*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2014, 05:48:32 AM »
The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2014, 06:09:19 AM »
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.
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 #22 on: May 07, 2014, 06:13:11 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.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 06:34:24 AM by Gulliver »
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 markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3809
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2014, 11:46:36 AM »
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.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2014, 07:20:24 PM »
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.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2014, 08:39:41 PM »
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?
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 Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2014, 08:46:38 PM »
Are you smarter than Einstein now?
Please, this isn't kindergarten, you can do better than that.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2014, 10:02:42 PM »
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?
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 Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2014, 03:01:06 AM »
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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2014, 03:19:32 AM »
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.
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 Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9838
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #30 on: May 08, 2014, 03:21:46 AM »
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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #31 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, 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.

Quote from: Gulliver
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

Quote
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)."
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 03:35:05 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #32 on: May 08, 2014, 04:00:21 AM »
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)
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: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #33 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"

Quote
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.

Quote
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:



Quote
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.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 04:25:00 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #34 on: May 08, 2014, 04:27:08 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 05:32:23 AM by Gulliver »
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 #35 on: May 08, 2014, 04:31:59 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 05:31:51 AM by Gulliver »
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 #36 on: May 08, 2014, 04:37:05 AM »

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?
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 #37 on: May 08, 2014, 05:34:56 AM »
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.
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: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2014, 12:21:10 AM »
Quote
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.

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.

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.

Thork

Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2014, 12:31:22 AM »
Quote
Again, what is the edge in your model?

An edge has not been discovered.

I'm not sure this is strictly true.

Quote from: Flammarion, Camille (1884). Les terres du ciel. Paris. p. 395.
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.