The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 11, 2013, 10:50:00 AM
-
Go on an easy expedition to Antarctica, right?
http://www.expeditions.com/destinations/polar-regions/antarctica/ (http://www.expeditions.com/destinations/polar-regions/antarctica/)
I would get some information from that page for you and put it here, but you aren't children.
I require an explanation.
-
From what I can gather, this is a guided tour that doesn't go very far inland. FE researchers would need to travel much further inland to get the info they require.
-
How would they get (in) if a 150 ft uniform wall of ice blocks their way?
-
Research bases in Antartica all seem to be along the coast.
-
How would they get (in) if a 150 ft uniform wall of ice blocks their way?
With aircraft, nit seacraft. What FE researchers want to know is what it's like beyond the antarctic coast. Is there a sudden temperature drop? Is it a continent or not? I doubt they have much interest in researching penguins.
-
Research bases in Antartica all seem to be along the coast.
With the notable exception of the Amundsen-Scott station, located at the south geographic pole. There are others inland as well, as far as I am aware, this is just the most notable.
-
Most of the cruises to the South Pole take place when it's summer in the Southern Hemisphere, exactly the time where the midnight sun is visible.
-
if there is midnight sun, shouldn't the temperature get really hot in the north and south pole. i mean, if the sun is out 24 hours a day.. sorry i wasn't paying attention in science class :D
-
if there is midnight sun, shouldn't the temperature get really hot in the north and south pole. i mean, if the sun is out 24 hours a day.. sorry i wasn't paying attention in science class :D
Even in the polar summers, the sun does not get very high in the sky. This means the light from the sun hits the surface of the earth at a lower angle than in temperate/tropical regions, resulting in solar energy being spread out over a wider area.
Add this to exceedingly dry air which does not retain heat radiated back by the ground, the thin atmosphere over the high elevation ice sheet, and high reflectivity of snow and ice reflecting much of the solar energy. Hardly surprising that Antarctica is cold even during the summer.
There are a few other reasons, a number of which also explain why the Antarctic is colder than the Arctic, but the ones above will do. :)
-
The midnight sun can be seen from Tromso in Norway but we can't see it in England. Why would that be?
-
The midnight sun can be seen from Tromso in Norway but we can't see it in England. Why would that be?
Because it is substantially further north than England.
https://maps.google.ca/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=tromso+norway&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x45c4c4526c3b71fd:0x23dca858e6ebed3,Troms%C3%B8,+Norway&gl=ca&ei=fISCUu79HeT42QX2jICwBQ&ved=0CKsBELYD
It is about 1000kms north of the northernmost point in England.
-
The midnight sun can be seen from Tromso in Norway but we can't see it in England. Why would that be?
Because it is substantially further north than England.
https://maps.google.ca/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=tromso+norway&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x45c4c4526c3b71fd:0x23dca858e6ebed3,Troms%C3%B8,+Norway&gl=ca&ei=fISCUu79HeT42QX2jICwBQ&ved=0CKsBELYD
It is about 1000kms north of the northernmost point in England.
93 million mile, 1000,000 plus km sun and it's substantially north of the northernmost point of England. It doesn't really make any sense when you consider the map, does it.
-
To me it does, to you it doesn't. You threw out the distance and diameter of the sun like that implies the sun must be visible at all times when it does not since it calculates out to an apparent angle of 0.5 degrees. What plays a bigger role is the axial tilt of the sun.
-
To me it does, to you it doesn't. You threw out the distance and diameter of the sun like that implies the sun must be visible at all times when it does not since it calculates out to an apparent angle of 0.5 degrees. What plays a bigger role is the axial tilt of the sun.
Axial TILT of the what?
Did I read that properly?
Did you just say, the AXIAL TILT of the SUN?
-
93 million mile, 1000,000 plus km sun and it's substantially north of the northernmost point of England. It doesn't really make any sense when you consider the map, does it.
It does make sense if you understand it. Since you need visual aids, a small desktop globe and a light would suffice.
-
To me it does, to you it doesn't. You threw out the distance and diameter of the sun like that implies the sun must be visible at all times when it does not since it calculates out to an apparent angle of 0.5 degrees. What plays a bigger role is the axial tilt of the sun.
Axial TILT of the what?
Did I read that properly?
Did you just say, the AXIAL TILT of the SUN?
No drama queen. The Earth, the axial tilt of the Earth.
-
To me it does, to you it doesn't. You threw out the distance and diameter of the sun like that implies the sun must be visible at all times when it does not since it calculates out to an apparent angle of 0.5 degrees. What plays a bigger role is the axial tilt of the sun.
Axial TILT of the what?
Did I read that properly?
Did you just say, the AXIAL TILT of the SUN?
No drama queen. The Earth, the axial tilt of the Earth.
Oh, ok, the axial tilt of the SUN was just a slip up. Fair enough.
Ok, so we have the Axial tilt of the earth and this should be enough for a person far north in England to miss out on the midnight sun.
It still makes no sense.
-
It makes perfect sense and there are even animations that demonstrate it. What you mean is, you do not understand it.
Here is an example:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html (http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html)
-
It makes perfect sense and there are even animations that demonstrate it. What you mean is, you do not understand it.
Here is an example:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html (http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html)
Like I said, it makes no sense.
Can you explain why the axis pole moves?
I mean, the earth is spinning, as we are told, but why should the axis pole shift as it rotates around the sun...what makes it do that? What force?
-
What do you mean "the axis pole moves"? It has a slight wobble, like a top that is not spinning perfectly. Is that what you mean?
Just so we are clear the tilt of the Earth's Axis is not directly related to the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
-
What do you mean "the axis pole moves"? It has a slight wobble, like a top that is not spinning perfectly. Is that what you mean?
Just so we are clear the tilt of the Earth's Axis is not directly related to the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
Look at the jutting white poles coming from the model earth. The axis poles, now look as they go around the so called sun.
They should, in all normality, if it was real, which it isn't...they should face one way, all the way around. They should not shift the position of the pole.
Basically. If the north pole was pointing outwards, it should go all the way round the sun, outwards, so what is making it change direction?
-
It makes perfect sense and there are even animations that demonstrate it. What you mean is, you do not understand it.
Here is an example:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html (http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html)
Like I said, it makes no sense.
Can you explain why the axis pole moves?
I mean, the earth is spinning, as we are told, but why should the axis pole shift as it rotates around the sun...what makes it do that? What force?
Other than precession, it does not. If you could view the solar system from above, the orientation of the polar Axis remains the same. It can appear to change if viewed from a different reference point, such as a from the surface of the sun.
It's a simple enough thing to demonstrate to yourself with a couple of household items.
-
You have been through this before, in another thread. As was explained there, the pole is actually not moving. What you are describing, the north pole constantly facing away from the sun, would require the axial tilt to rotate. Lets drop this, so we are not repeating ourselves. If you are really interested, we can go back to your other thread and pick it up there.
-
What do you mean "the axis pole moves"? It has a slight wobble, like a top that is not spinning perfectly. Is that what you mean?
Just so we are clear the tilt of the Earth's Axis is not directly related to the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
He doesn't understand (or believe) that the Earth's axis remains oriented in the same direction, regardless of it's orbital position around the sun.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Earth_tilt_animation.gif)
-
It makes perfect sense and there are even animations that demonstrate it. What you mean is, you do not understand it.
Here is an example:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html (http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html)
Like I said, it makes no sense.
Can you explain why the axis pole moves?
I mean, the earth is spinning, as we are told, but why should the axis pole shift as it rotates around the sun...what makes it do that? What force?
[/quote
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
If you'd actually try to learn a bit about what you casually dismiss it would make a lot more sense.
-
What do you mean "the axis pole moves"? It has a slight wobble, like a top that is not spinning perfectly. Is that what you mean?
Just so we are clear the tilt of the Earth's Axis is not directly related to the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
He doesn't understand (or believe) that the Earth's axis remains oriented in the same direction, regardless of it's orbital position around the sun.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Earth_tilt_animation.gif)
Slow that picture down and you can see how it changes. This would not be possible, but it's made possible because they like to fit anything in to account for what people see.
-
It makes perfect sense and there are even animations that demonstrate it. What you mean is, you do not understand it.
Here is an example:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html (http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html)
Like I said, it makes no sense.
Can you explain why the axis pole moves?
I mean, the earth is spinning, as we are told, but why should the axis pole shift as it rotates around the sun...what makes it do that? What force?
[/quote
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
If you'd actually try to learn a bit about what you casually dismiss it would make a lot more sense.
I understand it perfectly well. It's a simple con game that any rational thinking person should be able to see.
The axis pole should NOT change it's orientation by going AROUND a BALL of SUN as we are told it is.
It's circling and supposedly spinning and yet it also has to orientate its pole to move away and towards the sun.How can this possibly be?
