The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Stabler12 on August 29, 2008, 02:28:03 AM
-
OK, I have a question that I haven't found an answer to in any other thread. I've seen the "big gears in the sky" animation used to explain star rotation. (They're called planetary gears, by the way). My question is this: what accounts for constellations rising and setting at different times of the year? If the gears are a constant, shouldn't the constellations be fixed also?
-
Obviously they're not a constant. It's a gear slightly bigger than what takes to rotate in 1 day, so that the movement of the constellations is slightly different every 24 hours.
-
Wait...the gears aren't of uniform size? Kinda hard to do in the FET configuration, isn't it? (trying to picture it, but the teeth of the outer gears would eventually intersect each other bringing the heavens to a grinding halt.)
-
No, the teeth are the same size, but there are more of them. Like the different cogs on a bike.
-
Hmm...how does the "chain" move from one cog to another?
Not being a smartass, just trying to understand the FET concept.
-
OK, I have a question that I haven't found an answer to in any other thread. I've seen the "big gears in the sky" animation used to explain star rotation. (They're called planetary gears, by the way). My question is this: what accounts for constellations rising and setting at different times of the year? If the gears are a constant, shouldn't the constellations be fixed also?
Of course, there is still the even smaller matter of explaining why the gears don't explain the observed motion of the stars.
-
OK, I have a question that I haven't found an answer to in any other thread. I've seen the "big gears in the sky" animation used to explain star rotation. (They're called planetary gears, by the way). My question is this: what accounts for constellations rising and setting at different times of the year? If the gears are a constant, shouldn't the constellations be fixed also?
Of course, there is still the even smaller matter of explaining why the gears don't explain the observed motion of the stars.
I wasn't going to go there...I was more interested in how FET explained earth's seasonal precessions as they related to star movement...never mind how the sun jumps track for seasonal change.
-
Obviously the sun orbits with a period of 24 hours and the stars rotate with a period of 23 hours 56 minutes. Or, in my model of a rotating Earth, the Earth rotates every 23 hours 56 minutes and the sun orbits with a period of 365.2425 solar days.
-
But doesn't that mean the constellations should always be in the same place at all times of the year?
-
But doesn't that mean the constellations should always be in the same place at all times of the year?
I wasn't aware that the stars moved around haphazardly in RET.
-
But doesn't that mean the constellations should always be in the same place at all times of the year?
I wasn't aware that the stars moved around haphazardly in RET.
They don't. I've just never seen a thread addressing the topic of constellation migration...in so many words.
-
They don't.
Ah, so we are in agreement that FET explains the observations satisfactorily.
-
Not at all... I have never seen an FET apostle address it. Constellations have been observedin their heliacal risings and settings at different times, (in a predictable pattern) for millenia.
-
Not at all... I have never seen an FET apostle address it. Constellations have been observedin their heliacal risings and settings at different times, (in a predictable pattern) for millenia.
I just did address it.
-
good point...you talk about standard rotational models, but I am wondeing about the movement of constellations as they pertain to duration and times of year. For example...Orion is visible in the evening from October to early January and in the morning from late July to November in the mid Northern latitudes. Why is it not constant like the Big Dipper?
Damn, I'm tired...I hope this makes sense.
-
good point...you talk about standard rotational models, but I am wondeing about the movement of constellations as they pertain to duration and times of year. For example...Orion is visible in the evening from October to early January and in the morning from late July to November in the mid Northern latitudes. Why is it not constant like the Big Dipper?
Damn, I'm tired...I hope this makes sense.
I have already addressed that in this thread:
Obviously the sun orbits with a period of 24 hours and the stars rotate with a period of 23 hours 56 minutes. Or, in my model of a rotating Earth, the Earth rotates every 23 hours 56 minutes and the sun orbits with a period of 365.2425 solar days.
-
Hmm...how does the "chain" move from one cog to another?
Not being a smartass, just trying to understand the FET concept.
There is only 1 cog, and its rotation is slightly longer (or shorter, I'm not sure which best fits the scenario) than a day so that the constellations on it appear in different places during the course of a year.
-
There is only 1 cog, and its rotation is slightly longer (or shorter, I'm not sure which best fits the scenario) than a day so that the constellations on it appear in different places during the course of a year.
Shorter, by four minutes. As I have already stated twice in this thread, and numerous times in others.
-
Thanks fletch...that's what i was trying to address...
Obviously the sun orbits with a period of 24 hours and the stars rotate with a period of 23 hours 56 minutes. Or, in my model of a rotating Earth, the Earth rotates every 23 hours 56 minutes and the sun orbits with a period of 365.2425 solar days.
I got that part, but it doesnt explain the different times that some constellations rise and set when they do...especially on the celestial equator.
Nevermind for the moment. I'm going to come back to this once I get some sleep.
-
So presumably these gears are observable. Please post up some evidence of them.
-
but it doesnt explain the different times that some constellations rise and set when they do...especially on the celestial equator.
But it does. If the cog with the stars on it is rotating 4 minutes faster than the sun is orbiting, then the stars will be rising/setting 4 minutes earlier every day. Thus in July you will see Orion in the early morning, in October it will be at midnight, and in January it will be early evening. In April it will be at midday, and is of course obscured by the sun, and so the evenings in that time of the year will show a different collection of stars.
Why would you presume the gears to be observable? The workings of a clock/watch are generally hidden behind its face.
-
but it doesnt explain the different times that some constellations rise and set when they do...especially on the celestial equator.
But it does. If the cog with the stars on it is rotating 4 minutes faster than the sun is orbiting, then the stars will be rising/setting 4 minutes earlier every day. Thus in July you will see Orion in the early morning, in October it will be at midnight, and in January it will be early evening. In April it will be at midday, and is of course obscured by the sun, and so the evenings in that time of the year will show a different collection of stars.
Why would you presume the gears to be observable? The workings of a clock/watch are generally hidden behind its face.
So there is a wall in space that obscures the gears. So how far away is this wall. Please back up answers with evidence or sound theory.
-
Also, how does the sun's radial "orbit" change, accounting for seasons. Centrifigual effect...( Idare not call it a force here) would cause an orbit to become larger...but what is causing the sun's "orbital" radius to contract?
-
Also, how does the sun's radial "orbit" change, accounting for seasons. Centrifigual effect...( Idare not call it a force here) would cause an orbit to become larger...but what is causing the sun's "orbital" radius to contract?
In my model of a rotating Earth, the sun is orbiting in an ellipse with a period of 365.2425 solar days. Naturally, this will cause the seasons at its distance from the north celestial pole varies.
-
Also, how does the sun's radial "orbit" change, accounting for seasons. Centrifigual effect...( Idare not call it a force here) would cause an orbit to become larger...but what is causing the sun's "orbital" radius to contract?
In my model of a rotating Earth, the sun is orbiting in an ellipse with a period of 365.2425 solar days. Naturally, this will cause the seasons at its distance from the north celestial pole varies.
And also it would also give the North Pole an Equatorial climate.
-
how do the same stars stay in the south when viewed from australia all night, also be in the south from south america and africa all night too?
-
And also it would also give the North Pole an Equatorial climate.
Please explain how you have come to this conclusion.
how do the same stars stay in the south when viewed from australia all night, also be in the south from south america and africa all night too?
They are not the same stars, just different copies of the same patterns.
-
They are not the same stars, just different copies of the same patterns.
I don't suppose you would be will to give some sort of proof of this?
-
And also it would also give the North Pole an Equatorial climate.
Please explain how you have come to this conclusion.
how do the same stars stay in the south when viewed from australia all night, also be in the south from south america and africa all night too?
They are not the same stars, just different copies of the same patterns.
so, theres 3 different sets of gears for each southern continent now? and a separate one for new zealand too? so that's 4 of them. and oh, look from the west and east of australia in a flat earth model would be in 2 divergent directions too
If 'south' is a divergent direction, you would need a diferent set for every different place that someone looks south...
(http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2259/southerncrossduhya8.jpg)
Red lines show the direction of south, green show the difference in angle if all of australia was looking at a single constellation.
-
so, theres 3 different sets of gears for each southern continent now? and a separate one for new zealand too? so that's 4 of them. and oh, look from the west and east of australia in a flat earth model would be in 2 divergent directions too
If 'south' is a divergent direction, you would need a diferent set for every different place that someone looks south...
