The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: HHunter on April 03, 2014, 08:08:58 PM
-
What if the FE explanation for the Coriolis effect? Note that both global air "currents" and smaller systems such as cyclones reflect the Coriolis effect.
*And yes, I looked at the wiki. Though it doesn't exactly go into great detail*
-
What if the FE explanation for the Coriolis effect? Note that both global air "currents" and smaller systems such as cyclones reflect the Coriolis effect.
*And yes, I looked at the wiki. Though it doesn't exactly go into great detail*
The usual answer is that the data on Coriolis is sketchy and we doubt it exists. I believe that it may happen, but it isn't the earth's shape that causes it. The aetheric whirlpool on the monopole disc model, and the spatial curve in my infinite closed loop hypothesis could account for it rather easily.
-
Well first, the Coriolis effect is well documented, and is commonly used to predict accurate weather conditions in the future. We can see the effects of the coriolis effect across innumerable atmospheric systems, from small systems, such as tornadoes and mesocyclones, large systems, such as Hurricanes and Anti-cycles, and large system, such as the Hadley Cell and the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Any model would have to account for a change in lateral speed with a change in longitudinal position.
On a related note, the Eotvos effect cause a decrease in weight when increasing one's speed towards the east, and an increase in weight when accelerating westwards. This is accounted for in a RE by the rotation of the earth, and the change in weight corresponds to the speed that the earth rotates at.
So how exactly would this be accounted for in said models?
-
Well first, the Coriolis effect is well documented, and is commonly used to predict accurate weather conditions in the future. We can see the effects of the coriolis effect across innumerable atmospheric systems, from small systems, such as tornadoes and mesocyclones, large systems, such as Hurricanes and Anti-cycles, and large system, such as the Hadley Cell and the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Any model would have to account for a change in lateral speed with a change in longitudinal position.
On a related note, the Eotvos effect cause a decrease in weight when increasing one's speed towards the east, and an increase in weight when accelerating westwards. This is accounted for in a RE by the rotation of the earth, and the change in weight corresponds to the speed that the earth rotates at.
So how exactly would this be accounted for in said models?
Aetheric wind or spatial curve could well account for Eotvos as well, but it's new to me, the first I've ever heard of it is your mentioning it here. Is it presumably because when running westwards the round earth is "falling" away from you?
-
Well first, the Coriolis effect is well documented, and is commonly used to predict accurate weather conditions in the future. We can see the effects of the coriolis effect across innumerable atmospheric systems, from small systems, such as tornadoes and mesocyclones, large systems, such as Hurricanes and Anti-cycles, and large system, such as the Hadley Cell and the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Any model would have to account for a change in lateral speed with a change in longitudinal position.
On a related note, the Eotvos effect cause a decrease in weight when increasing one's speed towards the east, and an increase in weight when accelerating westwards. This is accounted for in a RE by the rotation of the earth, and the change in weight corresponds to the speed that the earth rotates at.
So how exactly would this be accounted for in said models?
Hmm. You learn something new every day. I'd never heard of this effect before, and it is quite interesting.
In FET it's a consequence of the shadow of the Aetheric wind, which is what causes Coriolis as well. It's an apparent velocity which, taking relativity into account, would be no different from RET's Coriolis. It would therefore also cause the Eotvos effect. There would, however, be minor geographic differences which could be tested. This could be a way to demonstrate the shape of the Earth, given proper measuring devices.
-
In FET it's a consequence of the shadow of the Aetheric wind, which is what causes Coriolis as well.
Just out of curiosity, is there any research being done to detect and quantify this "Aetheric wind", or will it remain a magical solution that we just need to take on faith?
-
So, once again, the FE'ers just make stuff up and try to pass it off as evidence. I would expect no less.
-
So, once again, the FE'ers just make stuff up and try to pass it off as evidence. I would expect no less.
Actually, I have always believed it not to exist. I can find no evidence at all, from swirling plug holes to smoke spires to air travel to oceans currents to Felix Baumgartner's jump. Anywhere you expect to be able to observe Coriolis for yourself, it seems to be completely absent.
-
Thork is such an idiot. You should have that tin foil hat avatar again.
-
Thork is such an idiot. You should have that tin foil hat avatar again.
Interesting. I don't think I have had that avatar for maybe 3 years. Stop asking us what shape the earth is, you freak! >o<
-
Thork is such an idiot. You should have that tin foil hat avatar again.
Interesting. I don't think I have had that avatar for maybe 3 years. Stop asking us what shape the earth is, you freak! >o<
You are dumb. You changed that avatar the Halloween before last.
-
So, once again, the FE'ers just make stuff up and try to pass it off as evidence. I would expect no less.