-
It makes perfect sense and there are even animations that demonstrate it. What you mean is, you do not understand it.
Here is an example:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html (http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html)
Like I said, it makes no sense.
Can you explain why the axis pole moves?
I mean, the earth is spinning, as we are told, but why should the axis pole shift as it rotates around the sun...what makes it do that? What force?
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
If you'd actually try to learn a bit about what you casually dismiss it would make a lot more sense.
I understand it perfectly well. It's a simple con game that any rational thinking person should be able to see.
The axis pole should NOT change it's orientation by going AROUND a BALL of SUN as we are told it is.
It's circling and supposedly spinning and yet it also has to orientate its pole to move away and towards the sun.How can this possibly be?
Here 11 and scepti, let me fix your broken quote tree.
Correct scepti, it should not change it's orientation by going around the sun. The axis is tilted and not rotating.
Incorrect, it doesn't have to orientate it's pole to move away and toward the sun. It's simply a result of being tilted and not rotating.
If it actually did rotate completely once a year, one hemisphere would be permanent summer, the other permanent winter, Polaris would be just another star moving in a big circle at night, and you'd be complaining right now about what causes it to have that perfectly timed rotation, and that it's too perfectly timed, doesn't make sense, etc.
-
What do you mean "the axis pole moves"? It has a slight wobble, like a top that is not spinning perfectly. Is that what you mean?
Just so we are clear the tilt of the Earth's Axis is not directly related to the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
He doesn't understand (or believe) that the Earth's axis remains oriented in the same direction, regardless of it's orbital position around the sun.
Slow that picture down and you can see how it changes. This would not be possible, but it's made possible because they like to fit anything in to account for what people see.
I don't have to slow it down to see that the image of the blue ball representing the Earth does not change at all no matter where it is in it's orbit around the yellow ball representing the sun. The red line representing the north pole always points to the upper left and the green line representing the south pole always points to the lower right.
Or in other words: "The Earth's axis remains oriented in the same direction, regardless of it's orbital position around the sun."
-
Slow that picture down and you can see how it changes.
Perhaps you could capture a couple individual frames and show us.
-
Scepti's nonsensical objection to the axial tilt of the sun has been dealt with elsewhere. People should stop responding.
-
Scepti's nonsensical objection to the axial tilt of the sun has been dealt with elsewhere. People should stop responding.
I must echo this request. I have come to the conclusion that Scepti continues arguments with a presumed false understanding, in order to abuse others involved. I arrive at this conclusion by observing that he continuously and suspiciously mis-understands obvious information.
For example, in the present discussion he appears to not understand that the axial tilt is at a constant angle, and is obviously waiting for someone to clarify that the angle is constant in the reference frame of the solar system, rather than the reference frame of the Sun (in which of course the angle DOES change). Now ANYONE would be able to understand this without it having to be explicit. But he insists on pretending to not understand in order to frustrate the other members involved in the discussion. When they finally figure out what his is getting at, and address it, he simply moves on to another presumed misunderstanding. I find this to be very dishonest and disrespectful.
-
It makes perfect sense and there are even animations that demonstrate it. What you mean is, you do not understand it.
Here is an example:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html (http://www.mathsisfun.com/earth-orbit.html)
Like I said, it makes no sense.
Can you explain why the axis pole moves?
I mean, the earth is spinning, as we are told, but why should the axis pole shift as it rotates around the sun...what makes it do that? What force?
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
If you'd actually try to learn a bit about what you casually dismiss it would make a lot more sense.
I understand it perfectly well. It's a simple con game that any rational thinking person should be able to see.
The axis pole should NOT change it's orientation by going AROUND a BALL of SUN as we are told it is.
It's circling and supposedly spinning and yet it also has to orientate its pole to move away and towards the sun.How can this possibly be?
You do not understand it perfectly well. You do not understand it at all. The axis poles orientation is NOT changing. You have shown many times that you understand very little about science. And whenever you don't understand something, you state that it doesn't make sense. If you don't understand things, then often they won't make sense. It's arrogant to assume they theories are wrong just because you don't understand them.
-
For some reason of other, Sceptimatic has it in his head that the round earth's orbit around the sun should be as if it were suspended by a string attached at the north pole and swung around the sun. Sorry Sceptimatic, but it just doesn't work that way.
-
Scepti's nonsensical objection to the axial tilt of the sun has been dealt with elsewhere. People should stop responding.
IMHO I think people should stop responding to sceptimatic. Period !
But it is often fun to egg him on and see what sort of nonsense he is going to come up with next. ;D
Nothing that anyone else says makes any sense to sceptimatic.
Nothing that sceptimatic says makes any sense to anyone else.
I had a contact with an astronomer . He said that the few "Flat Earthers" he had met were "arrogant and ignorant". That seems to be a fair description of sceptimatic IMHO. ;D
-
Scepti's nonsensical objection to the axial tilt of the sun has been dealt with elsewhere. People should stop responding.
IMHO I think people should stop responding to sceptimatic. Period !
But it is often fun to egg him on and see what sort of nonsense he is going to come up with next. ;D
Nothing that anyone else says makes any sense to sceptimatic.
Nothing that sceptimatic says makes any sense to anyone else.
I had a contact with an astronomer . He said that the few "Flat Earthers" he had met were "arrogant and ignorant". That seems to be a fair description of sceptimatic IMHO. ;D
You should introduce your astronomer friend to me. I do not believe I am arrogant or ignorant. Plus, you can't spell astronomer without ass ....wait a minute...my joke, it is...falling apart...gaaaahhh!
-
(http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9231/i4fd.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/209/i4fd.png/)
-
I had a contact with an astronomer . He said that the few "Flat Earthers" he had met were "arrogant and ignorant". That seems to be a fair description of sceptimatic IMHO. ;D
On the contrary, it is you guys who are arrogant and ignorant. YOU refuse to question the most obvious things that simply do not make sense. Once again, I will point out a question I asked on the other thread regarding this, HOW can the Earth stay at that angle if the sun's humongous mass is pulling on it as it revolves around it? What is keeping it at that angle?
-
I had a contact with an astronomer . He said that the few "Flat Earthers" he had met were "arrogant and ignorant". That seems to be a fair description of sceptimatic IMHO. ;D
On the contrary, it is you guys who are arrogant and ignorant. YOU refuse to question the most obvious things that simply do not make sense. Once again, I will point out a question I asked on the other thread regarding this, HOW can the Earth stay at that angle if the sun's humongous mass is pulling on it as it revolves around it? What is keeping it at that angle?
Exactly! it makes no sense at all. It absolutely defies common sense and logic.
It would be understandable if it spun around like a normal spinning top, all around, keeping an exact distance and not changing, yet we are told to believe that it tilts and still goes around the sun - and not only that, but in an elliptical orbit.
It's ludicrous.
-
And it has been discovered that the sun is actually moving in a helical pattern. Which goes along with FE theory in that the sun moves in (small circle) and out (large circle) between the NP and SP, creating the seasons.
-
I had a contact with an astronomer . He said that the few "Flat Earthers" he had met were "arrogant and ignorant". That seems to be a fair description of sceptimatic IMHO. ;D
On the contrary, it is you guys who are arrogant and ignorant. YOU refuse to question the most obvious things that simply do not make sense. Once again, I will point out a question I asked on the other thread regarding this, HOW can the Earth stay at that angle if the sun's humongous mass is pulling on it as it revolves around it? What is keeping it at that angle?
Exactly! it makes no sense at all. It absolutely defies common sense and logic.
It would be understandable if it spun around like a normal spinning top, all around, keeping an exact distance and not changing, yet we are told to believe that it tilts and still goes around the sun - and not only that, but in an elliptical orbit.
It's ludicrous.
I don't understand therefore it's wrong is not a valid argument. The Earth should not have the same pole pointing towards the sun as it rotates. That would require it's orientation to change. Also Sceptimatic http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60378.100.html#.UoY9TfoazTo (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60378.100.html#.UoY9TfoazTo) stop running away answer the questions there or concede defeat.
-
I had a contact with an astronomer . He said that the few "Flat Earthers" he had met were "arrogant and ignorant". That seems to be a fair description of sceptimatic IMHO. ;D
On the contrary, it is you guys who are arrogant and ignorant. YOU refuse to question the most obvious things that simply do not make sense. Once again, I will point out a question I asked on the other thread regarding this, HOW can the Earth stay at that angle if the sun's humongous mass is pulling on it as it revolves around it? What is keeping it at that angle?
Also how exactly would the Sun prevent it from rotating at an angle.
-
I had a contact with an astronomer . He said that the few "Flat Earthers" he had met were "arrogant and ignorant". That seems to be a fair description of sceptimatic IMHO. ;D
On the contrary, it is you guys who are arrogant and ignorant. YOU refuse to question the most obvious things that simply do not make sense. Once again, I will point out a question I asked on the other thread regarding this, HOW can the Earth stay at that angle if the sun's humongous mass is pulling on it as it revolves around it? What is keeping it at that angle?