(http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2259/southerncrossduhya8.jpg)
Red lines show the direction of south, green show the difference in angle if all of australia was looking at a single constellation.
No, each continent in the Southern Hemisphere converges on its own South Celestial Pole. Celestial south is divergent in the northern hemiplane, and convergent in the southern hemiplane. Geographic south, however, is always divergent, and unlike in RET celestial south and geographic south are not always the same.
-
so, theres 3 different sets of gears for each southern continent now? and a separate one for new zealand too? so that's 4 of them. and oh, look from the west and east of australia in a flat earth model would be in 2 divergent directions too
If 'south' is a divergent direction, you would need a diferent set for every different place that someone looks south...
(http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2259/southerncrossduhya8.jpg)
Red lines show the direction of south, green show the difference in angle if all of australia was looking at a single constellation.
No, each continent in the Southern Hemisphere converges on its own South Celestial Pole. Celestial south is divergent in the northern hemiplane, and convergent in the southern hemiplane. Geographic south, however, is always divergent, and unlike in RET celestial south and geographic south are not always the same.
So, which south do compasses point at? and why do compasses give the same south as celestial navigation does?
-
So, which south do compasses point at? and why do compasses give the same south as celestial navigation does?
Compasses align themselves with the Earth's magnetic field.
-
So, if one end points to the magnetic pole at the north pole, the other end points to divergent 'magnetic south', not the convergent 'celestial south' and so they should give a different south to celestial navigation. So, how does your FE model explain this?
-
RE wins again.
-
So, if one end points to the magnetic pole at the north pole, the other end points to divergent 'magnetic south', not the convergent 'celestial south' and so they should give a different south to celestial navigation. So, how does your FE model explain this?
How do we know that this happens?
Geographic South and Magnetic South are not even in the same place on the Round Earth model. Any navigator seeing such a discrepancy would think nothing of it.
-
So, if one end points to the magnetic pole at the north pole, the other end points to divergent 'magnetic south', not the convergent 'celestial south' and so they should give a different south to celestial navigation. So, how does your FE model explain this?
How do we know that this happens?
Geographic South and Magnetic South are not even in the same place on the Round Earth model. Any navigator seeing such a discrepancy would think nothing of it.
No, but the difference between the geographic and magnetic south poles is a lot less on RE than on FE.
Say for the sake of argument someone in Reykjavik decided that they wanted to head to the "south pole", and they navigated using only a compass. Say that someone from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, at a difference of approximately 180 degrees of longitude from Reykjavik, also decided to head to the "south pole", and they were also navigating only using a compass.
On RE, they'd both end up at the same point, and they'd both be just under 2000 miles from the geographic south pole (http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=1843).
On FE, they'd end up nearly 25,000 miles apart.
I'd say that they'd notice that.
-
So, if one end points to the magnetic pole at the north pole, the other end points to divergent 'magnetic south', not the convergent 'celestial south' and so they should give a different south to celestial navigation. So, how does your FE model explain this?
How do we know that this happens?
Geographic South and Magnetic South are not even in the same place on the Round Earth model. Any navigator seeing such a discrepancy would think nothing of it.
Are you a retard? Do you not grasp the concept of divergent or convergent directions? if I shift the lines to originate from magnetic north the diagram would be virtually identical.
As the magnetic south pole is closer to Australia than the geographical south pole, the effect is actually the opposite to the effect on the FE model. In Eastern Australia, magnetic north would be slightly west of celestial north and in western Australia it would be slightly east. Now in the flat earth model, it would the the opposite direction, and it would be a much larger angle of discrepancy.
Compare
(http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2259/southerncrossduhya8.jpg)
Outer lines (red) are magnetic north, inner (green) lines are celestial north
(http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1479/southzu1.jpg)
Outer lines are celestial north, inner lines are magnetic north.
-
The danger of posting such evidence.
.
.
.
they will ignore it.
-
yea, that's pretty much what happened to the thread on sunlight. Someone posted a pretty definitive diagram and the FE's just cried conspiracy then quit posting.
-
No, but the difference between the geographic and magnetic south poles is a lot less on RE than on FE.
I hardly think the navigator is looking at his compass and the direction of Geographic South and considering whether the separation might be too much for his model of the earth.
It's not the navigator's job to study the shape of the earth. The navigator follows the compass to travel in relation to North and that's that.
Outer lines are celestial north, inner lines are magnetic north.
Now what happens to the difference between Geographic and Magnetic South when you are anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere except right above the point of Magnetic South?
-
Geographic South and Magnetic South are not even in the same place on the Round Earth model. Any navigator seeing such a discrepancy would think nothing of it.
Actually variation between the magnetic compass and gyro compass is calculated every four hours (once a watch). When possible, this is done using observations of the Sun, Moon, stars or planets. The results of these azimuths are used to calculate the error of the various compasses onboard.
The variation is also compared to charts that show the variation for different regions of the globe. These are based on the northern and southern magnetic poles, in addition to measurements made over the past hundred years, or more.
With FE geography, the lines of variation would not be running north-south due to the position of the southern geographic pole compared to the rest of the Earth. The discrepancy would be noticeable, especially in the southern hemisphere where those errors would be larger.
-
Geographic South and Magnetic South are not even in the same place on the Round Earth model. Any navigator seeing such a discrepancy would think nothing of it.
Actually variation between the magnetic compass and gyro compass is calculated every four hours (once a watch). When possible, this is done using observations of the Sun, Moon, stars or planets. The results of these azimuths are used to calculate the error of the various compasses onboard.
The variation is also compared to charts that show the variation for different regions of the globe. These are based on the northern and southern magnetic poles, in addition to measurements made over the past hundred years, or more.
With FE geography, the lines of variation would not be running north-south due to the position of the southern geographic pole compared to the rest of the Earth. The discrepancy would be noticeable, especially in the southern hemisphere where those errors would be larger.
Is that due to precession?...meaninng that the ships position in relation to magnetic North/South has changed?
-
Is that due to precession?...meaninng that the ships position in relation to magnetic North/South has changed?
As you move east or west, the variation between true north and magnetic north will change. Those values are fixed and measurable. If you are moving in a north-south direction, your variation does not change, or changes very slowly.
Precession is a characteristic of gyroscopic compasses. This is what allows the compass to remain pointed at true north.
-
Thanks for the clarification. On a Flat earth, it's a wonder Magellen was able to navigate the Southern Hemisphere using RE star fixes....
-
Thanks for the clarification. On a Flat earth, it's a wonder Magellen was able to navigate the Southern Hemisphere using RE star fixes....
You will notice that most of the tracks for Magellan have him making long westbound tracks while following a single line of latitude. He could determine that with accuracy through sights of the Sun at local noon each day. His distance traveled though was based on his vessel's speed through the water which can be effected by currents. That results in inaccuracies in the east-west location of major islands, while they were accurate for distance north or south of the equator.
-
huh...well, navigation isn't my strong suit. I just remember what I was taught in Boy Scouts orienteering merit badge.
-
huh...well, navigation isn't my strong suit. I just remember what I was taught in Boy Scouts orienteering merit badge.
Near coastal navigation is the same principle. Measure bearings to a known object and plot it on the chart.
That was part of the sailing method that Magellan used. You sail along a known line of latitude until would reach land. Once within sight of land you can plot your position against (hopefully) known locations and then navigate up and down the coast to your destination.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_declination
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/IGRF_2000_magnetic_declination.gif/350px-IGRF_2000_magnetic_declination.gif)
If you look at this map then declination for western australia is 0 and east oz is 10. now if we compare to the FE map,
(http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8775/declinationak7.jpg)
We can see that is declination is zero in the west coast, then it would be -50 degrees on the east. so that's 60 degrees difference.
for NZ real declination is from 18 in the north to 25 in the south. In the FE model it would be about -60 if they were looking at the same celestial south as australia. But hey, I'm sure navigators wouldn't notice a 88 degree discrepancy would they?
RE wins again.
If you're wondering about the distance to the star observed, even if it is increased to infinity it is still -20 so it is 30 degrees from the true value. any further than the distance I chose and you will need to explain why Australians could see that but not the north star.
-
Why would magnetic south be radially outward from the North Pole?
-
Why would magnetic south be radially outward from the North Pole?
Because that's what FET say it is, it's not my theory, so it's not my problem, if you want to revise your theory, go right ahead.