Actually, I have always believed it not to exist. I can find no evidence at all, from swirling plug holes to smoke spires to air travel to oceans currents to Felix Baumgartner's jump. Anywhere you expect to be able to observe Coriolis for yourself, it seems to be completely absent.
Please then read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
-
When I flush the toilet sometimes my poop gets stuck. Does this mean the earth has stopped rotating? RE science is weird.
-
So, once again, the FE'ers just make stuff up and try to pass it off as evidence. I would expect no less.
Actually, I have always believed it not to exist. I can find no evidence at all, from swirling plug holes to smoke spires to air travel to oceans currents to Felix Baumgartner's jump. Anywhere you expect to be able to observe Coriolis for yourself, it seems to be completely absent.
Coriolis effect doesn't directly affect small scale-systems, though they can be indirectly affected. Tornadoes don't almost always spin counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere because of the force from the Coriolis effect, but it inherits its spin direction from the spin of the system which the tornado is apart of, which is spinning a certain way because (for larger systems) of coriolis, or because the storm inherited the spin from a larger airflow.
On ocean currents, there are many forcings on them that will make Coriolis not as much as a forcing compared to the other forcings.
And Thork, can you explain the why the spins of large weather system reflect what is suggested by the Coriolis Effect?
-
The Coriolis effect would only exist on a disc. It would not exist if the Earth were spherical because all points on a sphere are the same distance from the center, resulting in the same rotational speed.
-
The Coriolis effect would only exist on a disc. It would not exist if the Earth were spherical because all points on a sphere are the same distance from the center, resulting in the same rotational speed.
What is "rotational speed"? If you mean how much time does it take for a point on the surface to spin once about the axis, then, yes, all points take one "day" to complete a spin. That speed, though, has nothing to do with the CE.
-
The Coriolis effect would only exist on a disc. It would not exist if the Earth were spherical because all points on a sphere are the same distance from the center, resulting in the same rotational speed.
Are you talking about angular speed or linear speed?
-
The Coriolis effect would only exist on a disc. It would not exist if the Earth were spherical because all points on a sphere are the same distance from the center, resulting in the same rotational speed.
This is incorrect.
-
What is "rotational speed"? If you mean how much time does it take for a point on the surface to spin once about the axis, then, yes, all points take one "day" to complete a spin. That speed, though, has nothing to do with the CE.
No one mentioned an axis, chap.
Are you talking about angular speed or linear speed?
Speed is not a vector variable.
-
What is "rotational speed"? If you mean how much time does it take for a point on the surface to spin once about the axis, then, yes, all points take one "day" to complete a spin. That speed, though, has nothing to do with the CE.
No one mentioned an axis, chap.
Are you talking about angular speed or linear speed?
Speed is not a vector variable.
Someone standing at the equator would travel 25,000 miles, or 40,000 kilometers in 1 day, relative to the center of the Earth. Someone standing 1 foot from the geological north pole would travel 2pi feet, or if standing 1 meter away, would travel 2pi meters, in 1 day. Therefore, difference in movement.
-
The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.
-
What is "rotational speed"? If you mean how much time does it take for a point on the surface to spin once about the axis, then, yes, all points take one "day" to complete a spin. That speed, though, has nothing to do with the CE.
No one mentioned an axis, chap.
If you think the spinning Round Earth does not have an axis, then you better go back to the books and read some more.
-
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.
-
Are you talking about angular speed or linear speed?
Speed is not a vector variable.
I know that, but you're the one who said "rotational speed". I'm just trying to get you to clarify.
The Coriolis effect would only exist on a disc. It would not exist if the Earth were spherical because all points on a sphere are the same distance from the center, resulting in the same rotational speed.
Also, please don't try to confuse the noobs. A sphere rotates an an axis, therefore all points on the surface of a sphere fall on concentric circles about its rotational axis and therefore their angular velocity will be the same while their linear velocity will be different.
-
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.
-
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, 179o W to (0, 179o 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?
-
Are you smarter than Einstein now?
Please, this isn't kindergarten, you can do better than that.
-
Are you smarter than Einstein now?
Please, this isn't kindergarten, you can do better than that.
Okay, let me rephrase.
Tom, do you think that your understanding of Mach's Principle is superior to that of Einstein and Lorenz, both of whom resoundingly rejected MP? What insight, in either logic or experimental evidence, do you have that would convince both to accept MP now?
Is that better?
-
Is that better?
Almost. I don't think there is much point in comparing people, rather than ideas. Someone less intelligent and with a worse understanding of a principle can still be able to make a valid and unique point on the subject. Asking for evidence and logic is good, but it shouldn't be measured by whether or not it would convince some third parties.
-
Is that better?
