The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: trak on November 06, 2007, 02:59:11 PM

Title: weather?
Post by: trak on November 06, 2007, 02:59:11 PM
im still undecided about this flat earth theory, one of my problems is that the weather on earth is largely directed by the wind patterns that come from a rotating planet, how could flat earth theory explain the varying temperature and weather on earth. and teh effect of the sun on it, solar flares etc... and what effect the icewall would have on the weather
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 06, 2007, 03:22:54 PM
Come to the LIGHT SIDE (RE)! We have cake.  ;D
I believe you're speaking of the Coriolis Effect and coronal mass ejections. Cold fronts from Antartica seem rather hard to use as proof though due to the lack of knowledge concerning the size of the ice wall. ???

What I've always thought was funny (though I never debated it) was the curvature of the clouds in the distance. Here's a good quote from one of your own moderators.
The curvature really isn't that obvious. What can be obvious at the ocean, on a moderately cloudy day, is you can clearly see the clouds curve over the breadth of the sky.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 06, 2007, 03:28:22 PM
Quote
The curvature really isn't that obvious. What can be obvious at the ocean, on a moderately cloudy day, is you can clearly see the clouds curve over the breadth of the sky.

No, that is not seen. Stop making things up.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: JohnMcClane on November 06, 2007, 03:35:57 PM
Quote
The curvature really isn't that obvious. What can be obvious at the ocean, on a moderately cloudy day, is you can clearly see the clouds curve over the breadth of the sky.

No, that is not seen. Stop making things up.

Are you going to answer his question??
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 06, 2007, 03:39:41 PM
Quote
The curvature really isn't that obvious. What can be obvious at the ocean, on a moderately cloudy day, is you can clearly see the clouds curve over the breadth of the sky.

No, that is not seen. Stop making things up.

Wtf?  :P
What makes you think I made it up?
The truth is it is clearly visible... as your moderator has already stated (a good confirmation). It's amazing how close-minded you are. If you have not personally witnessed this phenomenon, then you immediately label it as false instead of looking yourself. GAWD.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: questions on November 06, 2007, 04:48:56 PM
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17816.0

Please read this thread if you don't know whether to believe in an FE or a RE.  You have the FAQ on their side, so it's time to read up on the glaring holes in their theory as well.   :-* :-* :-*
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: dysfunction on November 06, 2007, 07:24:03 PM
Quote
The curvature really isn't that obvious. What can be obvious at the ocean, on a moderately cloudy day, is you can clearly see the clouds curve over the breadth of the sky.

No, that is not seen. Stop making things up.

Stop talking out of your ass, Tom. It's rather brash of you to insist that one is 'making something up' when they merely relate an easily reproducible experience witnessed by uncountable numbers of people. I see this phenomenon all the time at the beach.

However, it is easily explicable under the FE model, if you will permit me talk out of MY ass for a space. FET as commonly understood holds that the sky is a curved dome of air; this is likely because the Ice Wall ringing the disc of the Earth is somewhat lower than the height of the atmosphere at the North Pole (the Earth's center). If we imagine a hypothetical Earth in a time before it was being acted on by a Universal Accelerator, the atmosphere might have been a cylinder rather than a dome extending upwards from the surface (though of course this would soon have drifted off into space). Once under the force of the Accelerator, any air near the Ice Wall but extending 'above' it would slough off, while the rest of the atmosphere would be held to the Earth by its inertial reaction, leaving a dome shape. The clouds merely conform to this shape.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: eric bloedow on November 07, 2007, 08:55:39 AM
the coriolis affect DOES exist, anyone can see it in action using a container of water with a hole in the bottom. anyone, anywhere.

and it really does make the water spin in the opposite direction south of the equator. again, ANYONE can try it and see.

yet Tom Bishop says it does not. he denies the existence of an actual phenomenon MILLIONS of people are looking at RIGHT THIS SECOND!