-
Because that's what FET say it is, it's not my theory, so it's not my problem, if you want to revise your theory, go right ahead.
I don't remember anybody saying that.
Edit: Also, how can magnetic south be outward from the north pole when the magnetic south pole isn't at the same place as the geographic north pole?
-
Because that's what FET say it is, it's not my theory, so it's not my problem, if you want to revise your theory, go right ahead.
I don't remember anybody saying that.
I recall them saying the magnetic field is caused by a dipole, with the south at the surface, and north deep underground, thus making compasses point to magnetic north, with the south indicated by compasses simply being the opposite direction to magnetic north. It's in the sacred and unquestionable FAQ.
-
I recall them saying the magnetic field is caused by a dipole, with the south at the surface, and north deep underground, thus making compasses point to magnetic north, with the south indicated by compasses simply being the opposite direction to magnetic north. It's in the sacred and unquestionable FAQ.
Do you even understand how compasses work?
-
Why would magnetic south be radially outward from the North Pole?
From the point of view of anyone in the northern hemisphere, that's where it would appear to be, which could be demonstrated by travelling along any line of lattitude (though I appreciate things get tricky near the equator owing to the difference in location between the geographic and magnetic poles). Once you cross the equator on RE, south on your compass will start to point towards the magnetic south pole, and magnetic north would appear to be radially outward from the south pole. On FE, there is no such most southerly place on the surface, and so magnetic south would always appear to be radially outwards from magnetic north.
Consider the example I gave on the previous page:
Say for the sake of argument someone in Reykjavik decided that they wanted to head to the "south pole", and they navigated using only a compass. Say that someone from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, at a difference of approximately 180 degrees of longitude from Reykjavik, also decided to head to the "south pole", and they were also navigating only using a compass.
On RE, they'd both end up at the same point, and they'd both be just under 2000 miles from the geographic south pole (http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=1843).
On FE, they'd end up nearly 25,000 miles apart.
I'd say that they'd notice that.
Otherwise, as I understand it, a compass on FE would only really work if you wanted to head northwards. As soon as you wanted to head south, you'd be screwed.
Of course, if I've misunderstood something along the way, I stand to be corrected. :)
-
A magnet will attempt to align itself with the magnetic field in which it is placed. The Earth's magnetic field is not necessarily radially symmetrical.
Incidentally, the Earth's magnetic south pole is the one near the geographic north pole. This is because the north-south polarity of magnets is named after the sides that point north and south in most places on Earth, and since opposite poles attract each other, the north pole of a magnet, which points north, is actually being attracted to the magnetic south pole of the Earth.
-
I recall them saying the magnetic field is caused by a dipole, with the south at the surface, and north deep underground, thus making compasses point to magnetic north, with the south indicated by compasses simply being the opposite direction to magnetic north. It's in the sacred and unquestionable FAQ.
Do you even understand how compasses work?
Hey, it's not my theory.
-
A magnet will attempt to align itself with the magnetic field in which it is placed. The Earth's magnetic field is not necessarily radially symmetrical.
Fair enough. In which case, on FE, where would one end up if one followed a compass southwards?
-
A magnet will attempt to align itself with the magnetic field in which it is placed. The Earth's magnetic field is not necessarily radially symmetrical.
I would ask you to propose a model for the magnetic field and star positions explaining observed declination, however it's totally futile, you have no hope of making your star positions make sense at all, let alone the magnetic field.
-
Fair enough. In which case, on FE, where would one end up if one followed a compass southwards?
Probably at one of several magnetic north poles (see the edit to my last post for clarification of this nomenclature). A magnetic north pole is defined as a point at which the magnetic field lines are vertically upwards; that is to say, the force on a test north monopole is in the direction of fastest increasing gravitational potential energy per unit displacement. There are probably at least three of these points on a Flat Earth; one to the south of each of the continents in the southern hemiplane. This would cause the Earth's magnetic field to look somewhat like a clover, with the magnetic south pole in the centre and three magnetic north poles towards the outside.
-
Probably at one of several magnetic north poles (see the edit to my last post for clarification of this nomenclature). A magnetic north pole is defined as a point at which the magnetic field lines are vertically upwards; that is to say, the force on a test north monopole is in the direction of fastest increasing gravitational potential energy per unit displacement. There are probably at least three of these points on a Flat Earth; one to the south of each of the continents in the southern hemiplane. This would cause the Earth's magnetic field to look somewhat like a clover, with the magnetic south pole in the centre and three magnetic north poles towards the outside.
This doesn't explain compass observations when you are not on one of the continents.
Also, why don't we stick with the traditional naming scheme for simplicity. The northern magnetic pole is the one nearest the northern geographic pole, and vice-a-versa. That should help prevent the confusion that will surely result if you keep referring to the one (or ones) closest to Australia as the "northern magnetic pole." They just aren't referred to that way.
-
(http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8856/declinationyb4.png)
Ok, so where on this map would you place all the magnetic poles, and different celestial souths so that the correct declination is observed?
And then you can explain how gyroscopic compasses are supposed to work and where they supposedly point on flat earth.
-
who the hell built these gears and what not?
-
who the hell built these gears and what not?
The gears idea is an analogy. ::)
-
This doesn't explain compass observations when you are not on one of the continents.
Magnetic south will still be magnetic south. It will just be the result of the combination of the forces from two South Magnetic Poles.
Also, why don't we stick with the traditional naming scheme for simplicity. The northern magnetic pole is the one nearest the northern geographic pole, and vice-a-versa. That should help prevent the confusion that will surely result if you keep referring to the one (or ones) closest to Australia as the "northern magnetic pole." They just aren't referred to that way.
Fine by me. I will capitalise their names, however, to make it clear that I am talking about one of the South Magnetic Poles and not a magnetic north pole.
Ok, so where on this map would you place all the magnetic poles, and different celestial souths so that the correct declination is observed?
I will give this matter some consideration before answering.
And then you can explain how gyroscopic compasses are supposed to work and where they supposedly point on flat earth.
They are influenced by the gravitation of the rotating heavens, and so will point towards the celestial pole nearest them.
-
And then you can explain how gyroscopic compasses are supposed to work and where they supposedly point on flat earth.
They are influenced by the gravitation of the rotating heavens, and so will point towards the celestial pole nearest them.
So, on the equator, where does a gyroscopic compass point? To celestial north or south?
-
So, on the equator, where does a gyroscopic compass point? To celestial north or south?
It is not possible for a gyroscopic compass to exist on the equator.
-
So, on the equator, where does a gyroscopic compass point? To celestial north or south?
It is not possible for a gyroscopic compass to exist on the equator.
Because Wizard magic makes them vanish.
In the real world however, the Equator is where gyrocompasses are most sensitive.
-
It is not possible for a gyroscopic compass to exist on the equator.
??!?
Reference please.
-
I don't need to justify a negative. You are the ones claiming that you can have a gyroscopic compass at the equator, so you need to provide evidence for that.
-
I don't need to justify a negative. You are the ones claiming that you can have a gyroscopic compass at the equator, so you need to provide evidence for that.
Well, all three of our gyro compasses worked just as well north of the equator as south.
Now a reference that shows that shouldn't have happened please.
-
Well, all three of our gyro compasses worked just as well north of the equator as south.
Now a reference that shows that shouldn't have happened please.
Where did I say that they couldn't exist on one side of the equator?
-
Well, all three of our gyro compasses worked just as well north of the equator as south.
Now a reference that shows that shouldn't have happened please.
Where did I say that they couldn't exist on one side of the equator?
Well, the fact that we were at the equator (twice) and none of the three compasses functioned differently there than at any other portion of the voyage, shows that were working at the equator.
The equator is the only point where the compass is aligned with the axis of the Earth's rotation meaning that it doesn't process like it does north or south of the equator. It doesn't mean that it ceases to work as designed.
-
Well, the fact that we were at the equator (twice) and none of the three compasses functioned differently there than at any other portion of the voyage, shows that were working at the equator.
The equator is the only point where the compass is aligned with the axis of the Earth's rotation meaning that it doesn't process like it does north or south of the equator. It doesn't mean that it ceases to work as designed.
The gyroscopic compass passed the equator, but was never at the equator.
-
The gyroscopic compass passed the equator, but was never at the equator.
Your turn for an explanation for why it shouldn't work.
-
Your turn for an explanation for why it shouldn't work.
Please explain how a three-dimensional object can exist along a two-dimensional plane.
