9561

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis Effect

« on: May 09, 2014, 05:50:01 AM »

So how do you know that there is an edge or ice wall? You seem to waiver on basic characteristic of your bi-polar model. Would you please take the time to write down your model, its characteristics, and experimental data that demonstrates your model superior to Rowbotham's. Thanks.

It's not "my" model. It was proposed by this society in the early 1900's. You can find it in "The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Albert Smith.

Okay, then. So Rowbotham says you're wrong. The SP is circumferential (p. 289), not a single point as in your model.

I know what he says. I also know what has been discovered since then.

Wrong. The Sun is visible at both poles on the equinoxes all day.See: http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/88604352.html

Actually, that article describes the prediction of the sun's position as an unpredictable "guessing game":

"These atmospheric effects make figuring the actual time the sun appears to set below the horizon to someone standing at the pole quite variable from year to year, and makes it a guessing game for those down there when the sun will appear to disappear."

I assume, of course, that the position is unreliable according to the RET standards they are comparing to.

Feel free to show that in your model the NP, SP,or both observers can't see the Sun on the equinoxes.

The article you provided does not say anything about observers seeing the sun on the equinox. It's about how unreliable the behavior of the sun is.

The title of the article says it all: "Equinox sunset at South Pole? Promptly at ?? o'clock"

Please include the reasoning such as too distant to see. I don't even understand where the Sun is over your FE at midnight UT on the equinoxes. Could you at least answer that question.

The sun travels around the NP for 6 months of the year. For three of those months it is creating smaller and smaller circles, closing its radius until it reaches the Tropic of Cancer. Next it creates larger and larger circles until it reaches the equator. When the sun reaches the equator the Equinox Day occurs, which marks the changing of the seasons.

For the next six months sun then "switches gears" and travels around the SP for 6 months. It starts off creating large circles, closing its radius until it reaches the Tropic of Capricorn. Next it creates larger and larger circles until it again reaches the equator. A year has been completed and the process starts anew.

This movement explains why the North has long hot days in the Northern summer and short cold days in the Northern winter. It also explains why the South has short cold days in the Northern summer and long hot days in the Northern winter.

So even though ZP prohibits the use of hypotheses, Robotham uses them. I find that rather odd.

Rowbotham is combating the wild and absurd hypotheses of Round Earth Theory.

9562

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis Effect

« on: May 09, 2014, 12:21:10 AM »

Again, what is the edge in your model?

An edge has not been discovered.

Tell me then why R. wrote of the South Pole star. Why he just guessing correctly that there was a SP?

If you would like to know what Rowbotham thought of the South Pole star, maybe you should read the book.

Now that your model includes the SP and since you adhere to Zeletic principles, then you know the SP is real, right? Tell us how an observer on either pole sees the Sun at midnight UT on any equinox. Please include an illustration. Thanks.

The Midnight Sun does not occur in the Arctic and Antarctic circles simultaneously, but at different times of the year.

ETA: Since hypotheses are the anathema of Zeletic principles, why would R. deal with a hypothetical SP?

Rowbotham addresses it for the same reason he addresses the hypothesis of the earth's motion and its convexity. It's a book about why RET is wrong.

9563

Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique p. 68

« on: May 09, 2014, 12:06:06 AM »

Well, R. reaches the conclusion without any argument surviving this critique. R. does not understand the science of moving objects, kinetics. He failed repeated here. His conclusion does not follow from his work. The main mistake, of which Rama Set so correctly provided video evidence, is that Newton's First Law must be applied in all the cases he explored in this chapter thus far. Rowbothan failed.

Rowbotham never states, or suggests, that the various objects in the chapter are moving at a static pace. That is a figment of your imagination.

9564

Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique

« on: May 08, 2014, 11:54:35 PM »

Why do you treat R.'s continued errors with such an effort to find an excuse? His illustrations were corrupted by the published. If he is wrong about something, it's only because we took him at his word.

