Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2014, 01:29:05 AM »
Quote
Again, what is the edge in your model?

An edge has not been discovered.
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.
Quote

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.
Okay, then. So Rowbotham says you're wrong. The SP is circumferential (p. 289), not a single point as in your model.
Quote
Quote
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.
Wrong. The Sun is visible at both poles on the equinoxes all day.See: http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/88604352.html Feel free to show that in your model the NP, SP,or both observers can't see the Sun on the equinoxes. 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.
Quote

Quote
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.
So even though ZP prohibits the use of hypotheses, Robotham uses them. I find that rather odd.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2014, 05:31:05 AM »
I could be wrong, but is this thread still going on topic? I'm a bit too tired to tell atm, but it seems like the topic has moved from Coriolis to FE models.

If the topic has shifted, can be loop it back to Coriolis? If not, then please, continue on.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10229
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #42 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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"

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 06:03:15 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2014, 05:56:37 AM »
I could be wrong, but is this thread still going on topic? I'm a bit too tired to tell atm, but it seems like the topic has moved from Coriolis to FE models.

If the topic has shifted, can be loop it back to Coriolis? If not, then please, continue on.
Hey HHunter, thanks for the concern. Let me summarize my take on the issue.

1) Is the Coriolis effect real? a) EnaG: No, Thork: No b) Tom Bishop: Yes, Me: Yes. FP proves it.
2) Does MP explain it? a) Single pole model: a stretch, but maybe. MP is 3-D rotation, but 1-pole has only 2-D rotation. b) Nope. The required equivalency is missing. The FE can't spin about its 2 poles.
3) (and we've not hit this one enough in this thread) Can the FE explain the "down-under" CE? Nope. That CE is in the opposite direction, yet the stars spin in the same direction (to an observer looking up standing on the Equator) The 1-pole FE model fails to explain that the CE increases as one goes farther south.
4) (also not discussed enough ITT.) Can FE's UA be reconciled with the MP's use in the 1-pole FE model. Nope, MP requires gravity between the stars and the FE, but the UA permits no such gravity.

Does that lead to a debate of the relative merits on 1-pole versus 2-pole FE models? Yes.
Does that lead to a debate about the viability of 2-pole FE model? Yes

Can FE explain CE? Nope.

Any questions?

Thanks again.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2014, 06:10:26 AM »
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.
Let's first review Rowbotham's process.
Quote from: EnaG p. 5
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
So how is it you contradict Rowbotham when this conclusion is "beyond the reach or power of contradiction"? Did R. error in the details? Is the Zetetic process not as Rowbotham described?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #45 on: May 09, 2014, 06:27:33 AM »
The article you provided does not say anything about observers seeing the sun on the equinox.
Wrong.
Quote from: http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/88604352.html
In a perfect world, the sun would be exactly half-way down the horizon at both poles at the moment of equinox -- which is 10:32 a.m. our time on Saturday. ... All in all, they figure the sun will finally set there -- sometime between 2:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. our time on *Monday*.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #46 on: May 09, 2014, 06:51:22 AM »

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.

Wrong. The Sun never moves in even a close approximation of a circle on any day in bi-polar model. (This hand-waving gearing must also apply to the Moon, the planets, and the stars.)

I challenge you to show, and then explain, the area illuminated by the Sun at 23.00 UT on March 21, 2014. People in Sydney, Australia saw the Sun to the east. Yet by your explanation the Sun was on the Equator on the western part of the FE.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10229
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #47 on: May 09, 2014, 06:52:51 AM »
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.
Let's first review Rowbotham's process.
Quote from: EnaG p. 5
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
So how is it you contradict Rowbotham when this conclusion is "beyond the reach or power of contradiction"? Did R. error in the details? Is the Zetetic process not as Rowbotham described?

As stated, conclusions are beyond the reach of contradiction if the details are correctly worked. The discovery, or non-discovery, of a South Pole was not 'correctly worked' at the time of writing. Any prior conclusions, therefore, are within the reach of contradiction, and the Zetetic process now favors a model with a South Pole.

