How do you explain Gyroscopic compasses?

One more question regarding stars ... they rotate in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres, yes? Because of the 2 rotating UA plates? And as shown in Tom's examples of gears rotating in opposite directions as the turn. At some point on the earth, presumbably at the equator, you should be able to see stars rotating in 2 different directions, wouldn't you?

One more question regarding stars ... they rotate in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres, yes? Because of the 2 rotating UA plates? And as shown in Tom's examples of gears rotating in opposite directions as the turn. At some point on the earth, presumbably at the equator, you should be able to see stars rotating in 2 different directions, wouldn't you?

Yes.

Quote from: Fletch on August 12, 2008, 10:55:21 PM

One more question regarding stars ... they rotate in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres, yes? Because of the 2 rotating UA plates? And as shown in Tom's examples of gears rotating in opposite directions as the turn. At some point on the earth, presumbably at the equator, you should be able to see stars rotating in 2 different directions, wouldn't you?

Yes.

And has no one documented this?

And has no one documented this?

Of course it has been documented.

Could I see a pic or something, then?

Please?

It may be a NASA image, but it illustrates the point well enough:

I sort of remember a night like that.  Although I had waaayyy too much to drink.  I don't remember much after looking up and seeing the stars do that.

Quote

And that would prove to you the earth is a sphere?

No. If such an experiment were ever performed it would prove to me that the earth is flat because those three observers would not be able to simultaneously observe the same star from those three points.

Get yourself a god damned telescope.

It may be a NASA image, but it illustrates the point well enough:

I was wondering that picture was supposed to illustrate, as that's different to what I meant by spinning in opposite directions. But if Tom's illustration is actually what is happening, then the people in South America and South Africa do not see the same stars that I see in Australia. And yet, The Southern Cross can be viewed from all southern continents. Are we actually looking at different constellations that appear the same?

Quote

and how are the same stars seen to the south of australia as to the south of africa and south america at the same time.

Who reported seeing the same stars from Australia, Africa, and South America at the same time?

I'll raise my hand to that one. I've flown from new zealand to argentina at night, looking out of the right of the aircraft, the southern cross and surrounding constellations were visable constantly, and to the observer rotated almost 90 degrees, which would be consistent with my rotation about a spherical southern hemisphere, in addition i know for a fact these same constellations are visible looking south from south africa. in a flat earth model, these constellations could not possibly be viewed looking 'south' from all points, as you traveled about the globe, observational south would eventually become the opposite direction celestially.

Quote

and how are the same stars seen to the south of australia as to the south of africa and south america at the same time.

Who reported seeing the same stars from Australia, Africa, and South America at the same time?

No one, but if the earth was in fact flat, you wouldn't see different stars at the southern hemisphere, but you do. And you can't explain how this is possible (you say it has something to do with light bending, like in Robosteve's thread here),  but you cannot explain anything specific. What is bending the light, has this "force" ever been observed or measured?

And like I said, where is the data that shows that gravity is much much stronger than it appears to be? It HAS to be much stronger (per mass) that what we observe, because if it isn't, there is no way that the sun and the moon's gravity can have the effect you are asking for with today's gravitational pull per mass.

I was wondering that picture was supposed to illustrate, as that's different to what I meant by spinning in opposite directions. But if Tom's illustration is actually what is happening, then the people in South America and South Africa do not see the same stars that I see in Australia. And yet, The Southern Cross can be viewed from all southern continents. Are we actually looking at different constellations that appear the same?

That is one possibility.

Quote from: Fletch on August 13, 2008, 02:39:12 AM

I was wondering that picture was supposed to illustrate, as that's different to what I meant by spinning in opposite directions. But if Tom's illustration is actually what is happening, then the people in South America and South Africa do not see the same stars that I see in Australia. And yet, The Southern Cross can be viewed from all southern continents. Are we actually looking at different constellations that appear the same?

That is one possibility.

I just want to add that there is no reason to believe that that is the fact.