Have you done the calculations based on RET about what imaginary forces the horseback rider would experience? If so, please present them; otherwise, you don't know about what you're talking. Also please do tell us what if any other forces the rider would experience akin to those you say the FE experiences as the Coriolis Effect.

Rowbotham uses the word 'rapidly' to describe the movement of the horse, as in 'a hurrying pace'. The horse was accelerating.

Rapid typically means to accelerate at a quick pace.

"He swung his fist rapidly into the punching bag"

"New report warns of rapidly increasing carbon emission levels"

"Rapidly rising food costs sting at supermarket"

So when R. says:

"Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown;" (emphasis my own)

He does not mean "in all cases" ?  Does he mean "in some cases"?  Did "in all cases" mean somethign different in the 19th century?  Or are his scientific writing unreliable?  He also does not have illustrations that accurately depict his ideas in a book he edited.  This is not a good sign.

"Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown"

If the object is moving at right angles to a ball which is in the air, away from it, then the object is accelerating from the ball. I find nothing wrong with the sentence.

He also does not have illustrations that accurately depict his ideas in a book he edited.  This is not a good sign.

Even the illustrations show accelerating bodies. Consider the train example from the chapter. The three images of it are not evenly spaced.



The ball falls behind because it is accelerating away.

9565

Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique

« on: May 08, 2014, 06:22:41 PM »

Rowbotham is still ignoring the conservation of linear momentum in his horse thought experiment.

What makes you think that he is describing a horse trotting at a static speed? This is not stated anywhere. That section is about acceleration. He describes an advancing, rapidly moving horse, to demonstrate that on an accelerating body a person juggling balls would experience them falling backwards.

Einstein eventually abandoned Mach's Principle with some reservations.

Who said anything about Mach?

You did in another thread.

That thread is not this thread.

9566

Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique

« on: May 08, 2014, 05:45:56 PM »

Einstein eventually abandoned Mach's Principle with some reservations.

Who said anything about Mach?

back to his hands, the horse would have taken him in advance, and the whole would drop to the ground behind him. It is the same in leaping from the back of a horse in motion. The performer must throw himself to a certain degree forward. If he jumps directly upwards, the horse will go from under him, and he would fall behind.

Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown; and the distance at which it falls behind depends upon the time the ball has been in the air. As this is the result in every instance where the experiment is carefully and specially performed, the same would follow if a ball were discharged from any point upon a revolving earth. The causes or conditions operating being the same, the same effect would necessarily follow.

The experiment shown in fig. 49, demonstrates, however, that these causes, or conditions, or motion in the earth, do not exist.

R. fails to understand Kinetics. An object in motion tends to remain in motion. No, a ball thrown from a moving object does not lose its motion just by being thrown. This knowledge was written down carefully and precisely over 190 years before the publication of EnaG. R. is out of step with our understanding of Kinetics and fails miserably on this page. Why do FEers point to a text with such clear mistakes?

[Given the decision to put all 346 pages in one topic, I ask that everyone carefully record about what page they're discussing with each post.]
[Based on Tom Bishop's claim that R. is not responsible for any illustration in EnaG, I'll ignore all illustrations as the publisher's fancy.]

Re: P. 66

Video demonstration the EnaG is incorrect:

The RET is not a flat moving platform. It is a spinning sphere which exhibits centrifugal/centripital accelerations.

9567

Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique

« on: May 08, 2014, 04:26:19 AM »

So... Do you therefore reject all EnaG illustrations, or is this just as excuse you use when you're caught in an error?

The illustrations exaggerate a number of things. I don't think any one takes them for much.

9568

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis Effect

« on: May 08, 2014, 04:13:07 AM »

Tom, read again what I posted. Einstein reject MP, not all of Mach's ideas.

Maybe you should read again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

"Einstein was so satisfied with this manifestation of Mach's principle that he wrote a letter to Mach expressing this"

So you admit that R. built a model without all of the facts, violating his supposed adherence to Zetetic principles.