Almost. I don't think there is much point in comparing people, rather than ideas. Someone less intelligent and with a worse understanding of a principle can still be able to make a valid and unique point on the subject. Asking for evidence and logic is good, but it shouldn't be measured by whether or not it would convince some third parties.
I respectfully disagree. There's too much to life to do for yourself every calculation, experiment, logic exercise, etc. We must stand on the shoulders of giants. The key is choosing the right giants. I choose Newton, Lorenz, Maxwell, Einstein, and others. I reject R., Mach (and others). And by those choices, I see farther. Reputation counts.
-
I respectfully disagree. There's too much to life to do for yourself every calculation, experiment, logic exercise, etc. We must stand on the shoulders of giants. The key is choosing the right giants. I choose Newton, Lorenz, Maxwell, Einstein, and others. I reject R., Mach (and others). And by those choices, I see farther. Reputation counts.
Reputation makes things easier, but a correct claim being dismissed by a reputable person wouldn't make the claim suddenly not be correct.
-
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, 179o W to (0, 179o 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)."
-
Tom, read again what I posted. Einstein reject MP, not all of Mach's ideas.
So you admit that R. built a model without all of the facts, violating his supposed adherence to Zetetic principles. 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?
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)
-
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:
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)
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.
-
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.
Obviously and blatantly false. No one ever has all the facts of his time. You really need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid(tm).
Zetetic principles required Rowbotham to gather all the facts relevant to the path of the Sun before declaring that it moves on concentric circles about a locus above the NP. Since you know that the Sun travels in misshapen loops about both poles, you know that he spoke without knowing all of the relevant facts.
Again, what is the edge in your model?
-
At the time of writing the South Pole was hypothetical.
Tell me then why R. wrote of the South Pole star. Why he just guessing correctly that there was a SP? 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.
ETA: Since hypotheses are the anathema of Zeletic principles, why would R. deal with a hypothetical SP?
-
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: ...
So are you arguing that there exists an ice wall, not in Antarctica (or the Arctic), that no one has ever seen, but you somehow know exists? What special power allows you to know about this wall? Are you arguing that mere mortals can't get to the ice wall because of compasses? Couldn't someone drop their compass and then manage by sheer folly to reach this ice wall?
-
Just to repeat what Tom seems to be trying to ignore, the "bi-polar" model cannot invoke MP to explain the Coriolis Effect. The FE cannot rotate while the stars are fixed and produce the equivalent reality as when the FE is fixes and the stars rotate.
-
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.
-
Again, what is the edge in your model?
An edge has not been discovered.
I'm not sure this is strictly true.
With respect to the bounds (of the Earth)... some monks of the tenth century of our era, bolder than the rest, say that, in making a voyage in search of the terrestrial paradise, they had found the point where the heaven and earth touch, and had even been obliged to lower their shoulders.
-
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.
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.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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
"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?
-
The article you provided does not say anything about observers seeing the sun on the equinox.
Wrong.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*.
-
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.(http://i.imgur.com/BOIRcN9.jpg)
-
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.
"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.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.
-
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.
"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.
The article you provided does not say anything about observers seeing the sun on the equinox.
Wrong.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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
No observation of a North Pole 24 hour sun on Equinox Day is claimed in that link.
-
No observation of a North Pole 24 hour sun on Equinox Day is claimed in that link.
Your mouse button must be faulty then. (http://i.imgur.com/eFsucRS.jpg)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.
-
No observation of a North Pole 24 hour sun on Equinox Day is claimed in that link.
Your mouse button must be faulty then. (http://i.imgur.com/eFsucRS.jpg)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.
-
No observation of a North Pole 24 hour sun on Equinox Day is claimed in that link.
Your mouse button must be faulty then. (http://i.imgur.com/eFsucRS.jpg)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.
-
No observation of a North Pole 24 hour sun on Equinox Day is claimed in that link.
Your mouse button must be faulty then. (http://i.imgur.com/eFsucRS.jpg)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."
-
You know what approximately means right?
-
You know what approximately means right?
It was presented here as an observation.
-
You know what approximately means right?
It was presented here as an observation.
So what?
-
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.
-
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.
You're welcome to be as pedantic as you want. The site said the Sun sets on the equinox and shows a photo of it on that day. So if an NP observer sees the Sun set on the equinox, then the observer sees the Sun on the equinox. That's straight forward.
Now let's agree that clouds, irregular ice surfaces, and other minutia can alter the scenario. You're still challenged to show on your model that the Sun can be seen from both poles on the same day to match the evidence, even if there's a day or two difference. Why can't you produce a illustration of the Sun's location and area of illumination of September 20-30 and demonstrate that required flexibility in your model's predictions? I just love the idea that your model requires the Sun to act as in such contorted ways as to defy all reasonable expectations. The Sun in your model as midnight UT is "above" the NP in June, drawing a line down across the NP to London, where it's dark, is closer than the Sun is to Hawaii, where it is light. Quite embarrassing for the bi-polar model. So I repeat the challenge: 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.
