The changing velocity and projection area of the sun in FE

Okay, I started this subject in another post but no one was ansering my queries so I'll give it its own post.

How does FE account for the change in velocity of the sun and the area of light it projects as the seasons change? Is there any theoretical mechanism to explain it?

Can ANY FEer please give me their theories on this!!     

good luck - I asked a reasonable question and it was moved to angry ranting

expect to see this there soon

How does FE account for the change in velocity of the sun and the area of light it projects as the seasons change? Is there any theoretical mechanism to explain it?

I guess it just moves backwards and forwards.

Maybe its magic?

pffft who needs physics. Its totally magic. Or maybe the sun doesnt actually move, the light is just bendy, and bends over there.

This is explained in the FAQ.  According to FET, the Sun circles the earth at latitudes (using, of course, the Flat Earth map) which vary by season.  This variation causes the seasons.

i think you missed the question a bit there. read it again.

Ah, so I did indeed.

As far as I know, FET doesn't bother to use any real laws of physics to describe the motions of the celestial bodies.  Off the top of my head, they violate all of Kepler's laws, the Laws of Motion, Conservation of Energy, and both Newtonian and Relativistic gravity.  If you're looking for real explanations, don't bother.  FET doesn't have any.

/agree

This is explained in the FAQ.  According to FET, the Sun circles the earth at latitudes (using, of course, the Flat Earth map) which vary by season.

And, of course, violate the principle of the conservation of angular momentum.

And, of course, violate the principle of the conservation of angular momentum.

It does no such thing.

Quote from: Redingold on May 13, 2009, 01:55:38 PM

And, of course, violate the principle of the conservation of angular momentum.

It does no such thing.

Then please state the mechanism by which the Sun in its circular motion about the NP with varying radii and speed conserves angular momentum. It travels a shorter distance in the same time, say one day,  in June than it does in December, in apparent violation of the laws of physics.

angular momentum = r x p +/- Magic

Quote from: Redingold on May 13, 2009, 01:55:38 PM

And, of course, violate the principle of the conservation of angular momentum.

It does no such thing.

Robosteve... you drop in and make these silly comments all the time, but you rarely back them up with anything other than semantic bullshit.  Can you explain how angular momentum is conserved?  Because I can easily show how it isn't, although it should be obvious to anyone who knows what angular momentum is.

its +/- fucking magic, god.

Then please state the mechanism by which the Sun in its circular motion about the NP with varying radii and speed conserves angular momentum. It travels a shorter distance in the same time, say one day,  in June than it does in December, in apparent violation of the laws of physics.

Robosteve... you drop in and make these silly comments all the time, but you rarely back them up with anything other than semantic bullshit.  Can you explain how angular momentum is conserved?  Because I can easily show how it isn't, although it should be obvious to anyone who knows what angular momentum is.

Since the Sun is observed to change its angular momentum by a factor of 1.7 throughout the course of the year, we can conclude that there is some other object which balances this change, in order to properly conserve angular momentum.

Since the Sun is observed to change its angular momentum by a factor of 1.7 throughout the course of the year, we can conclude that there is some other object which balances this change, in order to properly conserve angular momentum.

I'll save you the effort Cindy and guess that this object is invisible.

Am I right?

I'll save you the effort Cindy and guess that this object is invisible.

Am I right?

Not at all.

it could be a shadow. Or as i said, a fucking magic object. OR we could take the option which requires the least number of random "there must be" assumptions, and pick the logical answer. Shit i would wish you guys luck being doctors, hmmm the liver enzymes are high, but i bet its kindeys are stuffed and the data is just wrong. We will go on assuming his kidneys are fucked on some random assumption rather then making the logical diagnosis.

Quote from: dr.spock on May 15, 2009, 04:18:24 AM

I'll save you the effort Cindy and guess that this object is invisible.

Am I right?

Not at all.

I am right.

it could be a shadow. Or as i said, a fucking magic object. OR we could take the option which requires the least number of random "there must be" assumptions, and pick the logical answer.

I agree, neither a shadow nor a magic object makes any sense at all.

Quote from: Robosteve on May 15, 2009, 04:32:28 AM

Quote from: dr.spock on May 15, 2009, 04:18:24 AM

I'll save you the effort Cindy and guess that this object is invisible.

Am I right?

Not at all.

I am right.

Nope.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 14, 2009, 05:43:12 AM

Then please state the mechanism by which the Sun in its circular motion about the NP with varying radii and speed conserves angular momentum. It travels a shorter distance in the same time, say one day,  in June than it does in December, in apparent violation of the laws of physics.