-
Please explain how a three-dimensional object can exist along a two-dimensional plane.
I am not understanding your question.
-
I am not understanding your question.
For something to exist on the equator, it would need to exist along the plane (which happens to be curved back on itself along one dimension) formed by extending the circle that is the equator to infinity in the direction parallel to that of the circle's axis of radial symmetry.
-
I can't think of a way to explain the flaw in my stupid model so I will now try and derail the thread with a stupid technicality about the mathematical concept of the equator rather than accepting that my theory has been shot down. This is because I am a sore looser and can't accept Lolz has beaten me.
Shall I rephrase. where does a gyroscopic compass point in equatorial regions specificly, when both celestial north and south are both observed, which does the gyrocompass point towards.
Basicly explain this:
(http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/7503/lolduhcy2.png)
The red lines represent the alignment of a gyroscopic compass at that position if they were to point to the closest celestial pole in your model.
-
Shall I rephrase. where does a gyroscopic compass point in equatorial regions specificly, when both celestial north and south are both observed, which does the gyrocompass point towards.
Basicly explain this:
(http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/7503/lolduhcy2.png)
The red lines represent the alignment of a gyroscopic compass at that position if they were to point to the closest celestial pole in your model.
Those lines should be smooth curves.
-
Smooth curves would not align with the light from the stars which would follow the same straight lines. This means that gyro compasses would not be aligned with celestial observations.
Unless you are going to say light bends sideways too.
-
Smooth curves would not align with the light from the stars which would follow the same straight lines. This means that gyro compasses would not be aligned with celestial observations.
Unless you are going to say light bends sideways too.
They're mostly straight. The curvature is imperceptible except very close to the equator.
-
Smooth curves would not align with the light from the stars which would follow the same straight lines. This means that gyro compasses would not be aligned with celestial observations.
Unless you are going to say light bends sideways too.
They're mostly straight. The curvature is imperceptible except very close to the equator.
So what your saying is that everyone in equatorial regions is a conspirator?
The deviation between celestial north and south would still be observable at the equator.
The gradualness of the curvature would not negate the deviation between celestial and gyroscopic readings.
-
So what your saying is that everyone in equatorial regions is a conspirator?
The deviation between celestial north and south would still be observable at the equator.
The gradualness of the curvature would not negate the deviation between celestial and gyroscopic readings.
What's more likely, that people are lying when they say that gyrocompasses work near the equator or that my own eyes are deceiving me when I look at the Earth and see that it appears flat?
-
So what your saying is that everyone in equatorial regions is a conspirator?
The deviation between celestial north and south would still be observable at the equator.
The gradualness of the curvature would not negate the deviation between celestial and gyroscopic readings.
What's more likely, that people are lying when they say that gyrocompasses work near the equator or that my own eyes are deceiving me when I look at the Earth and see that it appears flat?
The Earth appears flat to you? It looks pretty fucking knobbly and lumpy here.
-
The Earth appears flat to you?
Ignoring local irregularities, yes.
-
The Earth appears flat to you?
Ignoring local irregularities, yes.
So how do you ignore these local irregularities? Have you viewed it from sufficient distance that you could see the whole Earth?
-
The Earth appears flat to you?
Ignoring local irregularities, yes.
So how do you ignore these local irregularities? Have you viewed it from sufficient distance that you could see the whole Earth?
This is impossible because space travel is impossible.
Another win for FE.
-
No, it's another win for RE, because you can't see that the Earth is flat.
-
No, it's another win for RE, because you can't see that the Earth is flat.
The street outside my house goes on for a long while (it's a major road), and it's flat as far as I can see. So the earth must be flat.
-
So how do you ignore these local irregularities? Have you viewed it from sufficient distance that you could see the whole Earth?
Let me ask you this: is it possible to view the Earth from a sufficient distance to see it in its entirety?
-
So how do you ignore these local irregularities? Have you viewed it from sufficient distance that you could see the whole Earth?
Let me ask you this: is it possible to view the Earth from a sufficient distance to see it in its entirety?
Even in RE you cannot see the whole of the earth in it's entirety even if space travel exists. The logic in that argument is therefore broken.
-
Even in RE you cannot see the whole of the earth in it's entirety even if space travel exists. The logic in that argument is therefore broken.
You ruined it. I was hoping he would say "yes", and then I would have declared another victory for FE.
-
ok, so lets conclude neither of us have seen the whole earth, so lets go with the Gyroscopic compasses, and they say the earth is round.
The end. RE wins.
-
ok, so lets conclude neither of us have seen the whole earth, so lets go with the Gyroscopic compasses, and they say the earth is round.
The end. RE wins.
No, they just say the earth rotates.
-
ok, so lets conclude neither of us have seen the whole earth, so lets go with the Gyroscopic compasses, and they say the earth is round.
The end. RE wins.
No, they just say the earth rotates.
hmmm, you've not been following this have you?
-
ok, so lets conclude neither of us have seen the whole earth, so lets go with the Gyroscopic compasses, and they say the earth is round.
The end. RE wins.
No, they just say the earth rotates.
hmmm, you've not been following this have you?
My gyrocompass has been broken for a while now.
-
So what your saying is that everyone in equatorial regions is a conspirator?
The deviation between celestial north and south would still be observable at the equator.
The gradualness of the curvature would not negate the deviation between celestial and gyroscopic readings.
What's more likely, that people are lying when they say that gyrocompasses work near the equator or that my own eyes are deceiving me when I look at the Earth and see that it appears flat?
Maybe us RE'ers, living our RE lives, with our RE tools are just blind to your view, because we're only seeing the world with half our eyes. (http://) Or maybe we're not that naive.
It just shames me a bit that I and other RE'ers like me have to be the ones to wave around the big science textbook, and to tell you FE'ers to put down your Bibles, Qur'ans, or ENAG hardcovers, and open your damn eyes. Your whole eyes.
Seeing as this gears thread is getting more attention than my own, and is getting off track, let me repost my problems with the celestial gears theory. I'd like to hear some feedback on the post below, as I've yet to get anything coherent as of yet.
To quote myself...
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/935e301d0aeb8845373604538ed258225g.jpg)
I think this is pretty close to what Tom is getting at... Notwithstanding the problems others have already mentioned, I have a few of my own.
First, you'd have to have an unlimited number of gears to cover every latitude, and those gears would interfere with each other. I say that because at all southern latitudes the southern focal point appears due south. With just a finite number of gears, at some points it would appear to be to the left or right of due south. And when you have even more than one gear, theres the problem of how there are that many gears showing basically the same stars. Are they multiple stars, or is that just some optical illusion?
(http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/5796/northstarsew0.jpg)
(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3615/southstarswo1.jpg)
Secondly, unless you're directly underneath one, the polar focal points should appear to be ovoid and remain in the sky, and yet they are circular regardless of location, and dip below the horizon no less.. I'm sure that will be explained as some kind of optical illusion though...
(http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6164/equatorstarsec6.jpg)
Thirdly, the gears proposal should show the 2 different hemisphere fields pulling away from each other at some point. Here you have some curving, no doubt, but the spacing between the stars is not increasing in any meaningful way.
(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/1564/startrailsforgearsnv9.jpg)
This panoramic looks pretty much like it's pulling away, but if you look at it in
this VR mov (http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/star_trail.mov) from the Barden Ridge Observatory (http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/bardenridgeobs.html), you can see that it is in fact not doing so.
This VR mov (http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/wholeshebang.mov) is unrelated, but very cool.
-
What's more likely, that people are lying when they say that gyrocompasses work near the equator or that my own eyes are deceiving me when I look at the Earth and see that it appears flat?
Well, I don't know what to say. It is rare that I am called a liar.
You never did come up with an explanation as to why a gyro shouldn't work at the equator.
I think I liked your argument style better before you changed your screen name and avatar.
-
For something to exist on the equator, it would need to exist along the plane (which happens to be curved back on itself along one dimension) formed by extending the circle that is the equator to infinity in the direction parallel to that of the circle's axis of radial symmetry.
Well, you restated that, and I have no clue what you are getting at.
-
First, you'd have to have an unlimited number of gears to cover every latitude, and those gears would interfere with each other. I say that because at all southern latitudes the southern focal point appears due south. With just a finite number of gears, at some points it would appear to be to the left or right of due south.