-
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.
Pedantic and obtusely ignoring the didactic context. A sure sign of weakness.
-
You're welcome to be as pedantic as you want. The site said the Sun sets on the equinox and shows a photo of it on that day.
Incorrect. Had you bothered to click on the image you posted here from the site, it would have enlarged, showing that the image was not snapped on the equinox day.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2002/images/noaa-2002-0830-0140.jpg
Now let's agree that clouds, irregular ice surfaces, and other minutia can alter the scenario. You're still challenged to show on your model that the Sun can be seen from both poles on the same day to match the evidence, even if there's a day or two difference.
The evidence which has been provided for that assertion has been a website which states that predicting the position of the sun under RET is a "guessing game," an observation of the sun from the SP by a NOAA employe, a site which states that at the NP the sun sets before the Equinox occurs, and a NP webcam picture which was taken almost a month before the day of Equinox.
I'm afraid the ball is still in your court on this.
Why can't you produce a illustration of the Sun's location and area of illumination of September 20-30 and demonstrate that required flexibility in your model's predictions? I just love the idea that your model requires the Sun to act as in such contorted ways as to defy all reasonable expectations. The Sun in your model as midnight UT is "above" the NP in June, drawing a line down across the NP to London, where it's dark, is closer than the Sun is to Hawaii, where it is light. Quite embarrassing for the bi-polar model.
When the sun is over the mid Pacific, it is not light in London.
So I repeat the challenge: 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.
Who saw what, where? Were you in Australia on that date?
-
So I repeat the challenge: 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.
Who saw what, where? Were you in Australia on that date?
So is this some type of standard you're going to employ fairly now? Did you see Rowbotham fire the cannon in Chapter 3 of EnaG? I was being fair, and nice. (http://i.imgur.com/JBuC5fD.jpg)
I chose the date for your convenience. I now see that you can't be fair. Okay, I modify the challenge, making it harder on you and easier for me, match this webcam right now. See: http://www.earthcam.com/world/australia/sydney/ The shadows determine the direction to the Sun. Good luck.
-
Why can't you produce a illustration of the Sun's location and area of illumination of September 20-30 and demonstrate that required flexibility in your model's predictions? I just love the idea that your model requires the Sun to act as in such contorted ways as to defy all reasonable expectations. The Sun in your model as midnight UT is "above" the NP in June, drawing a line down across the NP to London, where it's dark, is closer than the Sun is to Hawaii, where it is light. Quite embarrassing for the bi-polar model.
When the sun is over the mid Pacific, it is not light in London.
And when your model shows the Sun at the top of the image of your model at midnight UT in the ND Summer, London is indeed in the dark yet closer to the Sun than Hawaii, sunlit, is. So do explain.
-
Incorrect. Had you bothered to click on the image you posted here from the site, it would have enlarged, showing that the image was not snapped on the equinox day.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2002/images/noaa-2002-0830-0140.jpg
Since you don't seem able to find evidence even when it's place on a NOAA website, I'd though I'd link it here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0925-051316.jpg
(http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0925-051316.jpg)
-
Incorrect. Had you bothered to click on the image you posted here from the site, it would have enlarged, showing that the image was not snapped on the equinox day.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2002/images/noaa-2002-0830-0140.jpg
Since you don't seem able to find evidence even when it's place on a NOAA website, I'd though I'd link it here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0925-051316.jpg
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0925-051316.jpg
Your claim was that it is seen from the North Pole and South Pole for 24 hours. I don't see 24 hours in that photograph.
-
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.
Your claim was that it is seen from the North Pole and South Pole for 24 hours. I don't see 24 hours in that photograph.
You seem to disagree with yourself. Once the two of you agree, please post your consensus of a moot point about the challenge. Remember that I withdrew the easier-for-you equinox-day challenge and substituted the harder this-week-in-Sydney challenge. Please pay attention. Thanks.
-
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.
Your very own hero, James Clarke Ross, not only knew about the South Pole, but he circumnavigated it, and even got to within some tens of kilometers from the magnetic South Pole, some 20 years before Rowbotham's book!
Thousands of navigators and geographers did what every scientist does: they made predictions that were eventually verified by explorers and other scientists. Most or all of what James Clarke Ross found, as far as maps and charts is concerned, was already known. He added a lot of cartographic information about the details of Antarctica's shoreline, but all the rest that he found was more or less what had already been predicted by scientists.
I believe he found a lot of previously unknown information about the magnetic characteristics of the Magnetic South Pole, but all the rest was not a huge surprise.