Exactly! it makes no sense at all. It absolutely defies common sense and logic.
It would be understandable if it spun around like a normal spinning top, all around, keeping an exact distance and not changing, yet we are told to believe that it tilts and still goes around the sun - and not only that, but in an elliptical orbit.
It's ludicrous.
I don't understand therefore it's wrong is not a valid argument. The Earth should not have the same pole pointing towards the sun as it rotates. That would require it's orientation to change. Also Sceptimatic http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60378.100.html#.UoY9TfoazTo (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60378.100.html#.UoY9TfoazTo) stop running away answer the questions there or concede defeat.
Its orientation does change though, it's just disguised in drawings, because the reality would be totally different and I've shown you why with the carousel swing, the bottom diagram.
It's a clever con job, but that's all it is.
-
Also how exactly would the Sun prevent it from rotating at an angle.
Reading your repetitious "just because you don't understand something...." blah blah blah is getting old. Please stop making that comment over and over. To answer your question, if the sun has such a strong effect on the planets, the same Pole would always face the sun....the angle would change throughout the year.
-
Why would it do this?
The distance to the sun is 93,000,000 miles away on average.
The diameter of the earth is about 8000 miles
Which is a whopping .0086%.
One part of the earth is not significantly closer to the sun than any other part.
-
I had a contact with an astronomer . He said that the few "Flat Earthers" he had met were "arrogant and ignorant". That seems to be a fair description of sceptimatic IMHO. ;D
On the contrary, it is you guys who are arrogant and ignorant. YOU refuse to question the most obvious things that simply do not make sense. Once again, I will point out a question I asked on the other thread regarding this, HOW can the Earth stay at that angle if the sun's humongous mass is pulling on it as it revolves around it? What is keeping it at that angle?
Because gravity affects an object's center (center of gravity) not its rotational axis. What makes you think it would affect the poles?
-
I imagine a portion of the Earth's axial wobble is due to the gravity of the sun.
-
I imagine a portion of the Earth's axial wobble is due to the gravity of the sun.
What made you fall for this wobble nonsense?
-
I imagine a portion of the Earth's axial wobble is due to the gravity of the sun.
What made you fall for this wobble nonsense?
Probably for the same reason you fall for the ice dome nonsense.
-
I imagine a portion of the Earth's axial wobble is due to the gravity of the sun.
What made you fall for this wobble nonsense?
This is the very definition of a leading question. Any answer I give you can twist to suit you. Suffice it to say though that there is much more thought and exploration that went in to this idea that did yours, so based on that alone I am justified in choosing the wobble idea over yours.
-
Its orientation does change though,
No, it's fixed. Polaris doesn't make a big circle throughout the year, and we have seasons.
I've shown you why with the carousel swing, the bottom diagram.
I guess this means you finally understand how we see the same side of the moon as it revolves around a spherical Earth.
-
Its orientation does change though,
No, it's fixed. Polaris doesn't make a big circle throughout the year, and we have seasons.
I've shown you why with the carousel swing, the bottom diagram.
I guess this means you finally understand how we see the same side of the moon as it revolves around a spherical Earth.
Who mentioned polaris?
Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.
Use your fruit bowl or whatever, in the centre of the table as your sun.
Now, holding the south pole rod with your right hand pointing to your belly button and your left hand holding the top pole, I want you to point the top pole at anything you want, but you must hold it at that point, all the time.
Now go around the table in a side step motion and try and keep that top pole pointing at your chosen spot...say a door and tell me if you can keep that earth, exactly the same , no change, whilst you do this, all the way around.
Naturally you will not do it, unless you start to twist your body.
You see, it's a clever con job and you all fell for it and you have fell for it that much, that you cannot see the real reality of what should happen.
-
To answer your question, if the sun has such a strong effect on the planets, the same Pole would always face the sun....the angle would change throughout the year.
So if the Earth's axis is tilted, the Sun's gravity would cause the same pole to always face the Sun? What would happen if the Earth's axis were perpendicular to it's orbit? The north pole would always point up, no?
Why would the Sun's strong gravity affect the Earth's pole in one position but not another?
(Hint: It wouldn't because the Sun's gravity doesn't affect the Earth's axis, only it's center.)
-
Its orientation does change though,
No, it's fixed. Polaris doesn't make a big circle throughout the year, and we have seasons.
I've shown you why with the carousel swing, the bottom diagram.
I guess this means you finally understand how we see the same side of the moon as it revolves around a spherical Earth.
Who mentioned polaris?
Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.
Use your fruit bowl or whatever, in the centre of the table as your sun.
Now, holding the south pole rod with your right hand pointing to your belly button and your left hand holding the top pole, I want you to point the top pole at anything you want, but you must hold it at that point, all the time.
Now go around the table in a side step motion and try and keep that top pole pointing at your chosen spot...say a door and tell me if you can keep that earth, exactly the same , no change, whilst you do this, all the way around.
Naturally you will not do it, unless you start to twist your body.
You see, it's a clever con job and you all fell for it and you have fell for it that much, that you cannot see the real reality of what should happen.
. In you example if the same pole always points towards the sun the orientation is changing. From an observer billions of kilometers the orientation would change to them.
-
Its orientation does change though,
No, it's fixed. Polaris doesn't make a big circle throughout the year, and we have seasons.
I've shown you why with the carousel swing, the bottom diagram.
I guess this means you finally understand how we see the same side of the moon as it revolves around a spherical Earth.
Who mentioned polaris?
Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.
Use your fruit bowl or whatever, in the centre of the table as your sun.
Now, holding the south pole rod with your right hand pointing to your belly button and your left hand holding the top pole, I want you to point the top pole at anything you want, but you must hold it at that point, all the time.
Now go around the table in a side step motion and try and keep that top pole pointing at your chosen spot...say a door and tell me if you can keep that earth, exactly the same , no change, whilst you do this, all the way around.
Naturally you will not do it, unless you start to twist your body.
You see, it's a clever con job and you all fell for it and you have fell for it that much, that you cannot see the real reality of what should happen.
. In you example if the same pole always points towards the sun the orientation is changing. From an observer billions of kilometers the orientation would change to them.
Why don't you do the round table experiment and see what I mean.
-
Its orientation does change though,
No, it's fixed. Polaris doesn't make a big circle throughout the year, and we have seasons.
I've shown you why with the carousel swing, the bottom diagram.
I guess this means you finally understand how we see the same side of the moon as it revolves around a spherical Earth.
Who mentioned polaris?
Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.
Use your fruit bowl or whatever, in the centre of the table as your sun.
Now, holding the south pole rod with your right hand pointing to your belly button and your left hand holding the top pole, I want you to point the top pole at anything you want, but you must hold it at that point, all the time.
Now go around the table in a side step motion and try and keep that top pole pointing at your chosen spot...say a door and tell me if you can keep that earth, exactly the same , no change, whilst you do this, all the way around.
Naturally you will not do it, unless you start to twist your body.
You see, it's a clever con job and you all fell for it and you have fell for it that much, that you cannot see the real reality of what should happen.
. In you example if the same pole always points towards the sun the orientation is changing. From an observer billions of kilometers the orientation would change to them.
Why don't you do the round table experiment and see what I mean.
I'm not the Sun. The Sun doesn't have hands and the results of the experiment are irrelevant to your conclusion.
-
Its orientation does change though,
No, it's fixed. Polaris doesn't make a big circle throughout the year, and we have seasons.
I've shown you why with the carousel swing, the bottom diagram.
I guess this means you finally understand how we see the same side of the moon as it revolves around a spherical Earth.
Who mentioned polaris?
Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.
Use your fruit bowl or whatever, in the centre of the table as your sun.
Now, holding the south pole rod with your right hand pointing to your belly button and your left hand holding the top pole, I want you to point the top pole at anything you want, but you must hold it at that point, all the time.
Now go around the table in a side step motion and try and keep that top pole pointing at your chosen spot...say a door and tell me if you can keep that earth, exactly the same , no change, whilst you do this, all the way around.
Naturally you will not do it, unless you start to twist your body.
You see, it's a clever con job and you all fell for it and you have fell for it that much, that you cannot see the real reality of what should happen.
. In you example if the same pole always points towards the sun the orientation is changing. From an observer billions of kilometers the orientation would change to them.
Why don't you do the round table experiment and see what I mean.
I'm not the Sun. The Sun doesn't have hands and the results of the experiment are irrelevant to your conclusion.
Well that's funny, because they appeared to be very relevant when I was asked to do them.
So I did do them...and I thought...hang on a minute...what the hell is this clever trickery. I'm being made to twist my body to keep my earth axis pole pointing at the door, why should I have to do this.