The Southern Gears do sometimes appear to South-East or South-West of the observer. Remember, Magnetic South is not the same as Geographic South. The observer in the Southern Hemisphere would think nothing of a discrepancy like that.
And when you have even more than one gear, theres the problem of how there are that many gears showing basically the same stars. Are they multiple stars, or is that just some optical illusion?
Uh, they're not showing the same stars.
Secondly, unless you're directly underneath one, the polar focal points should appear to be ovoid and remain in the sky, and yet they are circular regardless of location, and dip below the horizon no less.. I'm sure that will be explained as some kind of optical illusion though...
The gears are always pointing towards the observer due to the celestial light mechanics described in this thread:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg5345#msg5345
-
'May", 'Possibly", "I'd say", "Seemingly plausible", "I suspect",....your words in describing FET in the post you referenced.
Y'see, It's all supposition and references to reading material that is over 100 years out of date. You bring a great New Age/ metaphysical slant to the table, but when it comes to scientific theory, I suggest you leave it to Engineer or Osama.
(edited to correct name)
-
Well, you restated that, and I have no clue what you are getting at.
Half of it would need to be above the equator, and half below the equator. It cannot exist precisely on the equator, because the equator has no width.
-
Half of it would need to be above the equator, and half below the equator. It cannot exist precisely on the equator, because the equator has no width.
This sounds remarkably philosophical to me.
Are my shoes on the floor as 3D objects existing on a 2D plane called the floor, or not?
-
This sounds remarkably philosophical to me.
Are my shoes on the floor as 3D objects existing on a 2D plane called the floor, or not?
The floor is not two-dimensional.
-
First, you'd have to have an unlimited number of gears to cover every latitude, and those gears would interfere with each other. I say that because at all southern latitudes the southern focal point appears due south. With just a finite number of gears, at some points it would appear to be to the left or right of due south.
The Southern Gears do sometimes appear to South-East or South-West of the observer. Remember, Magnetic South is not the same as Geographic South. The observer in the Southern Hemisphere would think nothing of a discrepancy like that.
First off, Magnetic South is in fact in pretty close proximity to the Geographic South at this point in time. I think you're thinking of the Earth's axial tilt relative to the sun and other celestial bodies.
And secondly, yes there are some variances in reality because of the axial tilt, but not to the degree that you would see on a FE map. Here's a diagram to help explain my points.
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo155/AmatureAstronomer/Stellargearstopview.gif)
Assuming that you're going with 3 gears in your theory like your graphic suggests and you have them over the 3 largest land masses, you've got some gaps and problem areas. This shows South America top left, Africa bottom left, and Australia center right.
It looks fine for points anywhere in a straight line between the 2 focal points, but not so much if you move away from those.
On American Samoa you would see the star gears coming together in the sky above you, and likewise on the Keeling Islands you would see them coming apart.
On French Polynesia you would see nothing but dead sky looking south.
And on the Pitcairn Islands you would see not one, but two southern focal points, one to the left and one to the right.
I think an observer in the Southern Hemisphere would think quite a bit about discrepancies like these.
Even if you're going to pull the bendy light card, on the Pitcairn Islands you would have light from both points bending in, and this phenomena would still be apparent. To get the gear theory to work for this point you'd need another set of outer gears between each of the 3 original ones. To get it to work at points between those, another set of gears. And so on and so forth, with each new set interfering with the old ones until the sky looks nothing like it does in reality...
And when you have even more than one gear, theres the problem of how there are that many gears showing basically the same stars. Are they multiple stars, or is that just some optical illusion?
Uh, they're not showing the same stars.
Follow with me here Tom. You have here 2 stars on the inner disk
and a star on the outer disks. These stars always show up near each other in the visible sky.
Still with me here? As you can see, there are 3 outer disk stars. Now if the star on the Australia disk were to supernova, would the other disk stars supernova as well, and why? Out of sympathy?
Secondly, unless you're directly underneath one, the polar focal points should appear to be ovoid and remain in the sky, and yet they are circular regardless of location, and dip below the horizon no less.. I'm sure that will be explained as some kind of optical illusion though...
The gears are always pointing towards the observer due to the celestial light mechanics described in this thread:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg5345#msg5345
Bendy light might work for each light source, but not the entire gear itself. The gear itself cannot point toward any given observer. And with only the light sources bending, the view would still be ovoid.
Yeah, and about that diagram you keep touting Tom, if all light is curving, then how did you get those straight lines near the middle of your drawing there? Given a straight down emitting sun, those photons would be subject to the same curving as all the other ones. You'd end up with a donut shaped light path instead of a circular one.
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo155/AmatureAstronomer/CurveProblems.jpg)
Secondly, with your bendy theory how are you explaining how light is getting from the sun to the moon? It's not Immediately apparent.
-
What no response to this analysis of the celestial gears?
-
The floor is not two-dimensional.
I think it is. When I look across the room , or look at it through the window, it looks 2D to me. What makes my floor not a flat plane?
-
Of course a floor is 2D. What the floor is made of may not be but you are talking about a surface. The interface can be considered 2 dimensional.
-
I think it is. When I look across the room , or look at it through the window, it looks 2D to me. What makes my floor not a flat plane?
It looks 2D doesn't mean it is.
-
It looks 2D doesn't mean it is.
Shh, don't say that too loud on this forum. ;)
-
The floor is not two-dimensional.
I think it is. When I look across the room , or look at it through the window, it looks 2D to me. What makes my floor not a flat plane?
It's depth?
-
I think it is. When I look across the room , or look at it through the window, it looks 2D to me. What makes my floor not a flat plane?
The fact that atoms are three-dimensional.
Of course a floor is 2D. What the floor is made of may not be but you are talking about a surface. The interface can be considered 2 dimensional.
No it can't. Two-dimensional constructs don't exist in the real world, so unless you want to tell me that you fall right through your floor because it isn't really there, then you have to agree that it is three-dimensional.
-
You are correct that constructs do not but it can be considered 2 dimensional.
The interface can be considered as dimensionless points can't it?
-
You are correct that constructs do not but it can be considered 2 dimensional.
The interface can be considered as dimensionless points can't it?
It can, but how does one define it? Unless your floor is perfectly flat (which it isn't), then you can't simply define it as a plane.
-
The fact that atoms are three-dimensional.
So there aren't atoms at the equator?
No it can't. Two-dimensional constructs don't exist in the real world, so unless you want to tell me that you fall right through your floor because it isn't really there, then you have to agree that it is three-dimensional.
So we are agreed that a 3D gyroscope can exist at the 3D equator because the equator is made up of atoms.
-
The equator is not made of atoms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator)
-
The equator is not made of atoms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator)
Yes, but the ship floating in the water that is at the equator is. So technically, the equator is not really a 2D object, but a 3D place to be.
-
Yes, but the ship floating in the water that is at the equator is. So technically, the equator is not really a 2D object, but a 3D place to be.
Actually, by Wikipedia's definition, the Equator is a one-dimensional line. It has no physical existence; it is a purely imaginary construct.
-
Actually, by Wikipedia's definition, the Equator is a one-dimensional line. It has no physical existence; it is a purely imaginary construct.
You never did explain why gyroscopes wouldn't be able to function in the near proximity to the equator, or the point that is equidistant between the poles on RE. You just went off on some tangent trying to define the 3D nature of the equator.
-
You never did explain why gyroscopes wouldn't be able to function in the near proximity to the equator, or the point that is equidistant between the poles on RE. You just went off on some tangent trying to define the 3D nature of the equator.
I never said they couldn't function near the Equator, only that they couldn't exist at the Equator.
-
FE's believe the spin on a gyroscope is caused by gravitation from the celestial gears, not the torque from a rotating planet? This should be verifiable shouldn't it?
-
FE's believe the spin on a gyroscope is caused by gravitation from the celestial gears, not the torque from a rotating planet? This should be verifiable shouldn't it?
Since when could man detect a gravitational field?
-
Through it's effects.
-
Yes, but the ship floating in the water that is at the equator is. So technically, the equator is not really a 2D object, but a 3D place to be.
Actually, by Wikipedia's definition, the Equator is a one-dimensional line. It has no physical existence; it is a purely imaginary construct.
I read that entire entry, and at no point does it refer to it as a one dimensional line. A one dimensional line is one that runs directly between 2 points, and is insufficient to describe the equator on both RE and FE maps alike. And if a 2 dimensional construct cannot exist in the real world, a one dimensional construct couldn't either.