He did have all the facts of his time.

I see that you don't agree with FAQs. Have you abandoned the ice wall concept altogether? What forms the edge of your model if not the ice wall? Why hasn't anyone reached this edge?

There is still an ice wall in the model, as water naturally freezes, but it is not Antarctica. People do not reach the edge because it is not reachable by any compass direction. Magnetic field lines behave as if a bar magnet were laid down under the North Pole, reaching to the South Pole. On a bar magnet the magnetic field lines curve to reach the poles.

Whenever anyone on earth attempts to go North, the compass follows the curved field lines to the North Pole. Whenever anyone attempts to go South, the compass follows the curved field lines to the South Pole. If one attempts to go West in the Northern Hemisphere, since the field lines all point to the North, and the West is at a right angle to North, the observer would make a circle around the North Pole. If one attempts to go East in the Southern Hemisphere, the observer would make a circle around the South Pole.

They display as if the lines of longitude (the ones intersecting at and spreading out from the NP and SP) on this map were magnetic field lines:

Oh, and while no one had yet walked to the SP, it most certainly was known by the time of EnaG's publication. R. even referenced a work with "South Pole" in its title (#170)

At the time of writing the South Pole was hypothetical.

9569

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice

« on: May 08, 2014, 04:01:01 AM »

Tom, you make it sound like we are all astronomers here, and can definitively say that there is no answer in science at this time.  Are you an astronomer?  I am not.  But a very quick search on the intrawebs showed that there are lots and lots of papers on the workings of Brown Dwarfs.  They require payment and this is your bone to pick, so why dont you pony up?  You might find the answer you are not looking for.

Setting that aside and indulging your "argument" hypothetically, you are saying that because there is no answer now that there never will be?  If that is the horse you want to bet on, be my guest, but historically, the odds are against you.

I see. Mystery then.

9570

Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique

« on: May 08, 2014, 03:56:43 AM »

So since Newton won the community over with Principles and clearly define the scientific terms in his day, then R. failed by using sloppy terms. And you still want to listen to this guy? Heck,m he didn't even know that, as according to you, the FE has two poles.

Understandable, as the South Pole was not yet discovered.

Are you saying that R., who was instrumental in publishing EnaG, did not review and approve the illustrations? If so, then you're impugning every illustration in EnaG as corrupt, right?

As I recall, the old publishing monopolies (and many current ones) wouldn't publish your work unless you give them ownership of it, and accept their terms on residuals. The illustration, editing, marketing, etc, is provided by the publisher.

The extent Rowbotham worked with the publisher is unknown. But when he sent in his work to be published and signed the contract, it was no longer his decision. Even if Rowbotham made corrections or criticism to any part of it, the publisher had ultimate authority on whether it was within budget or time tables.

9571

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis Effect

« on: May 08, 2014, 03:29:58 AM »

The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.

So you now want to accept the Foucault Pendulum? Okay then.

Now, tell us why Einstein rejected your theory, Tell us how your theory would apply to more than just the North Pole. Heck, why don't you start by writing down your theory and its supporting experiments? Are you now saying that the Earth and the stars have interactive gravity? Please think through your theories before just stating them. Thanks.

I support the Bi-Polar model, which has two rotating celestial systems over two poles. An identical phenomena is occurring over the South Pole.

The stars have pulled the pendulum via gravitation. I believe in gravitation, not "gravity". Gravitation is a descriptive action, a sensation of attraction, but does not indicate the mechanism involved. Two magnets are said to "gravitate" towards each other. Two lovers are said to "gravitate" to one another. Sam the mail man gravitates to the Chinese restaurant every Friday night. Gravity, on the other hand is a hypothetical mechanism involving invisible puller particles/bending space time, and is yet to be demonstrated.

Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."

Hence, with our knowledge that the earth does not rotate, from our readings of ENAG and other historical Flat Earth Literature, the conclusion is demanded that the stars are pulling the pendulum.