hurricanes south of the equator spin the opposite direction too. does Tom also claim otherwise about that?
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 07, 2007, 09:20:37 AM
the coriolis affect DOES exist, anyone can see it in action using a container of water with a hole in the bottom. anyone, anywhere.

lol.  Get off my internet.  :D
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Gabe on November 07, 2007, 12:20:29 PM
the coriolis affect DOES exist, anyone can see it in action using a container of water with a hole in the bottom. anyone, anywhere.

and it really does make the water spin in the opposite direction south of the equator. again, ANYONE can try it and see.

yet Tom Bishop says it does not. he denies the existence of an actual phenomenon MILLIONS of people are looking at RIGHT THIS SECOND!

hurricanes south of the equator spin the opposite direction too. does Tom also claim otherwise about that?

The coriolis effect DOES exist, but it doesn't effect water spinning clockwise or counter. :-[

PS:
affect = verb
effect = noun
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: eric bloedow on November 07, 2007, 05:56:50 PM
whoops' i missed that, i was too concerned with spelling coriolus...coriolos...coriolis right.
here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: divito the truthist on November 07, 2007, 06:01:46 PM
and it really does make the water spin in the opposite direction south of the equator. again, ANYONE can try it and see.

No, it doesn't.

From your link:

"A misconception in popular culture is that the Coriolis effect determines the direction in which bathtubs or toilets drain, such that water always drains in one direction in the Northern Hemisphere, and in the other direction in the Southern Hemisphere. This urban legend has been perpetuated by several television programs, including an episode of The Simpsons and The X-Files."


And:

"The Coriolis effect is not a result of the curvature of the Earth, only of its rotation."
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 08, 2007, 05:40:31 AM
and it really does make the water spin in the opposite direction south of the equator. again, ANYONE can try it and see.

No, it doesn't.

From your link:

"A misconception in popular culture is that the Coriolis effect determines the direction in which bathtubs or toilets drain, such that water always drains in one direction in the Northern Hemisphere, and in the other direction in the Southern Hemisphere. This urban legend has been perpetuated by several television programs, including an episode of The Simpsons and The X-Files."


And:

"The Coriolis effect is not a result of the curvature of the Earth, only of its rotation."

Amazing.  ;) You failed to mention that right after that, it says:
Quote from: WIKIPEDIA
(However, the value of the Coriolis parameter, f , does vary with latitude, and that dependence is due to the Earth's shape.)
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: divito the truthist on November 08, 2007, 05:43:11 AM
Since we are debating that very idea, what good is it to include it? The aspect of variance by altitude is disputed by Dogplatter.

Even if you included it, the Earth's shape is not the only reason for a gravitational variance.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Conspiracy Mastermind on November 08, 2007, 05:44:38 AM
Quote
The curvature really isn't that obvious. What can be obvious at the ocean, on a moderately cloudy day, is you can clearly see the clouds curve over the breadth of the sky.

No, that is not seen. Stop making things up.

What? Your allowed to and we aren't? (Although we don't, you see we use stuff called evidence and this thing called the truth.)
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Loard Z on November 08, 2007, 06:23:18 AM
Quote
The curvature really isn't that obvious. What can be obvious at the ocean, on a moderately cloudy day, is you can clearly see the clouds curve over the breadth of the sky.

No, that is not seen. Stop making things up.

LOL typical Tom Bishop hypocrisy
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: TheEngineer on November 08, 2007, 06:49:57 AM
What? Your allowed to and we aren't? (Although we don't, you see we use stuff called evidence and this thing called the truth.)
Your fellow RE'ers make up stuff all the time to fit observations.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Jenova Cell on November 08, 2007, 07:05:54 AM
site 5 examples of this please
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Loard Z on November 08, 2007, 07:14:23 AM
What? Your allowed to and we aren't? (Although we don't, you see we use stuff called evidence and this thing called the truth.)
Your fellow RE'ers make up stuff all the time to fit observations.