Quote from: Robosteve on August 13, 2008, 09:59:31 AM

Quote from: Fletch on August 13, 2008, 02:39:12 AM

I was wondering that picture was supposed to illustrate, as that's different to what I meant by spinning in opposite directions. But if Tom's illustration is actually what is happening, then the people in South America and South Africa do not see the same stars that I see in Australia. And yet, The Southern Cross can be viewed from all southern continents. Are we actually looking at different constellations that appear the same?

That is one possibility.

I just want to add that there is no reason to believe that that is the fact.

And I'd like to add that it also isn't a possibility, cos you can continualy observe hte same consolation as ursa did, and also because of the paralax issues I pointed out in the other thread on this.   If there is one south of australia, it would be visible from new zealand in the wrong direction. 

And I'd like to add that it also isn't a possibility, cos you can continualy observe hte same consolation as ursa did, and also because of the paralax issues I pointed out in the other thread on this.   If there is one south of australia, it would be visible from new zealand in the wrong direction. 

Perhaps there is horizontal bending of light, as well as vertical bending, so the stars appear in a different direction to where they really are.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 11:58:56 AM

And I'd like to add that it also isn't a possibility, cos you can continualy observe hte same consolation as ursa did, and also because of the paralax issues I pointed out in the other thread on this.   If there is one south of australia, it would be visible from new zealand in the wrong direction. 

Perhaps there is horizontal bending of light, as well as vertical bending, so the stars appear in a different direction to where they really are.

perhaps you could draw a diagram demonstrating how light can go from the southern cross to every point in the southern hemisphere approaching from the south in every place. 

I can conceive of no sensible or consistent arrangement where that is possible. 

perhaps you could draw a diagram demonstrating how light can go from the southern cross to every point in the southern hemisphere approaching from the south in every place. 

I can conceive of no sensible or consistent arrangement where that is possible. 

First of all, Crux is not visible from every point in the southern hemisphere at once. But more importantly, there are three materialisations of Crux coexisting simultaneously, and each of them is visible from a third of the area that can see the constellation. The light is bent so that they all see it in the same direction.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 12:55:38 PM

perhaps you could draw a diagram demonstrating how light can go from the southern cross to every point in the southern hemisphere approaching from the south in every place. 

I can conceive of no sensible or consistent arrangement where that is possible. 

First of all, Crux is not visible from every point in the southern hemisphere at once. But more importantly, there are three materialisations of Crux coexisting simultaneously, and each of them is visible from a third of the area that can see the constellation. The light is bent so that they all see it in the same direction.

and how do you account for hte different length of the light paths, how is brightness the same?  Also, what is the mechanism for the light to bend in different directions, why is it not uniform?  Also, how is it possible to have this model, and also have the stars appear to rotate around a point below the south pole?

and how do you account for hte different length of the light paths, how is brightness the same?  Also, what is the mechanism for the light to bend in different directions, why is it not uniform?  Also, how is it possible to have this model, and also have the stars appear to rotate around a point below the south pole?

I'm just making suggestions here; they may turn out to be incorrect. I am not explaining a well developed model, but hinting at possible solutions to your queries, so naturally the answers I have given you are not going to be perfect.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 01:23:48 PM

and how do you account for hte different length of the light paths, how is brightness the same?  Also, what is the mechanism for the light to bend in different directions, why is it not uniform?  Also, how is it possible to have this model, and also have the stars appear to rotate around a point below the south pole?

I'm just making suggestions here; they may turn out to be incorrect. I am not explaining a well developed model, but hinting at possible solutions to your queries, so naturally the answers I have given you are not going to be perfect.

Can something be correct and not perfect?

Can something be correct and not perfect?

If you allow "correct" to mean "correct within a reasonable degree of accuracy", then yes.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 11:58:56 AM

And I'd like to add that it also isn't a possibility, cos you can continualy observe hte same consolation as ursa did, and also because of the paralax issues I pointed out in the other thread on this.   If there is one south of australia, it would be visible from new zealand in the wrong direction. 

