*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8787
    • View Profile
Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2016, 09:53:50 PM »
Gravitation is observable
Yet gravity isn't.

Quote
A "graviton" is just a postulated cause for the mechanism for gravitation acting at a distance.
Trying to hand-wave away the unknown mechanism behind gravity doesn't change reality.

Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2016, 11:03:30 PM »
Gravitation is observable
Yet gravity isn't.

I am unaware of a distinction between gravitation and gravity. Can you clarify what you mean?

Quote
Quote
A "graviton" is just a postulated cause for the mechanism for gravitation acting at a distance.
Trying to hand-wave away the unknown mechanism behind gravity doesn't change reality.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. Newton's theory of gravity is backed up, to a certain degree of accuracy (yes, it is an approximation), by a large body of evidence. Gravity as described by general relativity is backed up to an extremely high degree of accuracy by a large body of evidence. The only thing unknown at this point is how gravity relates to quantum mechanics. This doesn't invalidate everything else we know about gravity.

If you can successfully describe gravity under quantum mechanics, please let us know. There is a Nobel prize waiting for you.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 11:10:01 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #22 on: June 30, 2016, 11:12:29 PM »
rely on a yet-to-be-observed particle?

So, like gravity, then?
Not you too? It's bad enough having Tom Bishop claim silly things like that. Gravitation is observable and measurable.

As is the coriolis effect. I just don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #23 on: June 30, 2016, 11:54:12 PM »
rely on a yet-to-be-observed particle?
So, like gravity, then?
Not you too? It's bad enough having Tom Bishop claim silly things like that. Gravitation is observable and measurable.
As is the coriolis effect. I just don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
Tom Bishop has numerous times claimed Globe (he says Round[1]) supporters assert that gravitation (and gravity - same thing!) relies on the (as yet) unobserved "graviton", as in:
Gravitation
RET predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable
and
When you get up on a chair and walk off the edge it is observed that the earth is accelerating up to meet your feet. How can you demonstrate that you are really being pulled down by invisible graviton particles/bending space?
and so on ad infinitum, ad nauseum
We work from experiment to experience here. We have standards. Whatever keeps the sun up is not testable or observed, and making a prediction of something so beyond the range of human experience is antithetical to the empirical tenets of Zeteticism, and is more in line with Round Earth ramblings about gravitons and black matter.

My whole point is that the Globe Earth and gravitation do not rely on gravitons. Gravitation between objects on the earth's surface has been measured numerous times as I posted in (on horror of horrors - "the other site"):
Henry Cavendish proved Newton's Gravitation « on: March 15, 2016, 05:29:02 AM » (short version) or
What did Henry Cavendish Measure? « on: March 14, 2016, 04:53:13 PM » (long version).
Miles Mathis tries to discredit Cavendish, but that's a bit hard to swallow when the measurement has been done so many times, giving a currently accepted value of "G" within 1% or old Henry's value!
Can Tom Bishop, or any Flat Earther, claim that sort of comfirmation of the "Dark Energy" relied on as the cause of UA!

And the rotating Globe does not even need " ;D coriolons  ;D" to explaim the "Coriolis effect"!


[1] I thought that most FEers claimed that the Flat Earth was round so calling a Globe supporter "a Roundy" is a bit meaningless.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8787
    • View Profile
Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #24 on: June 30, 2016, 11:55:49 PM »
I am unaware of a distinction between gravitation and gravity. Can you clarify what you mean?
Gravity and gravitation are not identical terms, even though they may be used synonymously.

Quote
I'm not sure what your argument is here.
That the mechanism behind gravity is not observable. It was pretty clear based on my previous post.

Quote
If you can successfully describe gravity under quantum mechanics, please let us know. There is a Nobel prize waiting for you.
I never made any such claim, nor did I imply it. What you are doing here is building a strawman. The FE stance is that gravity doesn't exist, therefore trying to prove it is nonsensical.