The article you provided does not say anything about observers seeing the sun on the equinox.
Wrong.
Quote from: http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/88604352.html
In a perfect world, the sun would be exactly half-way down the horizon at both poles at the moment of equinox -- which is 10:32 a.m. our time on Saturday. ... All in all, they figure the sun will finally set there -- sometime between 2:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. our time on *Monday*.

As I recall, your argument was that the sun does not set on equinox day at the North and South Pole, and that a Midnight Sun occurs. That's what you asked me to explain why that is.

You stated above: "Wrong. The Sun is visible at both poles on the equinoxes all day"

Now you quote me something that is contradictory to this statement, and to the predictions of the Round Earth model.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 07:30:11 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #48 on: May 09, 2014, 07:17:24 AM »
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.
Let's first review Rowbotham's process.
Quote from: EnaG p. 5
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
So how is it you contradict Rowbotham when this conclusion is "beyond the reach or power of contradiction"? Did R. error in the details? Is the Zetetic process not as Rowbotham described?

As stated, conclusions are beyond the reach of contradiction if the details are correctly worked. The discovery, or non-discovery, of a South Pole was not 'correctly worked' at the time of writing. Any prior conclusions, therefore, are within the reach of contradiction, and the Zetetic process now favors a model with a South Pole.
Zetetic principles require that no conclusion is proffered until all relevant facts are known and included. I think we went over that in this very thread.
Quote

The article you provided does not say anything about observers seeing the sun on the equinox.
Wrong.
Quote from: http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/88604352.html
In a perfect world, the sun would be exactly half-way down the horizon at both poles at the moment of equinox -- which is 10:32 a.m. our time on Saturday. ... All in all, they figure the sun will finally set there -- sometime between 2:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. our time on *Monday*.

As I recall, your argument was that the sun does not set on equinox day at the South Pole, and that a Midnight Sun occurs. That's what you asked me to explain why that is.

You stated above: "Wrong. The Sun is visible at both poles on the equinoxes all day"

Now you quote me something that is contradictory to this statement, and to the predictions of the Round Earth model.
Do show me the contradiction. Unless you're going to be pedantic and claim that the Sun set by going behind a mountain (or that the observer blinked), I surely don't see any contradiction. I remind you, here again, to create a few simple graphics showing the Sun's area of illumination on March 21, 2014 at 23.00 UT. In particular, show how an observer in Sydney, Australia at the time saw the Sun to the east while your model would have it on the far west Equator.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10229
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #49 on: May 09, 2014, 07:29:29 AM »
The article does not state that someone in the North Pole and South Pole saw the equinox throughout the day on the day of Equinox. It is speaking for the South Pole only. The only observer mentioned is a NOAA employee at the South Pole.

Under the Bi-Polar model, sun may be finishing up it's rotation around the South on that day, explaining the observation.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #50 on: May 09, 2014, 08:07:51 AM »
The article does not state that someone in the North Pole and South Pole saw the equinox throughout the day on the day of Equinox. It is speaking for the South Pole only. The only observer mentioned is a NOAA employee at the South Pole.

Under the Bi-Polar model, sun may be finishing up it's rotation around the South on that day, explaining the observation.
So you're saying that you couldn't find a reference for the NP on this topic. Really? Your Google must be broken. See: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_seasons.html