Then I realised. It's because this is the way that everyone becomes duped by the movement, which does not and cannot reflect reality, except by doing a circular drawing and having an earth go around it, in (I might add) what appears to be a legitimate way...but it's a trick, because it relies on simply dotting the earth around the circle by copying the exact same earth circle drawing and placing it around the orbit of the sun circle as I showed in my diagram.
The reality is far different and it should be easy to spot, now I've shown it up for what it is.
To make it simpler for people, simply imagine the earth spinning on its so called axis but not moving around the sun...and instead, have the sun simply rotating in the centre and the earth simply still, yet rotating on its own so called axis...and what you will see, is, the so called north pole would receive light, as would all the other places on that axis rotation...yet the so called south pole and regions around that, would be frozen solid, receiving no sun at all.
It's all pointless anyway, because , seriously, common sense...even basic common sense should tell anyone that it's total and utter nonsense and the earth is basically flat and certainly not moving and there is no big nuclear sun in this vacuum of so called space.
-
Can you please explain the difference between "common sense" and "basic common sense"?
-
Can you please explain the difference between "common sense" and "basic common sense"?
Child and adult. That about sums it up.
-
Who mentioned polaris?
I did. And now I'm going to mention Sigma Octantis (south polar star). Neither of these would remain in a relatively fixed position over the poles if Earth's tilt rotated to remain fixed on the sun. (I'd have to search for the threads regarding how a single star would be visible to everyone south of the equator on a disk, but that's a whole different topic)
Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.
Why would I carry it in my hands? Common sense would suggest I use a long piece of string at most to carry it, and even that will start to wind up after so far and transfer that energy to the ball, causing it to rotate.
-
Scepti is also ignoring that there is no force being applied to the axis of spin. The earth is acting like a big gyroscope.
Very similar to this video
Inertial Guidance System.wmv (http://#)
Notice how the axis is always pointing in the same direction no matter how the gyroscope is moved?
-
Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.
Use your fruit bowl or whatever, in the centre of the table as your sun.
Now, holding the south pole rod with your right hand pointing to your belly button and your left hand holding the top pole, I want you to point the top pole at anything you want, but you must hold it at that point, all the time.
Now go around the table in a side step motion and try and keep that top pole pointing at your chosen spot...say a door and tell me if you can keep that earth, exactly the same , no change, whilst you do this, all the way around.
Naturally you will not do it, unless you start to twist your body.
You see, it's a clever con job and you all fell for it and you have fell for it that much, that you cannot see the real reality of what should happen.
Interesting that you put in the requirement of doing only a side step motion that imparts a rotation to make your "experiment" turn out the way you want it (as evidenced by the fact that you have to twist your body to keep the same orientation).
If you want to approximate the motion of the earth around the sun you would need to alter your step direction from forward>diagonal left>left>diagonal backwards left>backwards>diagonal backwards right>right>diagonal forward right>forward.
In any event, I did your experiment, pointing the south pole at my belly button. I chose the ceiling to be where I pointed the north pole. I walked around the table in the manner you asked and also in the correct manner I described above. In both cases the north pole always pointed toward the ceiling. Wonder why?
-
Who mentioned polaris?
I did. And now I'm going to mention Sigma Octantis (south polar star). Neither of these would remain in a relatively fixed position over the poles if Earth's tilt rotated to remain fixed on the sun. (I'd have to search for the threads regarding how a single star would be visible to everyone south of the equator on a disk, but that's a whole different topic)
Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.
Why would I carry it in my hands? Common sense would suggest I use a long piece of string at most to carry it, and even that will start to wind up after so far and transfer that energy to the ball, causing it to rotate.
Nice little dodge, there.
I gave you the experiment to do, bodily. It's the exact principle as you round earthers have been harping on about.
You go straight into polaris and what not and that's not what I'm dealing with.
-
Who mentioned polaris?
I did. And now I'm going to mention Sigma Octantis (south polar star). Neither of these would remain in a relatively fixed position over the poles if Earth's tilt rotated to remain fixed on the sun. (I'd have to search for the threads regarding how a single star would be visible to everyone south of the equator on a disk, but that's a whole different topic)
Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.
Why would I carry it in my hands? Common sense would suggest I use a long piece of string at most to carry it, and even that will start to wind up after so far and transfer that energy to the ball, causing it to rotate.
Nice little dodge, there.
I gave you the experiment to do, bodily. It's the exact principle as you round earthers have been harping on about.
You go straight into polaris and what not and that's not what I'm dealing with.
He was pointing out a major flaw in your experiment:
-
Scepti is also ignoring that there is no force being applied to the axis of spin. The earth is acting like a big gyroscope.
Very similar to this video
Inertial Guidance System.wmv (http://#)
Notice how the axis is always pointing in the same direction no matter how the gyroscope is moved?
What do you mean FORCE being APPLIED to the axis of the spin?
It's in a vacuum isn't it? by your accounts.
-
Who mentioned polaris?
I did. And now I'm going to mention Sigma Octantis (south polar star). Neither of these would remain in a relatively fixed position over the poles if Earth's tilt rotated to remain fixed on the sun. (I'd have to search for the threads regarding how a single star would be visible to everyone south of the equator on a disk, but that's a whole different topic)
Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.
Why would I carry it in my hands? Common sense would suggest I use a long piece of string at most to carry it, and even that will start to wind up after so far and transfer that energy to the ball, causing it to rotate.
Nice little dodge, there.
I gave you the experiment to do, bodily. It's the exact principle as you round earthers have been harping on about.
You go straight into polaris and what not and that's not what I'm dealing with.
He was pointing out a major flaw in your experiment:
There is no major flaw in my experiment. I've been over it, time and time again, just to make sure there wasn't.
-
Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation. In RE, the earth is spinning in space. As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change. In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.
-
Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation. In RE, the earth is spinning in space. As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change. In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.
It's because he's only sidestepping. By the time he's halfway around the table his feet are pointed in the opposite direction. He has been told repeatedly that the earth does not have this axial rotation.
-
Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation. In RE, the earth is spinning in space. As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change. In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.
I'm not physically changing anything, It's following a pattern that it SHOULD be following. It's your model that appears to have the physical alteration of the polar axis and you know it, or if you don't then you should.
-
Scepti is also ignoring that there is no force being applied to the axis of spin. The earth is acting like a big gyroscope.
Very similar to this video
Inertial Guidance System.wmv (http://#)
Notice how the axis is always pointing in the same direction no matter how the gyroscope is moved?
What do you mean FORCE being APPLIED to the axis of the spin?
It's in a vacuum isn't it? by your accounts.
No. Not that it's relevant, but outer space is a near vacuum, not a perfect vacuum.
-
Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation. In RE, the earth is spinning in space. As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change. In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.
It's because he's only sidestepping. By the time he's halfway around the table his feet are pointed in the opposite direction. He has been told repeatedly that the earth does not have this axial rotation.
That's exactly what you are claiming it does have. The animated diagram shows it to be the case and the experiment shows it to be nonsense.
-
Scepti is also ignoring that there is no force being applied to the axis of spin. The earth is acting like a big gyroscope.
Very similar to this video
Inertial Guidance System.wmv (http://#)
Notice how the axis is always pointing in the same direction no matter how the gyroscope is moved?
What do you mean FORCE being APPLIED to the axis of the spin?
It's in a vacuum isn't it? by your accounts.
No. Not that it's relevant, but outer space is a near vacuum, not a perfect vacuum.
You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.
What's going on here?
What's the matter with people?
Why can't people see this horse crap for what it is?
-
There is no major flaw in my experiment. I've been over it, time and time again, just to make sure there wasn't.
So what's to stop me from starting with the table to my left side, walking forward, diagonal, sidestepping left when 90 degrees around it, diagonal backwards, backwards at 180 degrees, diagonal, sidestepping right, diagonal right and forward, and finally forward at my original starting point? Thus, having kept the ball's axis fixed on the door.
-
You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.
What are you talking about? There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.
-
There is no major flaw in my experiment. I've been over it, time and time again, just to make sure there wasn't.
So what's to stop me from starting with the table to my left side, walking forward, diagonal, sidestepping left when 90 degrees around it, diagonal backwards, backwards at 180 degrees, diagonal, sidestepping right, diagonal right and forward, and finally forward at my original starting point? Thus, having kept the ball's axis fixed on the door.
How about drawing me a little diagram of it and I'll show you why it's wrong.
-
You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.
What are you talking about? There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.
Ermm! isn't that friction supposedly coming from earth, itself?
You know...the ATMOSPHERE spinning with the earth and the ISS falling around it and hitting weak atmospheric drag and has to be re-boosted?
If it is, then it has no relevance whatsoever when dealing with the so called earth whizzing around the so called sun IN SPACE, does it.