Perhaps there is horizontal bending of light, as well as vertical bending, so the stars appear in a different direction to where they really are.

I know you guys like to make up hypothesizes. There is nothing wrong about that, but how about that you stop making up new ones, and rather concentrate on getting evidence on your current hypothesizes and work on them? Before you do that, no one will have any reason at all to believe any one of your hypotheses that the FEH rely on.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 01:23:48 PM

and how do you account for hte different length of the light paths, how is brightness the same?  Also, what is the mechanism for the light to bend in different directions, why is it not uniform?  Also, how is it possible to have this model, and also have the stars appear to rotate around a point below the south pole?

I'm just making suggestions here; they may turn out to be incorrect. I am not explaining a well developed model, but hinting at possible solutions to your queries, so naturally the answers I have given you are not going to be perfect.

It is obvious the only way it could work is if the light from each star was bent in a way unique for that star and for every position of viewing, and varied in intensity in different directions.  The short word for this is magic. 

The weight in a Gyrocompass is affected by the same thing which affects the weight of Foucault's Pendulum. Do a search.

A search for "magic" came up with too many results. 

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 12:55:38 PM

perhaps you could draw a diagram demonstrating how light can go from the southern cross to every point in the southern hemisphere approaching from the south in every place. 

I can conceive of no sensible or consistent arrangement where that is possible. 

First of all, Crux is not visible from every point in the southern hemisphere at once. But more importantly, there are three materialisations of Crux coexisting simultaneously, and each of them is visible from a third of the area that can see the constellation. The light is bent so that they all see it in the same direction.

the southern constellations are consistently visible from all points in the southern hemisphere, moving about the globe there is no 'seam' where it's possible ones perspective switches from one version to another, testable by flying at night from any southern hemisphere nation to another, done by hundreds of people every day, however they do rotate in accordance to ones perspective relative to being on the surface of a globe, and they rotate about a point immediately above the south pole, as illustrated in this long exposure photograph http://flickr.com/photos/garry61/2482407911 which is a simple to repeat experiment for anyone with a camera with a long shutter setting. Note that the same phenomena is observed photographing the northern sky in the northern hemisphere, only the rotation is in the opposite direction.

the southern constellations are consistently visible from all points in the southern hemisphere,

How could the Southern Hemisphere constellations be visible at once from Australia, South America, and Africa at once when those locations don't all experience night simultaneously?

Quote

the southern constellations are consistently visible from all points in the southern hemisphere,

How could the Southern Hemisphere constellations be visible at once from Australia, South America, and Africa at once when they don't all experience night simultaneously?

This is different to the other point you were trying to make. He said consistently not simultaneously. Am interested to hear your take on the point of observing the stars whilst travelling at night from continent to continent in the southern hemisphere.

Quote

the southern constellations are consistently visible from all points in the southern hemisphere,

How could the Southern Hemisphere constellations be visible at once from Australia, South America, and Africa at once when those locations don't all experience night simultaneously?

good question - any two are at least dark enough to observe the stars at any given time, especially in winter when the days are shorter, and flying from one to another by night an observer sees an undisturbed view of the stars, as i've done a number of times. only once to africa i'll admit, but between Australasia and south america, many times.

good question - any two are at least dark enough to observe the stars at any given time, especially in winter when the days are shorter, and flying from one to another by night an observer sees an undisturbed view of the stars, as i've done a number of times. only once to africa i'll admit, but between Australasia and south america, many times.

Sure you have. 

If you have really traveled between those locations, or were actually meteorologist as you've claimed, you would have known that there are such a thing as time zones before claiming that "the southern constellations are consistently visible from all points in the southern hemisphere".

i'm not sure where you see inconsistence there - when flying between timezones at night in the southern hemisphere, the southern constellations are consistently in view, always to the south, yet rotating by a degree that would be consistent with ones observation rotating about a globe. i don't think conspirators have gotten to me and convinced me i'm myself sir, haha.