Tom Bishop has numerous times claimed...
Irrelevant. You seem to have an odd infatuation with Tom. Since the rest of your post seems to be addressed to him, save one call from anyone else at the end, I will let you and Tom hash it out...
« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 11:58:54 PM by junker »

Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #25 on: July 01, 2016, 02:20:15 AM »
I am unaware of a distinction between gravitation and gravity. Can you clarify what you mean?
Gravity and gravitation are not identical terms, even though they may be used synonymously.

Yes, I gathered that. However, the distinction is not clear to me. Your post implied a distinction between the two. Can you clarify what that distinction is? How are they different?

Quote
Quote
If you can successfully describe gravity under quantum mechanics, please let us know. There is a Nobel prize waiting for you.
I never made any such claim, nor did I imply it. What you are doing here is building a strawman.

I did not imply that you made or implied such a claim. It was just an invitation to express a claim if you had it, since the entire point of my argument was that you couldn't make such a claim.

Also, you keep accusing me of "building a strawman." This is just silly. I am not "building a strawman." I am just trying to understand your argument. Your posts tend to be rather vague, so I sometimes have to make some assumptions about your argument. If my assumptions are wrong, feel free to correct me. The constant accusations are unbecoming.

Quote
That the mechanism behind gravity is not observable... The FE stance is that gravity doesn't exist

Here is what is confusing me. "The mechanism behind gravity is not observable." Fair enough. I understand that, and agree to a limited extent. But is gravity observable? Is "gravitation" observable?

This is kind of going off the topic... sorry.

Edit: rabinoz, I agree with what you said, but I think you completely missed the point Roundy was making.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 02:31:08 AM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #26 on: July 01, 2016, 02:23:53 AM »
gravitation (and gravity - same thing!)

Whoops, there's your mistake.

According to standard FET, things fall due to a constant upward acceleration of the Earth.  This is gravitation with no reliance on gravitons whatsoever.

At any rate I do invite you to observe that I am not Tom Bishop.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #27 on: July 01, 2016, 02:29:19 AM »
Not a myth.  It is however a very weak effect, easily overcome by any number of other effects.  The guys at Smarter Every Day and Veritasium have collaborated on a joint experiment, see it here.

It is just the same a myth that water goes down the drain in different directions according to hemisphere just because it requires such strongly controlled conditions (it's not something that one would observe in a normal tub or toilet, and therefore easily observable to everybody, yet that is the claim that is made) .
So why do hurricanes rotates counterclockwise and cyclones clockwise? The dividing line is the equator, not the path of the sun.

I long ago posited the opinion that the effect is caused by subatomic particles that we are yet to be able to observe called coriolons.  Coriolons apparently originate at the equator (though not necessarily from the surface) and very subtly affect the motion of fluids at or near the surface of the Earth (including high in the atmosphere, of course, and possibly deep in the very bowels of the Earth as well).

In all seriousness, it sounds like a fun theory. However, is there any reason why we should take it seriously when there is a much simpler theory (coriolis effect) that fits all observations nicely, and doesn't rely on a yet-to-be-observed particle?

What I described was the coriolis effect.  Now if your "much simpler theory" involves the rotation of the Earth it has a rather glaring flaw within the context of Flat Earth Theory.  I think you can probably figure out what that is.

Anyway what you call science is full of yet-to-be-observed particles; I'm not sure why you think FET should be excluded. 
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2016, 03:23:25 AM »
What I described was the coriolis effect.  Now if your "much simpler theory" involves the rotation of the Earth it has a rather glaring flaw within the context of Flat Earth Theory.  I think you can probably figure out what that is.

Anyway what you call science is full of yet-to-be-observed particles; I'm not sure why you think FET should be excluded.
You say "the rotation of the Earth it has a rather glaring flaw within the context of Flat Earth Theory." Whoever claimed otherwisw?
I would never claim that!  ;D Everybody would be flung into the Ice-Wall and frozen!  ;D
And of course were are told to look up the Wiki:
Quote from: the Wiki
The Coriolis Effect
Wind Currents
The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line.
I do believe you have seen:
We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
  ::) Evidence?  ::)

I do believe that there is a massive difference.