-
Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation. In RE, the earth is spinning in space. As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change. In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.
It's because he's only sidestepping. By the time he's halfway around the table his feet are pointed in the opposite direction. He has been told repeatedly that the earth does not have this axial rotation.
That's exactly what you are claiming it does have. The animated diagram shows it to be the case and the experiment shows it to be nonsense.
No I'm claiming that it doesn't change it's orientation. I even provided an illustration they use in second grade that shows the Earth orbiting the sun and the little picture of the Earth never changes. Its' north pole always points up and to the left as it orbits the sun.
But if you would, could you please respond to my post above:
In any event, I did your experiment, pointing the south pole at my belly button. I chose the ceiling to be where I pointed the north pole. I walked around the table in the manner you asked and also in the correct manner I described above. In both cases the north pole always pointed toward the ceiling. Wonder why?
-
There is no major flaw in my experiment. I've been over it, time and time again, just to make sure there wasn't.
So what's to stop me from starting with the table to my left side, walking forward, diagonal, sidestepping left when 90 degrees around it, diagonal backwards, backwards at 180 degrees, diagonal, sidestepping right, diagonal right and forward, and finally forward at my original starting point? Thus, having kept the ball's axis fixed on the door.
How about drawing me a little diagram of it and I'll show you why it's wrong.
Why do you need a diagram? I'm moving around the table and keeping the axis/rod aligned with the door. Can't you just explain why it's wrong?
-
Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation. In RE, the earth is spinning in space. As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change. In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.
It's because he's only sidestepping. By the time he's halfway around the table his feet are pointed in the opposite direction. He has been told repeatedly that the earth does not have this axial rotation.
That's exactly what you are claiming it does have. The animated diagram shows it to be the case and the experiment shows it to be nonsense.
No I'm claiming that it doesn't change it's orientation. I even provided an illustration they use in second grade that shows the Earth orbiting the sun and the little picture of the Earth never changes. Its' north pole always points up and to the left as it orbits the sun.
But if you would, could you please respond to my post above:
In any event, I did your experiment, pointing the south pole at my belly button. I chose the ceiling to be where I pointed the north pole. I walked around the table in the manner you asked and also in the correct manner I described above. In both cases the north pole always pointed toward the ceiling. Wonder why?
Would you like to do the experiment again, because your little ceiling con job cuts no ice.
Pick the corner of the wall where it meets the ceiling and do it again.
-
You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.
What are you talking about? There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.
Ermm! isn't that friction supposedly coming from earth, itself?
You know...the ATMOSPHERE spinning with the earth and the ISS falling around it and hitting weak atmospheric drag and has to be re-boosted?
If it is, then it has no relevance whatsoever when dealing with the so called earth whizzing around the so called sun IN SPACE, does it.
Scepti, let's go through this. The friction is not coming from the Earth, it is coming from the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth and atmosphere have roughly the same rate of revolution, about one revolution a day. They both exist in a near vacuum, with the atmosphere decaying the further from Earth you get. The ISS is well within what would be considered the atmosphere, although a very thin part of it, and has a much greater rate of revolution than the atmosphere.
To elaborate on how the ISS is both in space and the atmosphere enough to be affected by it, space in this sense isn't necessarily defined as different from extremely rarefied atmosphere. It is defined as the near vacuum that cosmic bodies exist in. Atmosphere is defined as the gas surrounding a celestial body that is held there by gravity. The two aren't mutually exclusive, the definitions intersect. The ISS is in both, although for all intents in purpose it is closer to space than the atmosphere as we generally think of it.
-
Scepti, your "experiment" sucks. It does not even begin to represent reality, or the physics of the system it is supposed to represent. Try this instead, it will be more accurate:
- get a model train set, with enough track to make a circle, and one flatbed car
- get a small gyroscope that you can mount on the flatbed on gimbals so that it is free to move in all axes
- set the gyroscope spinning, but on a slight tilt, to represent the earth's tilt (23.5°)
- start the model train running around it's circular track
- observe the gyroscope and tell me what it does
If you actually do this experiment, you might just find out something very interesting!
-
You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.
What are you talking about? There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.
Ermm! isn't that friction supposedly coming from earth, itself?
You know...the ATMOSPHERE spinning with the earth and the ISS falling around it and hitting weak atmospheric drag and has to be re-boosted?
If it is, then it has no relevance whatsoever when dealing with the so called earth whizzing around the so called sun IN SPACE, does it.
You're the one who brought up the ISS, not me. RET contends that even interplanetary space is not a perfect vacuum. Does the term "solar wind" mean anything to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind)
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles (a plasma) released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in density, temperature, and speed over time and over longitude. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.
The solar wind is supersonic relative to the speed of sound within it, and this creates the heliosphere, an enormous bubble-like shockwave in the interstellar medium that surrounds the Solar System. Other related phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurora (northern and southern lights), and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the Sun.
-
There is no major flaw in my experiment. I've been over it, time and time again, just to make sure there wasn't.
So what's to stop me from starting with the table to my left side, walking forward, diagonal, sidestepping left when 90 degrees around it, diagonal backwards, backwards at 180 degrees, diagonal, sidestepping right, diagonal right and forward, and finally forward at my original starting point? Thus, having kept the ball's axis fixed on the door.
How about drawing me a little diagram of it and I'll show you why it's wrong.
Why do you need a diagram? I'm moving around the table and keeping the axis/rod aligned with the door. Can't you just explain why it's wrong?
It should be blatantly obvious why it's wrong. You tell me how it would be possible for something to rotate like that around a sun.
Go on a merry go round:
Now put yourself on a slant like the earth tilt would be and go round like that and you will stay like that all the way around. Have your feet pointing outwards and your head would face the centre of the merry go round.
If someone decided to turn you like a diagonal spit whilst doing this your head would be in the exact position to that centre, all the way around. It would not deviate.
-
Would you like to do the experiment again, because your little ceiling con job cuts no ice.
Pick the corner of the wall where it meets the ceiling and do it again.
Nope. I'm doing the experiment exactly as you described. Forcing me to pick a corner isn't "pointing anywhere I like".
And using your own experiment I've proved that a football "earth" can orbit a fruit bowl sun without changing it's orientation whatsoever. You said that "naturally this couldn't be done. How do you explain that?
-
You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.
What are you talking about? There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.
Ermm! isn't that friction supposedly coming from earth, itself?
You know...the ATMOSPHERE spinning with the earth and the ISS falling around it and hitting weak atmospheric drag and has to be re-boosted?
If it is, then it has no relevance whatsoever when dealing with the so called earth whizzing around the so called sun IN SPACE, does it.
Scepti, let's go through this. The friction is not coming from the Earth, it is coming from the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth and atmosphere have roughly the same rate of revolution, about one revolution a day. They both exist in a near vacuum, with the atmosphere decaying the further from Earth you get. The ISS is well within what would be considered the atmosphere, although a very thin part of it, and has a much greater rate of revolution than the atmosphere.
To elaborate on how the ISS is both in space and the atmosphere enough to be affected by it, space in this sense isn't necessarily defined as different from extremely rarefied atmosphere. It is defined as the near vacuum that cosmic bodies exist in. Atmosphere is defined as the gas surrounding a celestial body that is held there by gravity. The two aren't mutually exclusive, the definitions intersect. The ISS is in both, although for all intents in purpose it is closer to space than the atmosphere as we generally think of it.
That's fine, but we are talking about space itself, really. As in, earth around the sun. And as earth is supposedly in the vacuum or what you call a near vacuum, it's basically in a frictionless environment by how you lot perceive it.
How in the hell it would act like a gyroscope in that environment, escapes me.
-
Scepti, your "experiment" sucks. It does not even begin to represent reality, or the physics of the system it is supposed to represent. Try this instead, it will be more accurate:
- get a model train set, with enough track to make a circle, and one flatbed car
- get a small gyroscope that you can mount on the flatbed on gimbals so that it is free to move in all axes
- set the gyroscope spinning, but on a slight tilt, to represent the earth's tilt (23.5°)
- start the model train running around it's circular track
- observe the gyroscope and tell me what it does
If you actually do this experiment, you might just find out something very interesting!
Do you have a train set, because I don't. If you do. How about doing this experiment and posting it up.
In the mean time, would you care to tell me how a gyroscope works in your weightless vacuum?
-
That's fine, but we are talking about space itself, really. As in, earth around the sun. And as earth is supposedly in the vacuum or what you call a near vacuum, it's basically in a frictionless environment by how you lot perceive it.
How in the hell it would act like a gyroscope in that environment, escapes me.
Do you even understand what a gyroscope is? The only thing that friction does to a gyroscope is slow it down so gyroscopes, if anything, would work better in a frictionless environment.
-
You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.
What are you talking about? There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.
Ermm! isn't that friction supposedly coming from earth, itself?
