013 km/s) either adding to this on the outside or negating part of it on the inside.

When you consider the actual motion of Earth, then the difference is greater. This is because the night side is no longer just keeping up with the day side but actually goes faster than it, such that over 12 hours, it has travelled roughly 12750 km relative to the midpoint of Earth and double that relative to the day side. Note, that this is not simply a case of multiplying the surface speed at midday with 12 hours, as the speed in that direction will oscillate between the midday and midnight speeds as Earth rotates. It follows a sine function.

And if you try drawing it out, or just counting it or thinking logically about the motion, then if Earth were to orbit the sun in exactly 365 days, and rotate exactly 366 times during those 365 days (with the orbit and rotation being in the same direction), then any point on Earth (excluding the poles) would see exactly 365 mid-days and 365 mid-nights during those 365 days.
The only possible exceptions would be the ones where it is midday or midnight right at the start of the 365 days and thus it would also be right at the end, so depending on how you count it, you may get 366, but that is just double counting.

You know better but still it’s an internet/YouTube so beware of what you watch. One of the objects was above the other in the original footage. The mistake was hard to notice in slow motion but it was caught and pointed out. No idea why have they changed that original footage but still in the current version, there is an upward blowing of outer hair of feather right at the start in slow motion.

Two objects may or may not fall at the same rate but the way we are told their falling at the same rate is wrong.

Quote from: E E K on August 11, 2020, 10:26:00 PM

If the theory is incorrect then everything it explains is insignificance. Anyway, forget the rest for now.

The point is that you are yet to show any actual problem with it.
If you want to forget it, then go ahead, but don't bring it up again as if it hasn't already been refuted.

Quote from: E E K on August 11, 2020, 10:26:00 PM

Quote

If you use a period of time, then the "midday" section of Earth will have travelled a shorter distance than the "midnight" portion of Earth.

Shorter distance means noon doesn't happen instantly. For how long does it (noon) stay (glide in orbit) right in front of the sun.

No, deciding to use a time period rather than an instant means it isn't an instant.
If instead you used an instant then as I already said each would have a single midday and a single midnight.

Again, your argument is effectively saying that rotational motion is impossible because the outside has to travel further.

If Earth orbited the sun at a radius of 150 000 000 km, with a radius of 6400 km, and completely an orbit once every 365 days, with it rotating once during that period (to mimic simpler rotational motion) then the mid-point of Earth would travel at 29.7758 km/s.
The inner part of Earth, due to the combination of the translation of the orbit and rotation of Earth, would travel at 29.8845 km/s and the outer part at 29.8871 km/s.
This is the 29.7758 km/s due to the orbit (at the middle), with the rotation of Earth (0.0013 km/s) either adding to this on the outside or negating part of it on the inside.

When you consider the actual motion of Earth, then the difference is greater. This is because the night side is no longer just keeping up with the day side but actually goes faster than it, such that over 12 hours, it has travelled roughly 12750 km relative to the midpoint of Earth and double that relative to the day side. Note, that this is not simply a case of multiplying the surface speed at midday with 12 hours, as the speed in that direction will oscillate between the midday and midnight speeds as Earth rotates. It follows a sine function.

And if you try drawing it out, or just counting it or thinking logically about the motion, then if Earth were to orbit the sun in exactly 365 days, and rotate exactly 366 times during those 365 days (with the orbit and rotation being in the same direction), then any point on Earth (excluding the poles) would see exactly 365 mid-days and 365 mid-nights during those 365 days.
The only possible exceptions would be the ones where it is midday or midnight right at the start of the 365 days and thus it would also be right at the end, so depending on how you count it, you may get 366, but that is just double counting.

Noon and anti-noon occur on earth at every moment non-stop (year-around) as shown in the above diagram.

Each point on the inner circle represents NOON
Each point on the outer circle represents ANTINOON

Quit beating around the bush and answer how do they happen continuously with the help of two motion (axial and orbital) of the earth in simple word.

FYI: Midnight or Midday doesn’t glide as they both happen at once instantly. They have nothing to do with shorter or greater travelling however if they had then time dilates in both midday and midnight.