[RangerGord]

 "Bullets and artillery shells are affected by this wind, often mistaken for the rotation of the earth." I'm pretty sure artillery men and snipers know the difference between the two.

[Charming Anarchist]

Point of order:  The true form of the earth does not hinge on any perceived/explained Coriolis effect. 

How is Coriolis effect explained in FET? Does the disc rotate on itself?

Whatever explanation is provided by the globalists is good enough for the true earth.  There is no need for there to be a different explanation ---- if you want to believe in the Coriolis effect at all, that is. 

[sandokhan]

It is very nice to see that the UAFE have adopted my bipolar map.

1. Why then would they not accept the rest of my AFET, as it is the only FET that answers questions?

2. Do you realize that the bipolar map is totally incompatible with a sun orbiting at some 3000 miles above the Earth?


pizzaplanet, the ball is in your court: I have done my job and have written up my AFET faq (posted in the suggestions and concerns thread). It should be added to the wiki.


Now, on to the geocentric Coriolis effect.

Mach's Principle/Geocentric Coriolis Effect

"The effect of the Coriolis force is an apparent deflection of the path of an object that moves within a rotating coordinate system. The object does not actually deviate from its path, but it appears to do so because of the motion of the coordinate system. On the Earth an object that moves along a north-south path, or longitudinal line, will undergo apparent deflection to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere."



By maintaining the relativity of all motion, especially rotational motion, E. Mach denied the existence of absolute motion and of absolute space. Accordingly, Mach maintained the equivalence of the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems and the equivalence of rotating-system/fixed-universe and universe-rotating/fixed-system situations.

Mach's Principle: A body experiences no inertial forces when it is at rest or in uniform motion with respect to the center of mass of the entire universe. When its motion is nonuniform (accelerated) with respect to the total mass of the universe, it experiences forces such as centrifugal force and the Coriolis effect. Hence, the "local" behavior of matter is influenced by the "global" properties of the universe, i.e., those properties that describe the universe as a whole, which are studied in cosmology.


The Lense-Thirring effect as a consequence of Mach's Principle:

http://www.answers.com/topic/mach-s-principle

H. Thirring observed that the complete equivalence between the reference frames, explaining such phenomena as the Foucault pendulum equally well in a geocentric reference frame, is secured by definition by Einstein's 1915 work: "the required equivalence appears to be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations." That is, Einstein's field equations are structured to supply the necessary upward force on the geosynchronous satellite in a geocentric as well as a heliocentric framework. Thus, H. Thirring notes that: "...in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating masses, forces appear which are analogous to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces."

Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications,1962, pgs. 344 & 345 says:

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Einstein himself also says:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)"


Therefore, distant rotary masses can cause local inertial forces, like the Coriolis and centrifugal forces, which perfectly mimic the inertial effects of a spinning Earth . This implies that there are two possible explanations for the inertial forces whenever objects are in relative rotational motion.

Mach's principle has been confirmed in theory by Hans Thirring and no experimental test has ever disproved this principle of relative motion.

The experiment performed by J. Barbour and B. Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. There have arisen some questions re: the Lagrangian used by Barbour and Bertotti and also about the coordinate transformations discussed in their article, but the main experiment showed, quite clearly that Mach's Principle is correct.

http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Overview-Barbour-Bertotti

Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the Earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the Earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as 'proofs' of heliocentricity!

Round earth supporters, therefore, cannot use the Coriolis effect as a "proof" that the Earth is rotating around its own axis, on the contrary.

For us, for the flat earth theory, Mach's Principle is a great scientific tool to be used whenever an argument arises which might include the concept of the Coriolis force/effect; in flat earth theory variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients caused by the gates/openings in the first dome (that is why, to present flat earth theory without the concept of the dome, complicates things very much).

[model 29]

If the earth were a globe the stars should be an equal distance away from each other at all times as they pass across the sky, and not physically spreading apart and growing in distance from one another.

OKay, I'll bite. When don't the stars appear to be the same (You mysteriously called it "equal".) distance as they pass across the sky? Did someone change reality and forget to post it in FET announcements?

I believe I provided two pictures taken from the equator. The stars get close and then spread apart from each other. They do not remain the same distance from each other at all times.

You believe wrong.  Had the pictures been taken from the equator, the 'straight', or celestial equatorial star trails would have been perpendicular to the horizon.  Since they are not, and one of the celestial poles is higher than the other in each picture, this means the pictures were taken from either well north or south of the equator.

Now then, in order to get a view of both ( or close to both) celestial poles in the same picture, a wide angle lens, or more preferably a fisheye lens is required.  I'm sure you're aware of the difference between what is seen with the naked eye vs the images taken using a fisheye lens.