You know...the ATMOSPHERE spinning with the earth and the ISS falling around it and hitting weak atmospheric drag and has to be re-boosted?
If it is, then it has no relevance whatsoever when dealing with the so called earth whizzing around the so called sun IN SPACE, does it.
You're the one who brought up the ISS, not me. RET contends that even interplanetary space is not a perfect vacuum. Does the term "solar wind" mean anything to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind)
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles (a plasma) released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in density, temperature, and speed over time and over longitude. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.
The solar wind is supersonic relative to the speed of sound within it, and this creates the heliosphere, an enormous bubble-like shockwave in the interstellar medium that surrounds the Solar System. Other related phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurora (northern and southern lights), and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the Sun.
Damn it, I forgot about SOLAR wind.
And what does this solar wind do to the rotation of earth around the sun?
-
Would you like to do the experiment again, because your little ceiling con job cuts no ice.
Pick the corner of the wall where it meets the ceiling and do it again.
Nope. I'm doing the experiment exactly as you described. Forcing me to pick a corner isn't "pointing anywhere I like".
And using your own experiment I've proved that a football "earth" can orbit a fruit bowl sun without changing it's orientation whatsoever. You said that "naturally this couldn't be done. How do you explain that?
So where about on the ceiling did you point your axis pole at? let me guess: around the centre, inside of the tables circumference, right?
What a little con artist, lol.
-
That's fine, but we are talking about space itself, really. As in, earth around the sun. And as earth is supposedly in the vacuum or what you call a near vacuum, it's basically in a frictionless environment by how you lot perceive it.
How in the hell it would act like a gyroscope in that environment, escapes me.
Do you even understand what a gyroscope is? The only thing that friction does to a gyroscope is slow it down so gyroscopes, if anything, would work better in a frictionless environment.
Really? so tell me then, Markjo, tell me how it works in a WEIGHTLESS environment.
-
Damn it, I forgot about SOLAR wind.
And what does this solar wind do to the rotation of earth around the sun?
Considering the mass of the earth and the amount of particles in the solar wind, not much.
-
Damn it, I forgot about SOLAR wind.
And what does this solar wind do to the rotation of earth around the sun?
Considering the mass of the earth and the amount of particles in the solar wind, not much.
Ok, so we can rule out solar wind then, right?
-
That's fine, but we are talking about space itself, really. As in, earth around the sun. And as earth is supposedly in the vacuum or what you call a near vacuum, it's basically in a frictionless environment by how you lot perceive it.
How in the hell it would act like a gyroscope in that environment, escapes me.
Do you even understand what a gyroscope is? The only thing that friction does to a gyroscope is slow it down so gyroscopes, if anything, would work better in a frictionless environment.
Really? so tell me then, Markjo, tell me how it works in a WEIGHTLESS environment.
A gyroscope works by spinning really fast. What does weight have to do with anything?
-
Damn it, I forgot about SOLAR wind.
And what does this solar wind do to the rotation of earth around the sun?
Considering the mass of the earth and the amount of particles in the solar wind, not much.
Ok, so we can rule out solar wind then, right?
Rule it out of what? I'm just saying the fact that there is a solar wind proves that outer space is not a perfect vacuum and that you should stop claiming that it is.
-
Damn it, I forgot about SOLAR wind.
And what does this solar wind do to the rotation of earth around the sun?
Considering the mass of the earth and the amount of particles in the solar wind, not much.
Ok, so we can rule out solar wind then, right?
Rule it out of what? I'm just saying the fact that there is a solar wind proves that outer space is not a perfect vacuum.
Where have you observed this solar wind, Markjo?
I don't mean, "someone told me so" or" I just know" or, " it's common knowledge"...I want to know how you know about this solar wind.
I mean, does it blow, as in, make your scarf flap behind your neck or brush your hair back. What is it?
-
Damn it, I forgot about SOLAR wind.
And what does this solar wind do to the rotation of earth around the sun?
Considering the mass of the earth and the amount of particles in the solar wind, not much.
Ok, so we can rule out solar wind then, right?
Rule it out of what? I'm just saying the fact that there is a solar wind proves that outer space is not a perfect vacuum.
Where have you observed this solar wind, Markjo?
I don't mean, "someone told me so" or" I just know" or, " it's common knowledge"...I want to know how you know about this solar wind.
I mean, does it blow, as in, make your scarf flap behind your neck or brush your hair back. What is it?
Well, I don't get into interstellar space all that often, so I suppose that I'll just have to take their word for it that it's there. But, they tell me that the solar wind's interaction with the earth's magnetic field is what causes the auroras.
-
That's fine, but we are talking about space itself, really. As in, earth around the sun. And as earth is supposedly in the vacuum or what you call a near vacuum, it's basically in a frictionless environment by how you lot perceive it.
How in the hell it would act like a gyroscope in that environment, escapes me.
Okay, I was just answering what you brought up in the post I quoted.
To answer the point in this post, because friction with another body of matter isn't what causes a gyroscope to act as it does. Angular momentum is. With no significant outside force acting on a specific part of the Earth to change it's axis of rotation, it stays nearly fixed due to angular momentum.
-
Damn it, I forgot about SOLAR wind.
And what does this solar wind do to the rotation of earth around the sun?
Considering the mass of the earth and the amount of particles in the solar wind, not much.
Ok, so we can rule out solar wind then, right?
Rule it out of what? I'm just saying the fact that there is a solar wind proves that outer space is not a perfect vacuum.
Where have you observed this solar wind, Markjo?
I don't mean, "someone told me so" or" I just know" or, " it's common knowledge"...I want to know how you know about this solar wind.
I mean, does it blow, as in, make your scarf flap behind your neck or brush your hair back. What is it?
Solar wind data has been measured and quantified for some time now. So you want to know about the solar wind, eh? Here, this should keep you busy for a while.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&qform=AST&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&adsobj_query=YES&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=solar+wind&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=200&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&qform=AST&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&adsobj_query=YES&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=solar+wind&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=200&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1)
-
Would you like to do the experiment again, because your little ceiling con job cuts no ice.
Pick the corner of the wall where it meets the ceiling and do it again.
Nope. I'm doing the experiment exactly as you described. Forcing me to pick a corner isn't "pointing anywhere I like".
And using your own experiment I've proved that a football "earth" can orbit a fruit bowl sun without changing it's orientation whatsoever. You said that "naturally this couldn't be done. How do you explain that?
So where about on the ceiling did you point your axis pole at? let me guess: around the centre, inside of the tables circumference, right?
What a little con artist, lol.
No one ever said the Earth's axis always point's to a specific point in space (even though the north pole may appear to always point to Polaris that's only because it's millions of miles away, not 6 feet to my ceiling).
The only thing said was that "the Earth's axis remains oriented in the same direction, regardless of it's orbital position around the sun"... which you labeled as impossible. I've proved you wrong with your own experiment no less.
In fact the only person who said anything about the Earth's axis having to point at something was you, who said a rotating Earth's axis had to point at the Sun.
Now that you've proved you wrong you're moving the goalposts, as expected.
You are a fantastic troll, btw.
-
Enough with the "troll" accusation. Nobody here is trolling, it's called DEBATE. Not everyone thinks in a box. The train set and gyroscope experiment is irrelevant. The Earth is not ON a train....it's not ON anything that is going around the sun. In fact, show me a real life situation of a spinning sphere going around a more massive object where the sphere stays at one angle. That will prove it for me.
The only situation I have observed is a spinning top that rights itself when placed in a vacuum...whereas outside of the vacuum, it tilted.
-
The train experiment is more valid than Scepti's. In that experiment, the ability for the object to rotate independently of the force that is causing it to move is very relevant. In Scepti's experiment, he is the force causing the football to point towards the fruit bowl. Which is not a very sound way to conduct an experiment. His results are then biased by his approach.
In the train experiment, the gyroscope is free to rotate any direction since it is on freely moving gimbals. Now since the gyroscope can rotate without being effected by the motion of the train, it represents the orbit of the earth. In it, we get a less biased result. One that also mimics what is seen in the solar system.
-
The train experiment is more valid than Scepti's. In that experiment, the ability for the object to rotate independently of the force that is causing it to move is very relevant. In Scepti's experiment, he is the force causing the football to point towards the fruit bowl. Which is not a very sound way to conduct an experiment. His results are then biased by his approach.
In the train experiment, the gyroscope is free to rotate any direction since it is on freely moving gimbals. Now since the gyroscope can rotate without being effected by the motion of the train, it represents the orbit of the earth. In it, we get a less biased result. One that also mimics what is seen in the solar system.
Earth as a gyroscope is an absolute load of garbage. How people can even suggest it, is nonsensical.
Your earth is a BALL or let's go for the the little extra and say, your oblate spheroid, in space. It doesn't have anything else aiding it like an earth gyroscope has.