The Heliocentric Globe Theory does not rely on ANY "yet-to-be-observed particles".
The Globe was pretty much settled as the shape of the earth probably as far back as 500 BC, and quite well accepted in both  Western culture (though probably most were more concerned with surviving) and with Middle Eastern eastern astronomers, geographers and scientists, such as Al Birini:
Quote
Al-Biruni
Of the medieval Persian Abu Rayhan al-Biruni (973–1048) it is said:
"Important contributions to geodesy and geography were also made by Biruni. He introduced techniques to measure the earth and distances on it using triangulation. He found the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value not obtained in the West until the 16th century. His Masudic canon contains a table giving the coordinates of six hundred places, almost all of which he had direct knowledge."
This bit is from: History of geodesy, Al-Biruni, though there are plenty of reference on Islamic sites too.

The full "Heliocentric Globe Theory" was settled after Kepler's work (say 1619) and Newton's work (say 1665 to 1687), which gave a theoretical basis for Kepler's Laws.

The only "particles" at this time were Newton's "corpuscles", which were soon decried in favour of the "wave theory", then along comes Einstein finding (with the photoelectric effect) indicating that Newton was not that far off - he just had half the picture.

So you claim "science is full of yet-to-be-observed particles". Please indicate just which ones the "Heliocentric Globe Theory" relies on!.

Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2016, 03:27:52 AM »
According to standard FET, things fall due to a constant upward acceleration of the Earth.  This is gravitation with no reliance on gravitons whatsoever.

Universal acceleration has been pretty thoroughly proved wrong on this site. Are you sure you want to cling to that explanation?

I long ago posited the opinion that the effect is caused by subatomic particles that we are yet to be able to observe called coriolons.  Coriolons apparently originate at the equator (though not necessarily from the surface) and very subtly affect the motion of fluids at or near the surface of the Earth (including high in the atmosphere, of course, and possibly deep in the very bowels of the Earth as well).

In all seriousness, it sounds like a fun theory. However, is there any reason why we should take it seriously when there is a much simpler theory (coriolis effect) that fits all observations nicely, and doesn't rely on a yet-to-be-observed particle?

What I described was the coriolis effect. 

Sorry, my statement was unclear. Let me clarify. By "much simpler theory (coriolis effect)", I meant the explanation for the coriolis effect easily derived from basic Newtonian mechanics.

Quote
Now if your "much simpler theory" involves the rotation of the Earth it has a rather glaring flaw within the context of Flat Earth Theory.  I think you can probably figure out what that is.

Indeed. If you start with the assumption that the earth is flat, you must deny the simple mechanical explanation, and postulate that some invisible something-or-another is responsible.

That is the point I was hoping to bring out:

The existence of the coriolis effect is easily and naturally explained by a round earth. However, there is no explanation for how it works on a flat earth, except for postulated undetected particles. This speaks to the strength of the round earth theory over flat earth theory. This pattern of simplicity vs vague complexity occurs throughout these "debates". FET constantly relies on vague, complex, unconfirmed theories to explain phenomena that are naturally explained using simple mechanics in RET. See: path/size of the sun/moon/stars, phases of the moon, etc.

Quote
Anyway what you call science is full of yet-to-be-observed particles; I'm not sure why you think FET should be excluded. 

You can postulate all the yet-to-be-observed particles you want. However, when there is a simple mechanical explanation that satisfies all the observations, you should probably stick to the simple mechanical explanation.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 03:31:06 AM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #30 on: July 01, 2016, 04:59:02 AM »
You say "the rotation of the Earth it has a rather glaring flaw within the context of Flat Earth Theory." Whoever claimed otherwisw?
I would never claim that!  ;D
Are you feeling okay, rabinoz?  I wasn't responding to you with that statement.

According to standard FET, things fall due to a constant upward acceleration of the Earth.  This is gravitation with no reliance on gravitons whatsoever.

Universal acceleration has been pretty thoroughly proved wrong on this site. Are you sure you want to cling to that explanation?

I'm not sure what you mean; I was neither affirming nor denying the existence of universal acceleration with that statement.  I was providing it by way of example.