By the way, would you make up your mind soon. ITT you argue that there's a CE, by MP on the bi-polar FE model. In the EnaG critique you argue that there is not. You'd be more likely to convince a noob to be interested in your ideas, maybe even apply to your Columbia University, if you'd choose one and stick to it.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10229
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #51 on: May 09, 2014, 08:39:44 AM »
No observation of a North Pole 24 hour sun on Equinox Day is claimed in that link.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #52 on: May 09, 2014, 08:47:53 AM »
No observation of a North Pole 24 hour sun on Equinox Day is claimed in that link.
Your mouse button must be faulty then.
Quote from: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_seasons.html
At the Autumn Equinox, approximately September 21, the sun sinks below the horizon, and the North Pole is in twilight until early October, after which it is in full darkness for the Winter.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10229
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #53 on: May 09, 2014, 02:36:25 PM »
No observation of a North Pole 24 hour sun on Equinox Day is claimed in that link.
Your mouse button must be faulty then.
Quote from: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_seasons.html
At the Autumn Equinox, approximately September 21, the sun sinks below the horizon, and the North Pole is in twilight until early October, after which it is in full darkness for the Winter.

It does not say that the sun can be seen. It says that the NP is in twilight for a little while after the autumnal equinox. This could be due for a number of reasons. Stray and shallow light from sun at its high altitude may be catching onto some of the upper ice crystals in the upper polar atmosphere, creating twilight, where normally it would refract into nothingness under regular atmospheric conditions.

Considering your NASA source, credibility is low, however.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #54 on: May 09, 2014, 03:30:09 PM »
No observation of a North Pole 24 hour sun on Equinox Day is claimed in that link.
Your mouse button must be faulty then.
Quote from: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_seasons.html
At the Autumn Equinox, approximately September 21, the sun sinks below the horizon, and the North Pole is in twilight until early October, after which it is in full darkness for the Winter.

It does not say that the sun can be seen. It says that the NP is in twilight for a little while after the autumnal equinox. This could be due for a number of reasons. Stray and shallow light from sun at its high altitude may be catching onto some of the upper ice crystals in the upper polar atmosphere, creating twilight, where normally it would refract into nothingness under regular atmospheric conditions.

Considering your NASA source, credibility is low, however.
You do understand the the Sun rises and sets once a year as seen from the NP, right? The page clearly states that the Sun sets approximately September 21.  So on the fall equinox it can be seen.

You're welcome to invoke some non-falsifiable conspiracy theory as your way to admit defeat. Just let us know when you decide to do that.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10229
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #55 on: May 09, 2014, 05:16:13 PM »
No observation of a North Pole 24 hour sun on Equinox Day is claimed in that link.
Your mouse button must be faulty then.
Quote from: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_seasons.html
At the Autumn Equinox, approximately September 21, the sun sinks below the horizon, and the North Pole is in twilight until early October, after which it is in full darkness for the Winter.

It does not say that the sun can be seen. It says that the NP is in twilight for a little while after the autumnal equinox. This could be due for a number of reasons. Stray and shallow light from sun at its high altitude may be catching onto some of the upper ice crystals in the upper polar atmosphere, creating twilight, where normally it would refract into nothingness under regular atmospheric conditions.

Considering your NASA source, credibility is low, however.
You do understand the the Sun rises and sets once a year as seen from the NP, right? The page clearly states that the Sun sets approximately September 21.  So on the fall equinox it can be seen.

Except that the Fall Equinox occurs on September 22nd, 23rd or 24th.

http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/september-equinox.html

    "The September equinox occurs the moment the Sun crosses the celestial equator – the imaginary line in the sky above the Earth’s equator – from north to south. This happens either on September 22, 23, or 24 every year."

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9898
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #56 on: May 09, 2014, 06:11:45 PM »
You know what approximately means right?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10229
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #57 on: May 09, 2014, 07:37:41 PM »
You know what approximately means right?

It was presented here as an observation.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9898
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #58 on: May 09, 2014, 07:56:44 PM »
You know what approximately means right?

It was presented here as an observation.

So what?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10229
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #59 on: May 09, 2014, 08:59:05 PM »
You know what approximately means right?

It was presented here as an observation.

So what?

If it's an observation, then the dates listed on the page should be accurate.

Gulliver says his link is webcam evidence that the sun was seen on on the Equinox Day at that location. However, the link does not indicate seeing the sun on Equinox Day, instead stating that it sets before that.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 09:02:22 PM by Tom Bishop »