Now you want to switch to the bi-polar model, abandoning R.'s model. Okay then . You make the same error. Mach's Principle says you can't determine which is rotating, yet your bi-polar model requires the the sky to rotation violating Mach's Principle.

Just to review R.'s model, he knows that "THE SUN'S MOTION, CONCENTRIC WITH THE POLAR CENTRE." p. 105. Your R. knows that you're wrong about the bi-polar model.

Also in the bi-polar model please explain how a traveler goes due west from (0, 179^o W to (0, 179^o E) at 1 P.M. local time. Is jumping thousands of miles required.? Please draw the traveller, the FE and the Sun at both the beginning and end of the travel.

Again, why did Einstein discard MP? Are you smarter than Einstein now?

Rowbotham didn't know about the South Pole because it hadn't been discovered yet. Flat Earthers corrected the model in the early 20th Century. The model is used in the early 1900's book "The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Albert Smith, whereupon the FET split into two models. The Bi-Polar model was forgotten over time, but revived in recent years by myself and others.

Again, why did Einstein discard MP? Are you smarter than Einstein now?

That's funny, Einstein doesn't seem to have a problem with it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

In this sense, at least some of Mach principles are related to philosophical holism. Mach's suggestion can be taken as the injunction that gravitation theories should be relational theories. Einstein brought the principle into mainstream physics while working on general relativity. Indeed it was Einstein who first coined the phrase Mach's principle. There is much debate as to whether Mach really intended to suggest a new physical law since he never states it explicitly.

The writing in which Einstein found inspiration from Mach was "The Science of Mechanics", where the philosopher criticized Newton's idea of absolute space, in particular the argument that Newton gave sustaining the existence of an advantaged reference system: what is commonly called "Newton's bucket argument".

...

Einstein—before completing his development of the general theory of relativity—found an effect which he interpreted as being evidence of Mach's principle. We assume a fixed background for conceptual simplicity, construct a large spherical shell of mass, and set it spinning in that background. The reference frame in the interior of this shell will precess with respect to the fixed background. This effect is known as the Lense–Thirring effect. Einstein was so satisfied with this manifestation of Mach's principle that he wrote a letter to Mach expressing this:

"it... turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's pail experiment... If one rotates a heavy shell of matter relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell; that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around (with a practically unmeasurably small angular velocity)."

9572

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice

« on: May 08, 2014, 03:10:33 AM »

All I know is that it is not deuterium fusion, making your claim of a core temperature in the millions of Celsius speculative and unsubstantiated. Unless you have new ground to break, this conversation is at a dead end.

The answer coming from this thread is that "it's a mystery in Astronomy." Exactly my point. This star cannot be explained by Astronomy, and so some new mystery power source needs to be created to explain it.

It isn't 'powered' by anything.  The core of a giant ball of gas doesn't have to burn fuel to be hot.  See: gas giants.  This is what I was getting at with the Jupiter example on the first page.  This is all perfectly consistent with how modern science describes all the gas giants. 

Jupiter's core is very hot.  Jupiter's surface is very cold.  Convection is happening in between. 

http://www.universetoday.com/11096/jupiters-winds-come-from-inside/

“Our model suggests convection driven by deep internal heat sources power Jupiter’s surface winds,” said Jonathan Aurnou, UCLA assistant professor of planetary physics. “The model provides a possible answer to why the winds are so stable for centuries. Jupiter’s surface is the tail; the dog is the hot interior of the planet."

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/page/jupiter_saturn

Heat from the interior of Jupiter causes circulation patterns in the atmosphere, with warm gas rising and cooling, before sinking back into the depths of the planet. This process is called convection, and it causes the different colored bands in Jupiter's atmosphere.

Last I checked Jupiter was not self luminous.

From page 31 of The Outline of Science Vol 1 we read:

"The interior of Jupiter is very hot, but the planet is not self-luminous. The planets Venus and Jupiter shin very brightly, but they have no light of their own; they reflect sunlight."