For the sake of dyno's question just consider the equator to be a point that is equal distance from the north and south poles, and answer why a gyroscope will not function there.
-
I have to say that RS has become remarkably adept at dodging questions. You used to attempt to answer everything but now you have resorted to the much used tactics of
1. picking on grammatical and spelling errors which do not detract from the meaning of the post
2. arguing semantics
poor form :(
-
I have to say that RS has become remarkably adept at dodging questions. You used to attempt to answer everything but now you have resorted to the much used tactics of
1. picking on grammatical and spelling errors which do not detract from the meaning of the post
2. arguing semantics
poor form :(
it is all a part of his "master terrorist" persona.
-
I have to say that RS has become remarkably adept at dodging questions. You used to attempt to answer everything but now you have resorted to the much used tactics of
1. picking on grammatical and spelling errors which do not detract from the meaning of the post
2. arguing semantics
poor form :(
That's why they made him a mod, he's fully embraced the flat earth way. lol
-
Since when could man detect a gravitational field?
Well, there are instruments called gravimeters that are routinely used in oil exploration to find areas where the rock is less dense that might indicate the presence of oil or gas reserves.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter[/url
-
Well, there are instruments called gravimeters that are routinely used in oil exploration to find areas where the rock is less dense that might indicate the presence of oil or gas reserves.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter
Gravimeters don't measure gravitational fields any more than dropping a pen and timing its rate of decent with a stopwatch is measuring a gravitational field. Gravimeters just measure acceleration.
Acceleration on the Focault's Pendulum/Gyroscope is exactly what is created by a spinning earth / rotating gravitational field of the cosmos.
So again, how can we detect a gravitational field?
-
Gravimeters don't measure gravitational fields any more than dropping a pen and timing its rate of decent with a stopwatch is measuring a gravitational field. Gravimeters just measure acceleration.
But why exactly are they timing differences in their "pen" based on the density of rock? They are obviously measuring some effect there, that corresponds to how the gravitational field lines should align themselves.
Acceleration on the Focault's Pendulum/Gyroscope is exactly what is created by a spinning earth / rotating gravitational field of the cosmos.
Not sure why you are discussing pendulums and gyroscopes. That technology doesn't use either one of those principles.
So again, how can we detect a gravitational field?
Should I post my original response to your original question, or does asking the same question repeatedly force me to give different answers each time.
-
But why exactly are they timing differences in their "pen" based on the density of rock? They are obviously measuring some effect there, that corresponds to how the gravitational field lines should align themselves.
The gravimeter is just a little weight in a machine which drops down past a laser and computer to track how fast the weight went. That's all it is. The gravimeter isn't detecting gravitons or gravitational field lines or space-time bends. The gravimeter is measuring the acceleration of the weight and nothing more.
That acceleration experienced by the weight could come from a number of sources, from the gravitation of the cosmos to the Dark Energy of the Universal Accelerator seeping through thin parts of the earth's crust. The gravimeter cannot tell us what it is detecting. All it can detect is the weight's acceleration.
Should I post my original response to your original question, or does asking the same question repeatedly force me to give different answers each time.
Yes, please tell me how we can detect a gravitational field when we don't even know what a gravitational field even is. As far as I know science has yet to detect the sub atomic graviton particle thought to be the mechanism for gravity.
-
NASA and other satellite agencies uses variances on the pull of satellites caused by the grav flux of different density rock and magma on earth and other bodies to do deep crust and mantle mapping, but seeing as you deny the integrity/existence of both NASA and satellites, that probably won't help this argument much.
-
Yes, please tell me how we can detect a gravitational field when we don't even know what a gravitational field even is. As far as I know science has yet to detect the sub atomic graviton particle thought to be the mechanism for gravity.
So explain the mechanism for a magnetic field? Is there a particle that is the mechanism? Has it been detected?
I can use a compass, iron filings or more fancy devices to map that field without being able to describe the mechanism, but I doubt that you would find someone that would deny that there are magnetic fields present.
-
I'm not trying to disrupt the topic (I agree with Rig Engineer) but as well as answering his/her question, could you please answer mine.
I just want to clear this up: Are the gears a just a metaphor for an unknown force, or are they really gears (presumably made of some exotic substance similar to dark matter)? Or something else?
-
I'm not trying to disrupt the topic (I agree with Rig Engineer) but as well as answering his/her question, could you please answer mine.
I just want to clear this up: Are the gears a just a metaphor for an unknown force, or are they really gears (presumably made of some exotic substance similar to dark matter)? Or something else?
No the gear are real actual gears, that drive the stars. They are hidden from view however, which is why they have never been seen. The reason that we know that they exist is because in order for Flat Earth to work they have to exist.
So since we know the earth to be flat, the existance of the planetary gears is proven without proof.
Does this help?
-
proven without proof.
L0ok out 0f teh windoh!!!!1!11! lololololol!!!!11!1!!!
Just saving a flat earther the effort.
Seriously tho, there hasn't even been an attempt at this one by the FEers. All they managed was a 'teh conspiracy!'. nothing funny at all. I got no lolz. This make me sad.
-
I'm not trying to disrupt the topic (I agree with Rig Engineer) but as well as answering his/her question, could you please answer mine.
I just want to clear this up: Are the gears a just a metaphor for an unknown force, or are they really gears (presumably made of some exotic substance similar to dark matter)? Or something else?
The gears are actually real in their description. Currently it stands as 3 outer gears that circle one inner gear.
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo155/AmatureAstronomer/Gears.gif)
I have read several posts that do describe them as being made of dark matter. None go to the trouble of proving it though.
specialBus, you're going to get banned soon, in my opinion. If you don't want to get banned, then try as hard as you can to form an opinion, and talk about that, instead of nonsense. This is the debate forum. If you need to talk nonsense, there is a forum specifically for that.
-
specialBus, you're going to get banned soon, in my opinion. If you don't want to get banned, then try as hard as you can to form an opinion, and talk about that, instead of nonsense. This is the debate forum. If you need to talk nonsense, there is a forum specifically for that.
I beg to differ this is a forum where people with an IQ in the range 0-10 try to convince the entire rest of the world that the earth is flat.
There is no debate, just meaningless drivel with no supporting evidence. Thus I feel that my nonsensical answers fit right in with Flat Earth theory, and the imbecile who support it.
-
specialBus, you're going to get banned soon, in my opinion. If you don't want to get banned, then try as hard as you can to form an opinion, and talk about that, instead of nonsense. This is the debate forum. If you need to talk nonsense, there is a forum specifically for that.
I beg to differ this is a forum where people with an IQ in the range 0-10 try to convince the entire rest of the world that the earth is flat.
There is no debate, just meaningless drivel with no supporting evidence. Thus I feel that my nonsensical answers fit right in with Flat Earth theory, and the imbecile who support it.
Imbecile should be plural, to show more than one participant. Imbeciles. The word imbecile implies a degree of mental retardation though. I have not seen this exhibited, so I'm hesitant to cite it's existence.
-
specialBus, you're going to get banned soon, in my opinion. If you don't want to get banned, then try as hard as you can to form an opinion, and talk about that, instead of nonsense. This is the debate forum. If you need to talk nonsense, there is a forum specifically for that.
I beg to differ this is a forum where people with an IQ in the range 0-10 try to convince the entire rest of the world that the earth is flat.
There is no debate, just meaningless drivel with no supporting evidence. Thus I feel that my nonsensical answers fit right in with Flat Earth theory, and the imbecile who support it.
That may be so, but that's no reason to be a jerk about it.
-
I see no reason why not.
-
What are the theories on what the gears are made of?
-
I see no reason why not.
That is why you are a jerk.
-
What are the theories on what the gears are made of?
I've heard both dark matter, and nothing at all. With the nothing at all answer, it was kind of implied that it would do it's thing on it's own.
specialBus, you're going to get banned soon, in my opinion. If you don't want to get banned, then try as hard as you can to form an opinion, and talk about that, instead of nonsense. This is the debate forum. If you need to talk nonsense, there is a forum specifically for that.
I beg to differ this is a forum where people with an IQ in the range 0-10 try to convince the entire rest of the world that the earth is flat.
There is no debate, just meaningless drivel with no supporting evidence. Thus I feel that my nonsensical answers fit right in with Flat Earth theory, and the imbecile who support it.