Now one minute people say the earth is slowly spinning compared to it's size and now it's spinning like a gyroscope.
Your earth tilt and the way it's shown, is nonsense and absolutely defies logic when people take the time to look at it, in how it's supposed to work.
-
Enough with the "troll" accusation. Nobody here is trolling, it's called DEBATE. Not everyone thinks in a box. The train set and gyroscope experiment is irrelevant. The Earth is not ON a train....it's not ON anything that is going around the sun. In fact, show me a real life situation of a spinning sphere going around a more massive object where the sphere stays at one angle. That will prove it for me.
Well, Mars. Jupiter. Uranus. Saturn. Venus. Neptune. Mercury. The moon. Every number of other celestial objects. Regardless that you may not believe these to be roughly spherical, they are. You have literally no proof to the contrary, and simply deny proof to that end.
The only situation I have observed is a spinning top that rights itself when placed in a vacuum...whereas outside of the vacuum, it tilted.
Was this a video you could link to? It sounds neat, I'd like to see it.
Earth as a gyroscope is an absolute load of garbage. How people can even suggest it, is nonsensical.
Your earth is a BALL or let's go for the the little extra and say, your oblate spheroid, in space. It doesn't have anything else aiding it like an earth gyroscope has.
Now one minute people say the earth is slowly spinning compared to it's size and now it's spinning like a gyroscope.
Your earth tilt and the way it's shown, is nonsense and absolutely defies logic when people take the time to look at it, in how it's supposed to work.
Scepti, what do you think a gyroscope has assisting it? If you're referring to the gimbal, that's just to replicate a three dimensional axis of movement as opposed to the two dimensions it would have on a surface.
By the way, something can spin relatively slowly, but still have huge angular momentum. It just needs to have a huge mass which, surprise, the Earth does. Nothing logic defying about it if you know half a thing about the science behind it.
-
ALL the planets are on the SAME plane as Earth. WHAT A COINCEDENCE! ::)
What Causes the Seasons (http://#)
-
The train experiment is more valid than Scepti's. In that experiment, the ability for the object to rotate independently of the force that is causing it to move is very relevant. In Scepti's experiment, he is the force causing the football to point towards the fruit bowl. Which is not a very sound way to conduct an experiment. His results are then biased by his approach.
In the train experiment, the gyroscope is free to rotate any direction since it is on freely moving gimbals. Now since the gyroscope can rotate without being effected by the motion of the train, it represents the orbit of the earth. In it, we get a less biased result. One that also mimics what is seen in the solar system.
Earth as a gyroscope is an absolute load of garbage. How people can even suggest it, is nonsensical.
Your earth is a BALL or let's go for the the little extra and say, your oblate spheroid, in space. It doesn't have anything else aiding it like an earth gyroscope has.
Now one minute people say the earth is slowly spinning compared to it's size and now it's spinning like a gyroscope.
Your earth tilt and the way it's shown, is nonsense and absolutely defies logic when people take the time to look at it, in how it's supposed to work.
Comparing the Earth to a gyroscope (if you assume a round spinning Earth) is actually rather accurate. You see, the concept is angular momentum. And once you know what that is, and how torque applies to it, it is a simple matter to connect the two ideas -- even though a gyroscope doesn't LOOK like the Earth. But things are not always just how they just look or appear. For example, your written communication and ideas don't LOOK like a normal, developed brain produced them, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are mentally handicapped.
-
ALL the planets are on the SAME plane as Earth. WHAT A COINCEDENCE! ::)
Not even. They are close, but have a variance of up to a few degrees. The Earth actually has one of the more eccentric planetary orbits, around 7.1 degrees as compared to the next most eccentric, Uranus, at 6.5 degrees deviance. The least eccentric and furthest from Earth's orbital plane being Mercury, at 3.4 degrees deviance.
-
The only situation I have observed is a spinning top that rights itself when placed in a vacuum...whereas outside of the vacuum, it tilted.
Spinning Top in a Vacuum Chamber (http://#ws)
-
Spinning Top in a Vacuum Chamber (http://#ws)
Thanks! I'd be willing to bet money that the reason it tilts in the first place is interaction with the air around it, and the reason it rights itself in a vacuum is that being the position of least friction with the ground. The Earth has no position of least resistance because it's not rotating on something, and the Earth and atmosphere have minimal interaction with other objects or systems via direct contact.
-
I hope, free thinkers that are looking at all this round earth SHOEHORNED nonsense, can see it for what it is.
The stuff they have had to fit in, just to account for what we observe, that in reality, would defy the logic and common sense of every rational person who has the ability to THINK for THEMSELVES.
What!..we are living on a ball?, oh, ok, so why don't we fall off?
Ahhhhh, well, the ball isn't quite a ball shape in full...it's like a slightly squashed ball and it's spinning at 1000 mph, plus.
But, why don't we get flung off?
Well! we don't, because of GRAVITY.
Oh, I see, so what is gravity?
Well, it's this force that holds us all down. We don't really know what it actually is, but it's there, trust us. I mean, you're not falling, are you?
Well, no, I suppose not, but it seems a bit far fetched, yet I'll have to go along with it, I suppose.
So, how come we have winter and summer and days and nights?
Ahhh...well, it's because the ball that we are on is tilted 23.5 degrees and it whizzes around the huge centralised sun and one spin of the earth, equals one day and one orbit of the sun, equals 1 year.
Oh, I see, so what makes it orbit the sun and how come we don't get sucked into it?
Well, we are well balanced, somehow, with all the other planets, so we don't get pushed away or pulled in, we just perfectly orbit the sun, except the orbit isn't fully circular, it's ELLIPTICAL, so we move closer in December, about 5 million kilometres.
Oh, I see...but wouldn't that make it hotter?
Well, no, not really, it's just, ermmm, like that. It works. I mean, you're here aren't you?
Well, I suppose so, but why doesn't the earth get pulled into the sun when it gets closer in this strange unexplainable ELLIPTICAL orbit?
Well...it just doesn't, because, ermmm, it's finely balanced, once again.
Oh, ok.
And so on and so on and so on...and yet, if you catch them early enough...like, say... infant age...and feed them slowly, you too can grow up and believe all this stuff. It doesn't matter that each explanation gets more bizarre...just accept it all, because, after all...it works, because we are here, aren't we?
Any chance of it not being like this and maybe the explanations are bizarre because there might be a better explanation?
NO...NO.NOOOO....THIS IS THE ONLY EXPLANATION AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO DARES TO THINK THERE IS ANOTHER, WILL BE RIDICULED.
And basically this is what we are dealing with. Fabrications after fabrications of the earth that we live on and we HAVE to be TOLD what it is and accept it and accept everything that goes with it, from the sublime to the absolutely ridiculous in small and extremely large proportions, respectively.
If anyone wants to pick holes in it...do so, because they have ready made answers...and if they don't...they will make one up to fit, no matter how ridiculous it appears.
Bloody tilted earth. lol
Solar winds and what not and here we are spinning at over 1000 mph, whilst whizzing around the sun at 67,000 mph, etc.
Oh and our solar system is about 25,000 light years.....yes, I said 25 THOUSAND LIGHT YEARS away from the centre of the GALAXY and that galaxy makes one.....I said ONE, rotation, every?....every?...I bet you were thinking I was going to say, every 100 years or so.
Actually, it's closer to 250 million years. Yes that's right, it takes about 250 million years to make one rotation.
They've obviously done all the calculations, so don't even go there, because us humans with our telescopes and calculators and other little gizmos, can work this stuff out and it's all ROUGHLY correct, because they say it is, which should be good enough for the average Joe, eh?
No direct proof of any of this is required, because you wouldn't understand, anyway. I mean, you can go to university and study it and pretend you know and make a few people sit gaping mouthed at your story telling scientific mimicking of text books and such, but there is no need to go to any trouble in giving any direct proof of any of it, but make sure that anyone who has an alternative theory, prove that theory DIRECTLY and if they can't, you can then ridicule them and tell them that their theory is worthless, whilst hanging on to your own text book induced one, as the proof in that global pudding. ::)
-
I hope, free thinkers that are looking at all this round earth SHOEHORNED nonsense, can see it for what it is.
The stuff they have had to fit in, just to account for what we observe, that in reality, would defy the logic and common sense of every rational person who has the ability to THINK for THEMSELVES.
What!..we are living on a ball?, oh, ok, so why don't we fall off?
Ahhhhh, well, the ball isn't quite a ball shape in full...it's like a slightly squashed ball and it's spinning at 1000 mph, plus.
But, why don't we get flung off?
Well! we don't, because of GRAVITY.
Oh, I see, so what is gravity?
Well, it's this force that holds us all down. We don't really know what it actually is, but it's there, trust us. I mean, you're not falling, are you?