9573

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Proposal to communicate via text

« on: May 08, 2014, 12:17:38 AM »

I was under the impression that this was a serious effort.

9574

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice

« on: May 08, 2014, 12:16:06 AM »

... tell us what powers it.

Does this imply that you're finally ready to tell us what powers the FET Sun (and Moon and stars)? We've been waiting for years, centuries even, after all.

Please start a new thread if you would like to go off topic.

9575

Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique

« on: May 08, 2014, 12:14:28 AM »

Yes, some do. But Newton wrote in terms that the scientific community had agreed upon, 200 years before EnaG. Also from context. R. clearly considers the ship motion's as imparting a force just like gravity.

Newton was speaking in the language of his day, just as Rowbotham was.

So, if you're right about R. just using the term imprecisely, why did he draw straight lines and not arcs in his diagrams?

Rowbotham did not draw anything in the book. They were provided by an illustrator for the publisher. This is indicated on the title page.

9576

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice

« on: May 08, 2014, 12:02:15 AM »

Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom.  In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?

The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.

The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.

I do not have to provide an alternative. I made the claim that the BD was not burning deuterium and I have substantiated it. I also never said "we don't know what's powering it" and made no "tact[sic] admission that Astronomy is not a reliable science. You should trying to force your opinions in to my words it makes you appear desperate.

If the star is not burning Deuterium, and "we don't know what's powering it" is an inaccurate statement, then maybe you can do us all a favor and tell us what powers it.

9577

Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique

« on: May 07, 2014, 11:53:39 PM »

It is pretty well known that the usage of the word "force" was used differently in prior eras.

Thermal-Fluid Sciences: An Integrated Approach, Volume 1:

"Parenthetical material has been added; in the mid 1800s, the word force commonly meant energy [4, 5]"

Per falling in an arc, Rowbotham describes that the ball moved diagonally from point A to point B, which it does even when falling in an arc. Moving diagonally is an accurate description. A ball can fall in an arc diagonally. The subject of the ball's motion is not in scope of the text, or pertinent.

Yawn.

So you're arguing the someone else made this mistake, so it's okay that R. did too. You really should choose your "scientist" better. If R. didn't study _Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica_(first published in 1687, 196 years before EnaG), then I don't see why you'd rely on his understanding of kinetics in the first place. Oh, and remember you claimed that Newton used "force" incorrectly. We're still waiting on your answer to the challenge to provide evidence of your claim.

Words change meaning over time.

From a grade-school level text: A straight line inside a shape that goes from one corner to another (but not an edge).

One can move in a diagonal direction, or diagonally, without necessarily traveling in a straight line.

The prases 'moving diagionally', 'diagonal', and 'diagionally' != 'diagonal line'

For example, we have an empty chess board. If we place a rook on it, and use its L shaped moves to travel from one corner of the board to the other, it can be said to be moving diagonally across the chess board.

These arguments are incredibly weak. I would suggest coming up with something stronger, lest it further besmirch your character.

9578

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice

« on: May 07, 2014, 10:10:22 PM »

As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. It is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

9579

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice

« on: May 07, 2014, 09:24:54 PM »

Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom.  In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?

The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.

The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.

9580

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice

« on: May 07, 2014, 08:09:54 PM »

As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?

The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning

"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

You deliberately truncated the quotation above.  Here it is in full with the part you left out in bold:

"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs,

and have masses between about 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter."[/list]

This part is crucial since we have already established that not all brown dwarfs are above 13 M_J, particularly the one that is being discussed in this thread.  So, once again, your assertion that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 burns deuterium and so must have a core temperature in the millions of degrees Celsius is patently false.

The 13 Jupiter Mass minimum is more a rule of thumb based on observations rather than anything of mathematical significance.

If this star is not being powered by Deuterium, then what is it being powered by? Something mysterious?