That may be so, but that's no reason to be a jerk about it.
While I do agree, partially, I can honestly state I've never been a member of a forum that had a moderator named anything even close to professor Gaypenguin before. Or Osama bin Laden (Seriously, how much of a dick do you have to be to choose that as the way you want to be represented? Plus ObL's been dead for 2 1/2 years now... might be time to pick a new Av.)
Statistically speaking though, I may be a bit of a dick myself.
Who am I kidding, I'm a huge dick. If I met any given person they might think I was interesting for a while, but soon enough I'd fuck it up. Let me prove it.
I like Obama, but I'll only vote for him if he doesn't turn coat on much more than 2 more points in this election season. Or not... In reality I'll vote for him even if he recited the Koran in full on live TV, ate a baby, and picked his teeth with the constitution.
I'd never support Palin or McCain, because even given 300,000,000 Americans, they only support the decisions of one underaged unwed mother ever. They respect that girl's decision, but that's it. After her all unwed mothers are going to Hell, just like before. Except that given that Hell is a late 19'th century Christian construct, unprecedented in most major religions, all those unwed mothers really have nothing to fear. Nothing to fear at all.
It's my assertion that G W Bush is not a bad guy. He was a tool, or a puppet at best. I don't even think he understands the entirety of what has gone on in the past 8 years.
-
I see no reason why not.
That is why you are a jerk.
Why else would I believe in flat earth? Surely it is a pre-requisite?
-
Since when was bin laden dead? and i agree, it is one of the most insensative names i have heard.
-
Since when was bin laden dead? and I agree, it is one of the most insensitive names i have heard.
The Pakistani army killed bin Laden and several followers in late 05. Benazir Bhutto stated this fact in multiple adresses both in Pakistan, and in the US prior to her assasination. A number of conspiracy theorists aribute her assertions of OBL's death to her assasination, given that the western world was not willing to accept OBLs' slipping their grasp, and that Pakistan did not want to impart that info.
In a post Musharef world though, we'll find out soon enough.
-
Here's (http://) a good watch. I'll try to find the other vids.
In all reality I would glass parking lot the entire middle east if I could bring Benazir back... She was more kind in her life than I could ever hope to be in mine... More kind than I could even be in hindsight, and she gave me hope for the future.
-
Benazir Bhutto? Seriously? She may have been pretty good compared to other rulers, but hardly the messiah some people treat her like.
-
Benazir Bhutto? Seriously? She may have been pretty good compared to other rulers, but hardly the messiah some people treat her like.
She's dead and gone Lolz... Can't defend herself. You seriously want to talk about her like that? She did wonders for Islamic women before the Islamic fundamentalists and the Taliban decided they should get back in the kitchen... Given the strictness of the current Islamic regime there will never be anyone like her ever again.
-
I'm not saying she was a bad person, I'm just saying she was never going to be the great saviour of Pakistan that everyone built her up to be.
Can't defend herself? seriously, cos you see world politicians coming on internet forums to defend thier actions don't you. Just the other day, I posted that McCain was a twat, and within the hour he was on saying I was a fucking n00b and didn't know shit.
-
God I hope Obama gets in.
I was watching last night(from Australia) and heard that Palin believes creationism should be taught in schools.
..
.
.
i was dumbfounded
do Americans seriously want to start moving backwards?
it seems McCain believes someone with a war background is needed. Surely he must realise the US doesn't need to be at war with someone all the time.
Good luck guys.
-
Yes, please tell me how we can detect a gravitational field when we don't even know what a gravitational field even is. As far as I know science has yet to detect the sub atomic graviton particle thought to be the mechanism for gravity.
So explain the mechanism for a magnetic field? Is there a particle that is the mechanism? Has it been detected?
I can use a compass, iron filings or more fancy devices to map that field without being able to describe the mechanism, but I doubt that you would find someone that would deny that there are magnetic fields present.
Bumped past the political discussion.
-
but I doubt that you would find someone that would deny that there are magnetic fields present.
But if there ever was a place to find someone who would deny it, it is here. lol
-
While I do agree, partially, I can honestly state I've never been a member of a forum that had a moderator named anything even close to professor Gaypenguin before. Or Osama bin Laden (Seriously, how much of a dick do you have to be to choose that as the way you want to be represented? Plus ObL's been dead for 2 1/2 years now... might be time to pick a new Av.)
I am Osama bin Laden, though.
-
While I do agree, partially, I can honestly state I've never been a member of a forum that had a moderator named anything even close to professor Gaypenguin before. Or Osama bin Laden (Seriously, how much of a dick do you have to be to choose that as the way you want to be represented? Plus ObL's been dead for 2 1/2 years now... might be time to pick a new Av.)
I am Osama bin Laden, though.
Was giving yourself a dickhead name one of the conditions of being a mod?
-
Was giving yourself a dickhead name one of the conditions of being a mod?
I didn't name myself. My parents did.
-
Was giving yourself a dickhead name one of the conditions of being a mod?
I didn't name myself. My parents did.
No your parents named you: Usāmah bin Muḥammad bin `Awaḍ bin Lādin
-
No your parents named you: Usāmah bin Muḥammad bin `Awaḍ bin Lādin
Correct, and my current display name is the Western appropriation of that.
-
No your parents named you: Usāmah bin Muḥammad bin `Awaḍ bin Lādin
Correct, and my current display name is the Western appropriation of that.
And robosteve is the nick name your Taliban buddies call you is it?
-
And robosteve is the nick name your Taliban buddies call you is it?
No, it was a nickname I obtained on another internet message board. I never cared for it much.
-
And robosteve is the nick name your Taliban buddies call you is it?
No, it was a nickname I obtained on another internet message board. I never cared for it much.
You are getting lamer by the day. You're virtually another Narc by now.
-
You are getting lamer by the day. You're virtually another Narc by now.
Which is it?
-
No your parents named you: Usāmah bin Muḥammad bin `Awaḍ bin Lādin
Correct, and my current display name is the Western appropriation of that.
Because there is no universally accepted standard in the West for transliterating Arabic words and names into English, bin Laden's name is transliterated in many ways. The version often used by most English-language mass media is Osama bin Laden. Most American government agencies, including the FBI and CIA, use either Usama bin Laden or Usama bin Ladin, both of which are often abbreviated to UBL. Less common renderings include Ussamah Bin Ladin and Oussama Ben Laden (French-language mass media). The latter part of the name can also be found as Binladen or Binladin.
-
Which is it?
I vote for the first one.
-
ObL is RS? Color me stupid.
Damn Steve, are you going out of your way to alienate people now that you have mod status? I thought the poster ObL was a dick I didn't understand, but it turns out it was only a dick I though I understood from his half ass attempts at explaining his POV...
I dare you to go through the next 3-4 days in RL saying that's your name Steve. I'm wagering your ass can't cash that check though.
At least Narc is funny. I enjoy responding to his posts.
You don't really have anything going for you in my eyes..
-
ObL is RS? Color me stupid.
Damn Steve, are you going out of your way to alienate people now that you have mod status? I thought the poster ObL was a dick I didn't understand, but it turns out it was only a dick I though I understood from his half ass attempts at explaining his POV...
I dare you to go through the next 3-4 days in RL saying that's your name Steve. I'm wagering your ass can't cash that check though.
At least Narc is funny. I enjoy responding to his posts.
You don't really have anything going for you in my eyes..
Glad we've got that out of the way. Can we get back on topic now?
-
Glad we've got that out of the way. Can we get back on topic now?
Hmm, lets see, where were we...
Oh, yeah!
The celestial gear theory is wrong!
-
No rebuttal?
No images of gears on the back of turtles and elephants?
No claims that people in Australia are unscientific and don't have observatories?
-
No rebuttal.
Looks like RE wins another one.
-
I don't need to justify a negative. You are the ones claiming that you can have a gyroscopic compass at the equator, so you need to provide evidence for that.
Evidence for a gyroscopic compass at the Equator? This is so obvious that I can only imagine you have a big misunderstanding about what a gyroscopic compass is.
Every plane that flies around my country (Colombia) uses both gyroscopic and magnetic compasses in exactly the same way every other plane in the world does. And Colombia has plane routes that routinely cross the Equator.