Quote
I long ago posited the opinion that the effect is caused by subatomic particles that we are yet to be able to observe called coriolons.  Coriolons apparently originate at the equator (though not necessarily from the surface) and very subtly affect the motion of fluids at or near the surface of the Earth (including high in the atmosphere, of course, and possibly deep in the very bowels of the Earth as well).

In all seriousness, it sounds like a fun theory. However, is there any reason why we should take it seriously when there is a much simpler theory (coriolis effect) that fits all observations nicely, and doesn't rely on a yet-to-be-observed particle?

What I described was the coriolis effect. 

Sorry, my statement was unclear. Let me clarify. By "much simpler theory (coriolis effect)", I meant the explanation for the coriolis effect easily derived from basic Newtonian mechanics.

Okay, let's be clear; the coriolis effect is not the cause, it's the effect.  It's right there in the name.  That's nice that the cause you believe in is easily derived from basic Newtonian mechanics.

Quote
Quote
Now if your "much simpler theory" involves the rotation of the Earth it has a rather glaring flaw within the context of Flat Earth Theory.  I think you can probably figure out what that is.

Indeed. If you start with the assumption that the earth is flat, you must deny the simple mechanical explanation, and postulate that some invisible something-or-another is responsible.

Well, if it can be proven that the simple mechanical explanation (that assumes a round Earth) is correct, it would certainly change my entire opinion about the shape of the Earth.  Unfortunately it hasn't.  And I'm skeptical that it will be, because in my experience the real world is rarely simple!
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 05:02:00 AM by Roundy »
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #31 on: July 01, 2016, 09:05:00 PM »
According to standard FET, things fall due to a constant upward acceleration of the Earth.  This is gravitation with no reliance on gravitons whatsoever.
Universal acceleration has been pretty thoroughly proved wrong on this site. Are you sure you want to cling to that explanation?
I'm not sure what you mean; I was neither affirming nor denying the existence of universal acceleration with that statement.  I was providing it by way of example.

Meh, whatever. I shouldn't have even responded to that comment. At this point I'm not entirely sure what you and rabinoz are arguing about.

Quote
Okay, let's be clear; the coriolis effect is not the cause, it's the effect.

Yes, I know. Like I said, my original comment was unclear/poorly worded. That's why I clarified what I meant.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Now if your "much simpler theory" involves the rotation of the Earth it has a rather glaring flaw within the context of Flat Earth Theory.  I think you can probably figure out what that is.

Indeed. If you start with the assumption that the earth is flat, you must deny the simple mechanical explanation, and postulate that some invisible something-or-another is responsible.

Well, if it can be proven that the simple mechanical explanation (that assumes a round Earth) is correct, it would certainly change my entire opinion about the shape of the Earth.  Unfortunately it hasn't.  And I'm skeptical that it will be, because in my experience the real world is rarely simple!

Here is the heart of the issue. Nothing can really be 100% proven to be the correct explanation. It is always possible that some magic unicorn dust exists that magically causes everything to appear as if the simpler explanation is correct, when it is not. However, what are the chances of that?

In this metaphor, your particles are the magic unicorn dust. Some undefined, unobserved particles coincidentally make the earth behave as if the simple mechanical explanation is correct? What are the chances? That being said, it is rather difficult to prove that the coriolis effect does in fact behave according to the simple mechanical explanation. If you want to talk about proof, it is much easier to prove the path/size of the sun/moon/stars doesn't have a valid flat-earth explanation.

Edit: fixed quotes
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 08:41:57 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Venus

  • *
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2016, 02:23:49 PM »


I long ago posited the opinion that the effect is caused by subatomic particles that we are yet to be able to observe called coriolons.  Coriolons apparently originate at the equator (though not necessarily from the surface) and very subtly affect the motion of fluids at or near the surface of the Earth (including high in the atmosphere, of course, and possibly deep in the very bowels of the Earth as well).

Brilliant! I don't think I have laughed so much on here in months, which is unfair as I have a headache caused by sub-atomic particles called whiskions.