It's called a hypothesis. If it fails, we throw it out, and make up a new one. Until it's correct.
But you already knew that...
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: TheEngineer on November 08, 2007, 07:27:20 AM
site 5 examples of this please
Gravity.
Dark Energy.
Dark Matter.
Centrifugal force.
Coriolis force.
Gravitational constant and just about every other constant of proportionality.

Oops, that's way more than five...
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Jenova Cell on November 08, 2007, 07:32:00 AM
you dont think that centrifugal forces and the coriolis effect exist at all?
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: TheEngineer on November 08, 2007, 07:33:47 AM
you dont think that centrifugal forces and the coriolis effect exist at all?
Gravity, centrifugal, and Coriolis are all pseudo forces.  Centrifugal is the only one that is sometimes a real force.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Jenova Cell on November 08, 2007, 07:34:44 AM
ok, so you can take that one off the list..  ::) and psudo forces or not, you are admitting they exist. so take those off the list too
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Loard Z on November 08, 2007, 07:36:33 AM
site 5 examples of this please
Gravity.
Dark Energy.
Dark Matter.
Centrifugal force.
Coriolis force.
Gravitational constant and just about every other constant of proportionality.

Oops, that's way more than five...

Actually, nobody made those up. They were just there, and we discovered them.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: TheEngineer on November 08, 2007, 07:36:59 AM
They don't exist.  They are pseudo forces.  The centrifugal force is only one under one special circumstance.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Jenova Cell on November 08, 2007, 07:37:38 AM
so that leaves.. 2 on your list? way to go..
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: TheEngineer on November 08, 2007, 07:38:01 AM
Actually, nobody made those up. They were just there, and we discovered them.
They were made up so that our equations would work.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Loard Z on November 08, 2007, 07:40:18 AM
no, the reverse is true of most of them. Gravitational constant possibly being an exeption.

Planck's constant appears unexplainably all over physics, in places where it's never even predicted.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: TheEngineer on November 08, 2007, 07:52:06 AM
so that leaves.. 2 on your list? way to go..
Really?  I still see 6 named.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: eric bloedow on November 09, 2007, 09:40:14 AM
some FErs think the earth stands still and the sun, moon and stars ALL revolve around it once a day. they thought the stars were holes in a giant sphere that turned.

most people used to believe this, but the biggest problem was the "wandering stars" which moved relative to the other stars.

Copernicus was the first person to come up with an answer that did not require every "wandering star" to have a seperate sphere that kept somehow reversing it's spin.

Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 09, 2007, 12:25:09 PM
Right, the "wandering stars" were the planets.  What relevance does this have to modern flat earth theory?  ???
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: eric bloedow on November 13, 2007, 11:04:17 AM
modern FErs STILL believe the stars are on a flat disk! and they STILL have no answer for the planets' odd movements!

and on a related note: FErs also have no answer for the existence of the seasons: summer+winter.
consider: the seasons are REVERSED south of the equator: summer in the USA and winter in australia at the same time, and vice versa. that can ONLY be explained by the RE model!
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2007, 11:18:25 AM
and on a related note: FErs also have no answer for the existence of the seasons: summer+winter.
consider: the seasons are REVERSED south of the equator: summer in the USA and winter in australia at the same time, and vice versa. that can ONLY be explained by the RE model!

Actually it can be explained by you not reading the FAQ:

Q: How do seasons work?

The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/digital_nomad/Flat-Earth.png)
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Genmotty on November 13, 2007, 11:30:22 AM
Actually the Corilous effect would occur on a FE, but it would appear to be very different.

This effect is a resultant of the differing rates of radial velocity with a varying radius (i.e. you travel slower at the poles then at the equator compared to the equator.

With the FE being a disc you only get one rotation of the Corilous effect because the radius increases to a certain point then stops. Hence because of the inertia of the air on a east spinning earth all air will rotate round in a relative westward direction (the air stays 'relatively' still while the earth moves) Thus all storms/hurricanes/plug holes should rotate in a clockwise direction everywhere.