PS. Reading the thread a bit more, I saw this is the misunderstood philosophical argument that you cannot be on a plane (a 2D plane, that is). You can define being on a plane as having an intersection between the plane and yourself that is not empty, so every person that travels from one hemisphere to the other is, by definition, on the equator for at least a fraction of a second. In Science that kind of argument is so lame it is never considered seriously. You are at the Equator if you are, for practical purposes, close enough so that whatever experiment or observation you are doing is not affected by your lack of precision.
-
Do you people HONESTLY BELIEVE that there are huge gears hidden in the sky, rotating? Oh, don't forget that they're powered by magic and pixie dust! :D
Idiots...
-
PS. Reading the thread a bit more, I saw this is the misunderstood philosophical argument that you cannot be on a plane (a 2D plane, that is). You can define being on a plane as having an intersection between the plane and yourself that is not empty, so every person that travels from one hemisphere to the other is, by definition, on the equator for at least a fraction of a second. In Science that kind of argument is so lame it is never considered seriously. You are at the Equator if you are, for practical purposes, close enough so that whatever experiment or observation you are doing is not affected by your lack of precision.
So you agree that a gyroscopic compass cannot exist on the equator?
Do you people HONESTLY BELIEVE that there are huge gears hidden in the sky, rotating? Oh, don't forget that they're powered by magic and pixie dust! :D
Idiots...
Not hidden, no. There are points of light on them which we call stars.
-
So you agree that a gyroscopic compass cannot exist on the equator?
Other than in your semantic argument, a gyroscopic compass can operate along, across, near and on the equator for extended periods of time.
Not hidden, no. There are points of light on them which we call stars.
Any evidence of these gears? Any mechanism causing them to spin without effecting the orbiting bodies that are within miles?
Powered through magic and pixie dust, and hidden from observation seem to be pretty accurate interpretations from everything that I have read.
-
So like your gravity then?
-
Other than in your semantic argument, a gyroscopic compass can operate along, across, near and on the equator for extended periods of time.
The equator is still a one dimensional line, which may be defined in RET as the set of points at which the Earth's surface intersects the plane equidistant to the north and south poles. The definition in FET is a bit trickier, but it may be defined as the set of points at which the Earth's surface intersects the cylinder with equal perpendicular distance to the axis of rotation of the Northern Celestial Plane and an arbitrary cylinder with longitude 90° S, which may be defined as the cylinder formed by extending a circle joining the South Celestial Poles in a direction which is perpendicular to the plane in which it exists.
Any evidence of these gears?
Yes. Wait until it is dark and there are no clouds, then go outside and look up.
Any mechanism causing them to spin without effecting the orbiting bodies that are within miles?
Yes, there is actually. You may have heard of it, it's called the law of conservation of angular momentum.
-
So like your gravity then?
My gravitation is easier to demonstrate than your gears. I have yet see evidence that there are multiple gears in the southern sky. In my personal experience I haven't seen them, and no one here has been able to provide any evidence that they exist.
-
The equator is still a one dimensional line, which may be defined in RET as the set of points at which the Earth's surface intersects the plane equidistant to the north and south poles. The definition in FET is a bit trickier, but it may be defined as the set of points at which the Earth's surface intersects the cylinder with equal perpendicular distance to the axis of rotation of the Northern Celestial Plane and an arbitrary cylinder with longitude 90° S, which may be defined as the cylinder formed by extending a circle joining the South Celestial Poles in a direction which is perpendicular to the plane in which it exists.
It is still a place that can be gone to, much like any place that is defined.
Yes. Wait until it is dark and there are no clouds, then go outside and look up.
I have and still not seen any evidence of multiple rotating gears in the southern sky. Unfortunately, I am in the northern hemisphere for the foreseeable future, so I will have to rely on past experience.
Yes, there is actually. You may have heard of it, it's called the law of conservation of angular momentum.
and that is translated to the heavens how?
-
It is still a place that can be gone to, much like any place that is defined.
That doesn't change the fact that a three dimensional object cannot exist there.
I have and still not seen any evidence of multiple rotating gears in the southern sky. Unfortunately, I am in the northern hemisphere for the foreseeable future, so I will have to rely on past experience.
So the stars don't rotate in the sky where you are?
and that is translated to the heavens how?
Sorry, I must have missed the part where the laws of physics only applied on Earth.
-
So the stars don't rotate in the sky where you are?
Yes they do. When I was in the southern hemisphere, they didn't rotate in the manner required by the multiple gears theory.
Sorry, I must have missed the part where the laws of physics only applied on Earth.
According to some, they don't even apply to some models of the Earth. Why would that be different for FE models of the heavens?
-
Yes they do. When I was in the southern hemisphere, they didn't rotate in the manner required by the multiple gears theory.
What, clockwise about the south celestial pole?
According to some, they don't even apply to some models of the Earth. Why would that be different for FE models of the heavens?
The laws of physics apply everywhere.
-
Yes they do. When I was in the southern hemisphere, they didn't rotate in the manner required by the multiple gears theory.
What, clockwise about the south celestial pole?
The gears model requires clockwise and counter-clockwise motion in the southern hemisphere with multiple centers of rotation. Not the single center of rotation as is observed currently.
The laws of physics apply everywhere.
Then is must be a matter of which laws apply everywhere. The laws of physics that apply in RE don't apparently apply in FE. Having looked through physics textbooks, nowhere do I see a reference to the physics of Universal Acceleration (UA), Electromagnetic Acceleration (EA), the fusion in small bodies 32 miles in diameter, non-Newtonian orbital mechanics, etc.
-
The gears model requires clockwise and counter-clockwise motion in the southern hemisphere with multiple centers of rotation. Not the single center of rotation as is observed currently.
You can only see one south celestial pole at a time.
Then is must be a matter of which laws apply everywhere. The laws of physics that apply in RE don't apparently apply in FE. Having looked through physics textbooks, nowhere do I see a reference to the physics of Universal Acceleration (UA), Electromagnetic Acceleration (EA), the fusion in small bodies 32 miles in diameter, non-Newtonian orbital mechanics, etc.
The laws of physics apply everywhere. Just because we don't fully understand them doesn't mean they don't apply everywhere.
-
You can only see one south celestial pole at a time.
How many celestial south poles are there? Can you document that number with any sort of evidence?
-
How many celestial south poles are there? Can you document that number with any sort of evidence?
At least three, maybe more. And no, I can't, but it is the only way I can think of for astronomical observations to work on a Flat Earth.
-
That would be assumption of fact without evidence then.
You mean like belief in a Round Earth?
-
You mean like belief in a Round Earth?
I have presented the evidence that shapes my beliefs, but unfortunately, due to your belief in a conspiracy (of which there is no evidence either) you don't accept it. I have yet to even see that sort of evidence for the celestial gears. Maybe we could see an account by an astronomer that reported this strange behavior, or some 4th century text?
-
That would be assumption of fact without evidence then.
You mean like belief in a Round Earth?
There is evidence for a round earth. Note that I didnt say there was conclusive proof.
-
That would be assumption of fact without evidence then.
You mean like belief in a Round Earth?
Any facts I might cite you would dismiss as conspiracy theories. Let's say I'm open to ideas and am giving you the benefit of the doubt though... If you wanted to convince me of FET, what would you cite as proof?
How many celestial south poles are there? Can you document that number with any sort of evidence?
At least three, maybe more. And no, I can't, but it is the only way I can think of for astronomical observations to work on a Flat Earth.
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo155/AmatureAstronomer/gearcoverage.gif)
Depending on which map you cite you run into problem areas where there would be no star coverage, too much star coverage, or noticeable variance in areas of convergence or separation. Rig Navigator rightly says that variances like this would be noted by sailors and astronomers prior to the time "the conspiracy" took root.
BTW, were you the mod that removed the thread where I posted this and my other gears rebuttals the day before yesterday, or was it roundy? Either way, I was on a roll, and I'm disappointed it got cut...
-
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo155/AmatureAstronomer/gearcoverage.gif)
Depending on which map you cite you run into problem areas where there would be no star coverage, too much star coverage, or noticeable variance in areas of convergence or separation. Rig Navigator rightly says that variances like this would be noted by sailors and astronomers prior to the time "the conspiracy" took root.
BTW, were you the mod that removed the thread where I posted this and my other gears rebuttals the day before yesterday, or was it roundy? Either way, I was on a roll, and I'm disappointed it got cut...
Looks like the FEers aren't willing to respond to your diagrams about how their mechanics would be working.