Perhaps we should try noting the distance between the celestial equator stars at midnight and again when they're near the horizon and see if there's actually any difference in distance from each other.  Or better yet, take a picture aimed directly at those stars at midnight, and again aimed directly at the same stars later.  Will there be a difference?  Nope.

[Pete Svarrior]

It is very nice to see that the UAFE have adopted my bipolar map.

No one knows what UAFE is, but something tells me it hasn't adopted your map.

pizzaplanet, the ball is in your court: I have done my job and have written up my AFET faq (posted in the suggestions and concerns thread). It should be added to the wiki.

Yes, and the feedback you received so far was highly critical. Remember the agreement? You need to write it up and receive public support. So far, your response to people criticising you was to keep saying that you think you're right. In other words, you have done less than half of your job.

You keep claiming that you receive praise (literally: My praise comes from the fact that my theory has been tested again and again successfully, unlike yours.), but that praise is nowhere to be found. So far, everyone has told you that you're terrible at writing FAQs. Improve or give up.

[Tom Bishop]

Actually, the bi-polar model was first advocated in the book The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, (Zetetes, 1918) which touches on the movement of the sun, celestial bodies, and some other features on page 30.

http://library.tfes.org/library/Sea-Earth%20Globe.pdf

[sandokhan]

We are talking about a BIPOLAR MAP, not a bipolar model with nothing specific attached to it.

As I have said before, the bipolar map is perfectly compatible with MY AFET and not with a sun orbiting at some 3000 miles above the Earth: this is the very reason I am able to win each and every debate, while the other FE have to struggle along.

[Earthisround]

The answer we've given in the past to this question is that the stars have a slight gravitational field. This is how the variation of g at high altitudes is explained. The stars are also rotating above the earth at one rotation per 24 hours. That bullets and artillery shells are are deflected is because the stars are pulling the bullet.

Why do storms always rotate anti-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern....?

This is explained in the bi-polar model by counter-rotating celestial systems which grind against each other like a spinning pair of gears.



The gravitation of the spinning celestial gears overhead pulls wind systems clockwise or counter-clockwise. The gears are centered over the North and South Pole. The layout of the earth in the bi-polar model is depicted with two poles. Here is a general illustration:



At the equator we can see this gear system begin pulling away from itself, which should be impossible if the earth were a globe.





If the earth were a globe the stars should be an equal distance away from each other at all times as they pass across the sky, and not physically spreading apart and growing in distance from one another. This is evidence that the stars are operating in the manner described.

[Earthisround]

The answer we've given in the past to this question is that the stars have a slight gravitational field. This is how the variation of g at high altitudes is explained. The stars are also rotating above the earth at one rotation per 24 hours. That bullets and artillery shells are are deflected is because the stars are pulling the bullet.

First of all, you and this website claims that gravity doesn't exist or that it is much weaker than it is taught as the answer to why the earth gravity doesn't pull it into a sphere, so how is it that you come here and explain that the star's gravity affects the path of the bullet? I don't think you can comprehend the unfeasible distances that the stars are from the earth, not to mention that they are all different in mass and distance. If the star's gravity really did affect the bullet, its path would be erratic and unpredictable instead of the constant drift that it experiences with the Coriolis effect in a spherical earth. As for G forces, they are caused by rapid acceleration and erratic movements at any altitude. Imagine spinning with your arms out and then pulling them in very fast. That sudden rush and increased force is you experiencing a little over 1 g because of your acceleration and gained momentum.

If the earth were a globe the stars should be an equal distance away from each other at all times as they pass across the sky, and not physically spreading apart and growing in distance from one another. This is evidence that the stars are operating in the manner described.

As for this, it might be "evidence" if the earth didn't have an atmosphere. The thickness of our atmosphere can bend light, the same as a camera lens (which is the reason you don't trust photos from NASA, so I wonder why you trust that picture). The amount of air in the atmosphere causes distortion in the light that passes through it, which by the way, is why at sea level, stars twinkle, and is also the very reason that the huge observatories like the Keck in Hawaii are very high in elevation, built on mountains, to get more accurate data. The reason you see these differences in distances between these stars is because the refractions that the atmosphere causes to the light of the stars makes the light bend, making them look like they came closer and went apart.

[Earthisround]

In the classic model, an explanation given in the past has been that the sun is stirring up wind systems as its warm spotlight passes over the equator. Heat causes a change in pressure, which puts wind systems into motion. After the sun's spotlight leaves an area the winds are sucked in from the North and South to meet in the middle. Over eons this has caused the wind systems in the North to generally move one way and wind systems in the South to generally move the other way. Bullets and artillery shells are affected by this wind, often mistaken for the rotation of the earth.