First I was in fits of laughter about yet another invention ie coriolons ... then I laughed even harder after reading your post... luckily I don't have a headache though... obviously not enough wineions tonight !!

So obviously these coriolons must affect the apparent movement of the stars around the northern and southern celestial poles also ... seeing the fact that the stars move clockwise in the northern hemisphere and anticlockwise in the southern hemisphere cannot in any way be explained by a flat earth model except by the invention of gears or whatever !!

Oh and here is a lovely video showing cyclones moving in opposite directions in the southern and northern hemispheres ...

Of course from Himawari it looks as though the cyclones in the northern hemisphere move anticlockwise but if you are on earth they are moving clockwise.

Keep hanging on to that conspiracy theory guys... when space travel becomes affordable for the mildly rich (instead of just the super rich) all will be revealed !!
« Last Edit: July 10, 2016, 02:27:32 PM by Venus »
Because I live on the 'bottom' of a spinning spherical earth ...
*I cannot see Polaris, but I can see the Southern Cross
*When I look at the stars they appear to rotate clockwise, not anti-clockwise
*I see the moon 'upside down'
I've travelled to the Northern Hemisphere numerous times ... and seen how different the stars and the moon are 'up' there!
Come on down and check it out FE believers... !!

Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #33 on: August 28, 2016, 04:49:23 PM »
... and as many people say, things just don't sit right.
Oh, I get it!
You have spoken to many people about this!  You talk to people at work about this! Right! 

Moving along.... pretending there is no shillery..... 


However, at work the other day one of my colleagues mentioned whilst in a flat earth discussion, "What about when water spins in the northern hemisphere one way and in the southern the other? I haven't heard anything regarding this anywhere. I'm sure I've just missed! Can someone help?
What about it?  Your question is ridiculous. 
How does the pattern of drain water have ANYTHING to do with the true form of the earth??? 

"What about when birds fly in the northern hemisphere one way and in the southern the other?
"What about when kangaroos hop around in the southern hemisphere and in the northern they are nowhere to be found?



An irrelevent question again: 
So why do hurricanes rotates counterclockwise and cyclones clockwise? The dividing line is the equator, not the path of the sun.
The equator represents the path of the sun. 
It makes perfect sense to have shit swirl in the air counter-clockwise on 1 side of the path of the sun while the rest of the shit swirls clockwise on the other side. 










The sun moves.  The sun heats the air around it. 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Water down a plug hole?
« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2016, 11:07:57 PM »

An irrelevent question again: 
So why do hurricanes rotates counterclockwise and cyclones clockwise? The dividing line is the equator, not the path of the sun.
The equator represents the path of the sun. 
It makes perfect sense to have shit swirl in the air counter-clockwise on 1 side of the path of the sun while the rest of the shit swirls clockwise on the other side. 

The sun moves.  The sun heats the air around it.
Up to your usual charming tricks again!
Dredging the depths again, bumping a post from rabinoz on June 30, 2016!

You never let a few facts get in the way, do you? You just manufacture your own!

You claim the "The equator represents the path of the sun" - but ONLY at the equinoxes in March and September.
And then this gem "The sun moves.  The sun heats the air around it." - please explain in your usual charming way how this heated pool of air moving from East to West causes Low-Pressure regions of air to rotate anti-clockwise and High-Pressure regions of air to rotate clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere but
   cause Low-Pressure regions of air to rotate clockwise and High-Pressure regions of air to rotate anti-clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.

That must really be a smart pool of air!


And, the sun supposedly circles well NORTH of the equator in the northern summer when most hurricanes occur and
                                           circles well SOUTH of the equator in the southern  summer when most cyclones occur.
Just look at:

Map of the cumulative tracks of all tropical cyclones during the 1985–2005 time period.

A little telling that the band with virtually no tropical storms is centred on the equator, not the sun's path as you are claiming

And during summer in Australia we often have cyclones start well north of the sun's path near the Tropic of Capricorn.

It is the Equator not the Sun's path that is the dividing like between anti-clockwise rotating Hurricanes and clockwise rotating Cyclones.