Quote from: munkirench on May 14, 2009, 08:02:05 AM

Robosteve... you drop in and make these silly comments all the time, but you rarely back them up with anything other than semantic bullshit.  Can you explain how angular momentum is conserved?  Because I can easily show how it isn't, although it should be obvious to anyone who knows what angular momentum is.

Since the Sun is observed to change its angular momentum by a factor of 1.7 throughout the course of the year, we can conclude that there is some other object which balances this change, in order to properly conserve angular momentum.

Pray tell, what is this other object of which you speak? 

Pray tell, what is this other object of which you speak? 

The anti-Sun.

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 07:33:57 AM

Pray tell, what is this other object of which you speak? 

The anti-Sun.

How is an unobserved object that is an unknown distance beneath an undetermined thickness of FE supposed to conserve the angular velocity of an object that we can observe?  Also, how do the moon and anti-moon affect the angular velocity of the sun?

How is an unobserved object that is an unknown distance beneath an undetermined thickness of FE supposed to conserve the angular velocity of an object that we can observe?

Because its yearly radial variance has precisely opposite phase to that of the Sun, and their masses and orbital periods are equal.

Also, how do the moon and anti-moon affect the angular velocity of the sun?

Negligibly.

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 07:43:27 AM

How is an unobserved object that is an unknown distance beneath an undetermined thickness of FE supposed to conserve the angular velocity of an object that we can observe?

Because its yearly radial variance has precisely opposite phase to that of the Sun, and their masses and orbital periods are equal.

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 07:43:27 AM

Also, how do the moon and anti-moon affect the angular velocity of the sun?

Negligibly.

So you are saying that the effects of a hypothetical body transmitted through an unknown thickness of FE has more of an effect on the sun than a known body that passes within several hundred kilometers the sun on a regular basis? 

So you are saying that the effects of a hypothetical body transmitted through an unknown thickness of FE has more of an effect on the sun than a known body that passes within several hundred kilometers the sun on a regular basis? 

Yes. The interaction between the Sun and the anti-Sun is likely to be electromagnetic in nature, which would make it far more powerful than the gravitational interaction between the Sun and Moon.

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 09:51:33 AM

So you are saying that the effects of a hypothetical body transmitted through an unknown thickness of FE has more of an effect on the sun than a known body that passes within several hundred kilometers the sun on a regular basis? 

Yes. The interaction between the Sun and the anti-Sun is likely to be electromagnetic in nature, which would make it far more powerful than the gravitational interaction between the Sun and Moon.

If it were electromagnetic in nature, then we would be able to easily measure the effects using normal EM equipment on earth.

Aren't you supposed to only use evidence which you actually have evidence of?  This leap seems out of character ... oh wait, nevermind.  It's totally in character for someone so blindly committed to creating circumstances to match observation.

But the best part:  you're wrong anyway.  The existence of an anti-sun would NOT allow the change in radius of the sun's "orbit".
And an object "equal in mass and phase" with the sun would NOT allow the sun to change it's radius without yet another external force acting on both.  Furthermore, the products of inertia would not allow the sun to stay at altitude unless the anti-object was at the same altitude.  The "orbits" would be unstable.  So you might as well just drop hypothesis of an anti-Sun and introduce the necessitated  imaginary force, because the anti-object is superfluous and your conclusions are without evidence anyway.  You're just making it more complex that it needs to be.  (all, of course, assuming that the Sun has a finite mass.)

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on May 14, 2009, 05:43:12 AM

Then please state the mechanism by which the Sun in its circular motion about the NP with varying radii and speed conserves angular momentum. It travels a shorter distance in the same time, say one day,  in June than it does in December, in apparent violation of the laws of physics.

Quote from: munkirench on May 14, 2009, 08:02:05 AM

Robosteve... you drop in and make these silly comments all the time, but you rarely back them up with anything other than semantic bullshit.  Can you explain how angular momentum is conserved?  Because I can easily show how it isn't, although it should be obvious to anyone who knows what angular momentum is.

Since the Sun is observed to change its angular momentum by a factor of 1.7 throughout the course of the year, we can conclude that there is some other object which balances this change, in order to properly conserve angular momentum.

No, we cannot. We might infer that there is an object (or objects) that might explain the unexplained movement in FE, and then go looking for it (or them) Since you've been unable to find it (or them), we can conclude that the RE better explains the Sun's movement than FE.

least number of assumptions = win