The sun is NOT a spotlight! It is a giant, hulking mass of hydrogen being fused into helium that was created 4.6 billion years ago! It lies 93 million miles, or 1 astronomical unit (AU) from the earth at the center of the solar system. It is a star. Period. It emits light everywhere, not just toward earth. If it floated 3000 miles above earth, as I believe you flat earthers claim, then there would be no earth, we would be incinerated. While you are correct about the heating of the weather causing them to move, the movement is mostly caused by the earths rotation.

[juner]

In the classic model, an explanation given in the past has been that the sun is stirring up wind systems as its warm spotlight passes over the equator. Heat causes a change in pressure, which puts wind systems into motion. After the sun's spotlight leaves an area the winds are sucked in from the North and South to meet in the middle. Over eons this has caused the wind systems in the North to generally move one way and wind systems in the South to generally move the other way. Bullets and artillery shells are affected by this wind, often mistaken for the rotation of the earth.

The sun is NOT a spotlight! It is a giant, hulking mass of hydrogen being fused into helium that was created 4.6 billion years ago! It lies 93 million miles, or 1 astronomical unit (AU) from the earth at the center of the solar system. It is a star. Period. It emits light everywhere, not just toward earth. If it floated 3000 miles above earth, as I believe you flat earthers claim, then there would be no earth, we would be incinerated. While you are correct about the heating of the weather causing them to move, the movement is mostly caused by the earths rotation.

Please read the FAQ and wiki to get a better understanding of the sun in FET.

[andruszkow]

In all honesty though it's a little hard to tell where you stand on that matter though, following a debate between admins and sandokhan about whether his theory should have a spot in said wiki. His theory is remarkably different than the one currently in the FAQ, yet the effort taken explaining everything seems, in all fairness, so much more in detail.

So which is it? 3000 miles or 600-something that sandokhans theory says? The figure is kind of important if one wants to base an answer with a clear standpoint based on calculations

[andruszkow]

Correction, sandokhans theory says 15-20km

[sandokhan]

It is very easy to debunk the unipolar map which is used to justify the sun's 3000 miles orbiting altitude.



The official distance between the two tropics (upper and lower limit for the orbit of the sun) is some 5200 km, let us increase that to some 6000 km (see the correct FE map above).

The most important aspect of the Sun's orbiting parameters is its 1.5 km/year westward shift (its precession).

Dividing 6000 km by 1.5 km/year we get 4000 years: after 4000 years the sun's orbit will exceed its upper (or lower) limit in the UAFE theory.

Now, as for the 3000 miles orbiting altitude, this has been debunked so many times, that it is not worth remembering.

[Earthisround]

Please read the FAQ and wiki to get a better understanding of the sun in FET.

I did read the FAQ. For the third time now, and I can see what you are doing. You are just trying to deviate me from the subject so that you don't have to debate with science and physics and basic laws of nature. You are the administrator, so logically, you should be the smartest or one of the smartest people on this topic, so please, do enlighten me on what it is I am wrong on, if you can.

[juner]

You are just trying to deviate me from the subject so that you don't have to debate with science and physics and basic laws of nature.

Simply not true.

...so logically, you should be the smartest or one of the smartest people on this topic.

Why would you assume that? I help to administrate the forum. That title does not have much relation to my knowledge of FET.

[Earthisround]

...so logically, you should be the smartest or one of the smartest people on this topic.

Why would you assume that? I help to administrate the forum. That title does not have much relation to my knowledge of FET.

I would assume that because it does not take much intellect to be intelligent in this subject. Given time, anyone can orchestrate an elaborate lie like this and invent more shit to back it up. I'm not calling you dumb, but please, do try to enlighten me on what I was wrong on in the previous post

[juner]

I would assume that because it does not take much intellect to be intelligent in this subject

Literally a non sequitur.

I find that the bottom tier round earth proponents tend to say things like this. While you clearly haven't taken any time to study the FE model, the FE proponents have a great understanding of the RE model. Hence my suggestion to read the FAQ and the wiki. It is a starting point, and it is apparent that you need it if you hope to actually have a discussion here.

[Earthisround]

I find that the bottom tier round earth proponents tend to say things like this.

So you think that Niel DeGrasse Tyson is a bottom tier round earth proponent? He went up to comedy central and laid waste to B.O.B. and anyone who believes in this retarded theory. But please, I've read you FAQ page and know enough to have a civilized discussion with you, and when it begins, I shall be a bit more decent with you. So please, junker, do begin!

[juner]

So you think that Niel DeGrasse Tyson is a bottom tier round earth proponent?

For the most part, yes.

He went up to comedy central and laid waste to B.O.B. and anyone who believes in this retarded theory.

Cool story, bro. I would suggest if you want to talk about NdT to make a thread for him. I think one already exists and is fairly recent. Otherwise, please get back on topic.