Evidence of my bathroom disputes this however... ???

Genmotty
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: TheEngineer on November 13, 2007, 11:36:27 AM
Evidence of my bathroom disputes this however... ???
Genmotty
That's because you can't observe the effect in something so small...
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Username on November 13, 2007, 11:37:49 AM
Evidence of my bathroom disputes this however... ???
Genmotty
That's because you can't observe the effect in something so small...
Psh, he's obviously referring to the hurricanes in his bathroom.  gawd
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Mystified on November 13, 2007, 11:49:07 AM
I really don't get this argument. I'm sure there's ome FE theory to explain it away, but when I go to visit my brother in Sydney, AU once a year... the water in the toilet DOES spin the other way from mine in the U.S. along with any other toilet or drain in the city. Therefore I make the assumption it would anywhere else in Australia, etc. ... so what's the problem with that being a known fact??

Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Username on November 13, 2007, 11:53:07 AM
I really don't get this argument. I'm sure there's ome FE theory to explain it away, but when I go to visit my brother in Sydney, AU once a year... the water in the toilet DOES spin the other way from mine in the U.S. along with any other toilet or drain in the city. Therefore I make the assumption it would anywhere else in Australia, etc. ... so what's the problem with that being a known fact??



http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=72BFCDB6-E7F2-99DF-3775B588904AC6E3
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: TheEngineer on November 13, 2007, 11:56:26 AM
I really don't get this argument. I'm sure there's ome FE theory to explain it away, but when I go to visit my brother in Sydney, AU once a year... the water in the toilet DOES spin the other way from mine in the U.S. along with any other toilet or drain in the city. Therefore I make the assumption it would anywhere else in Australia, etc. ... so what's the problem with that being a known fact??
It's not a fact, it's a myth.  The Coriolis 'force' is extremely small.  There are factors that are magnitudes larger than the Coriolis that account for the way the water spins.  These being the shape of the basin, the rotation of the water as it exits the faucet, the drain location and position, and bias from the angle of the faucet itself.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Mystified on November 13, 2007, 12:00:15 PM
You know what? I just called my brother - I never even asked him about it nor gave it a second thought because I've just always heard that growing up. It's just because of the way toilets are MADE - LOL HAHAHAhahahahah Too funny.

Cool. Corrected and done.

Title: Re: weather?
Post by: eric bloedow on November 13, 2007, 02:17:06 PM
oh, yes, the "omnicient" FAQ, which TOTALLY fails to MENTION what would make the sun go in a circular path at ALL!

Title: Re: weather?
Post by: eric bloedow on November 13, 2007, 02:31:07 PM
FACT: hurricanes south of the equator spin in the opposite direction.

RE explanation: coriolus effect.

FE explanation: NONE! they claim it's not true! they deny this FACT!
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Conspiracy Mastermind on November 13, 2007, 02:32:00 PM
It doesn't have to. Because FE sun doesn;t go in a circular path.

(btw, a circular path is called an orbit (or elliptical).)


FACT: hurricanes south of the equator spin in the opposite direction.

RE explanation: coriolus effect.

FE explanation: NONE! they claim it's not true! they deny this FACT!

FE Explanation: Gravitational Gearing, a concept so complicated you can't fathom a counter argument against it.
Title: Re: weather?
Post by: Mystified on November 13, 2007, 02:52:32 PM
Actually, much to my surprise and recently - because of it - much research on the subject, toilets, drains, storms, tornadoes, etc. actually DON'T rotate the opposite 'south of the border' specifically. It is a common myth. In fact - storms can rotate both directions in either location on rare occasions.

The Coriolis effect does exist, and does effect the environment - and at measureable levels, but none so noticeable as reversing rotations on a scale readily visible to the naked eye without instrumentation.

I know... me too. ;D