Well, no, I suppose not, but it seems a bit far fetched, yet I'll have to go along with it, I suppose.
So, how come we have winter and summer and days and nights?
Ahhh...well, it's because the ball that we are on is tilted 23.5 degrees and it whizzes around the huge centralised sun and one spin of the earth, equals one day and one orbit of the sun, equals 1 year.
Oh, I see, so what makes it orbit the sun and how come we don't get sucked into it?
Well, we are well balanced, somehow, with all the other planets, so we don't get pushed away or pulled in, we just perfectly orbit the sun, except the orbit isn't fully circular, it's ELLIPTICAL, so we move closer in December, about 5 million kilometres.
Oh, I see...but wouldn't that make it hotter?
Well, no, not really, it's just, ermmm, like that. It works. I mean, you're here aren't you?
Well, I suppose so, but why doesn't the earth get pulled into the sun when it gets closer in this strange unexplainable ELLIPTICAL orbit?
Well...it just doesn't, because, ermmm, it's finely balanced, once again.
Oh, ok.
And so on and so on and so on...and yet, if you catch them early enough...like, say... infant age...and feed them slowly, you too can grow up and believe all this stuff. It doesn't matter that each explanation gets more bizarre...just accept it all, because, after all...it works, because we are here, aren't we?
Any chance of it not being like this and maybe the explanations are bizarre because there might be a better explanation?
NO...NO.NOOOO....THIS IS THE ONLY EXPLANATION AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO DARES TO THINK THERE IS ANOTHER, WILL BE RIDICULED.
And basically this is what we are dealing with. Fabrications after fabrications of the earth that we live on and we HAVE to be TOLD what it is and accept it and accept everything that goes with it, from the sublime to the absolutely ridiculous in small and extremely large proportions, respectively.
If anyone wants to pick holes in it...do so, because they have ready made answers...and if they don't...they will make one up to fit, no matter how ridiculous it appears.
Bloody tilted earth. lol
Solar winds and what not and here we are spinning at over 1000 mph, whilst whizzing around the sun at 67,000 mph, etc.
Oh and our solar system is about 25,000 light years.....yes, I said 25 THOUSAND LIGHT YEARS away from the centre of the GALAXY and that galaxy makes one.....I said ONE, rotation, every?....every?...I bet you were thinking I was going to say, every 100 years or so.
Actually, it's closer to 250 million years. Yes that's right, it takes about 250 million years to make one rotation.
They've obviously done all the calculations, so don't even go there, because us humans with our telescopes and calculators and other little gizmos, can work this stuff out and it's all ROUGHLY correct, because they say it is, which should be good enough for the average Joe, eh?
No direct proof of any of this is required, because you wouldn't understand, anyway. I mean, you can go to university and study it and pretend you know and make a few people sit gaping mouthed at your story telling scientific mimicking of text books and such, but there is no need to go to any trouble in giving any direct proof of any of it, but make sure that anyone who has an alternative theory, prove that theory DIRECTLY and if they can't, you can then ridicule them and tell them that their theory is worthless, whilst hanging on to your own text book induced one, as the proof in that global pudding. ::)
Well, just because YOU can't, for the life of you, understand it, doesn't mean other people cannot. You seem to have the unique ability to not understand very basic, simple concepts. I wouldn't call that free-thinking. I'd call that just...unfortunate...without any real thinking at all.
-
I hope, free thinkers that are looking at all this round earth SHOEHORNED nonsense, can see it for what it is.
The stuff they have had to fit in, just to account for what we observe, that in reality, would defy the logic and common sense of every rational person who has the ability to THINK for THEMSELVES.
What!..we are living on a ball?, oh, ok, so why don't we fall off?
Ahhhhh, well, the ball isn't quite a ball shape in full...it's like a slightly squashed ball and it's spinning at 1000 mph, plus.
But, why don't we get flung off?
Well! we don't, because of GRAVITY.
Oh, I see, so what is gravity?
Well, it's this force that holds us all down. We don't really know what it actually is, but it's there, trust us. I mean, you're not falling, are you?
Well, no, I suppose not, but it seems a bit far fetched, yet I'll have to go along with it, I suppose.
So, how come we have winter and summer and days and nights?
Ahhh...well, it's because the ball that we are on is tilted 23.5 degrees and it whizzes around the huge centralised sun and one spin of the earth, equals one day and one orbit of the sun, equals 1 year.
Oh, I see, so what makes it orbit the sun and how come we don't get sucked into it?
Well, we are well balanced, somehow, with all the other planets, so we don't get pushed away or pulled in, we just perfectly orbit the sun, except the orbit isn't fully circular, it's ELLIPTICAL, so we move closer in December, about 5 million kilometres.
Oh, I see...but wouldn't that make it hotter?
Well, no, not really, it's just, ermmm, like that. It works. I mean, you're here aren't you?
Well, I suppose so, but why doesn't the earth get pulled into the sun when it gets closer in this strange unexplainable ELLIPTICAL orbit?
Well...it just doesn't, because, ermmm, it's finely balanced, once again.
Oh, ok.
And so on and so on and so on...and yet, if you catch them early enough...like, say... infant age...and feed them slowly, you too can grow up and believe all this stuff. It doesn't matter that each explanation gets more bizarre...just accept it all, because, after all...it works, because we are here, aren't we?
Any chance of it not being like this and maybe the explanations are bizarre because there might be a better explanation?
NO...NO.NOOOO....THIS IS THE ONLY EXPLANATION AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO DARES TO THINK THERE IS ANOTHER, WILL BE RIDICULED.
And basically this is what we are dealing with. Fabrications after fabrications of the earth that we live on and we HAVE to be TOLD what it is and accept it and accept everything that goes with it, from the sublime to the absolutely ridiculous in small and extremely large proportions, respectively.
If anyone wants to pick holes in it...do so, because they have ready made answers...and if they don't...they will make one up to fit, no matter how ridiculous it appears.
Bloody tilted earth. lol
Solar winds and what not and here we are spinning at over 1000 mph, whilst whizzing around the sun at 67,000 mph, etc.
Oh and our solar system is about 25,000 light years.....yes, I said 25 THOUSAND LIGHT YEARS away from the centre of the GALAXY and that galaxy makes one.....I said ONE, rotation, every?....every?...I bet you were thinking I was going to say, every 100 years or so.
Actually, it's closer to 250 million years. Yes that's right, it takes about 250 million years to make one rotation.
They've obviously done all the calculations, so don't even go there, because us humans with our telescopes and calculators and other little gizmos, can work this stuff out and it's all ROUGHLY correct, because they say it is, which should be good enough for the average Joe, eh?
No direct proof of any of this is required, because you wouldn't understand, anyway. I mean, you can go to university and study it and pretend you know and make a few people sit gaping mouthed at your story telling scientific mimicking of text books and such, but there is no need to go to any trouble in giving any direct proof of any of it, but make sure that anyone who has an alternative theory, prove that theory DIRECTLY and if they can't, you can then ridicule them and tell them that their theory is worthless, whilst hanging on to your own text book induced one, as the proof in that global pudding. ::)
Well, just because YOU can't, for the life of you, understand it, doesn't mean other people cannot. You seem to have the unique ability to not understand very basic, simple concepts. I wouldn't call that free-thinking. I'd call that just...unfortunate...without any real thinking at all.
It's of no consequence to me, what you call it, to be fair.
What counts is what I think, not what you think. I'm happy in the knowledge, for now, that I've managed to, at the very least, rid myself of even entertaining a rotating globe and a lot of the nonsense that goes with it.
What I have to do now is...I have to fine tune my ideas on my flat earth and ice dome, which I'm SLOWLY but surely, picking at, bit by bit, with the help of someone.
Whether I get it all in order, I don't know, but I believe 100% that I'm on the right track, regardless of what you or any other person, thinks.
-
That is a good summary Scepti, well done.
If you don't mind I, would like to sell posters of that at The Flat Earth Museum. We can work out the royalties later.
-
That is a good summary Scepti, well done.
If you don't mind I, would like to sell posters of that at The Flat Earth Museum. We can work out the royalties later.
Of course, Hoppy. Sell as many as you can and put the funds to help the society, including royalties.
If you can keep just a little bit back to aid in the bus fares home for the round earthers who fail miserably to stamp their authority on this forum.
-
I hope, free thinkers that are looking at all this round earth SHOEHORNED nonsense, can see it for what it is.
The stuff they have had to fit in, just to account for what we observe, that in reality, would defy the logic and common sense of every rational person who has the ability to THINK for THEMSELVES.
What!..we are living on a ball?, oh, ok, so why don't we fall off?
Ahhhhh, well, the ball isn't quite a ball shape in full...it's like a slightly squashed ball and it's spinning at 1000 mph, plus.
But, why don't we get flung off?
Well! we don't, because of GRAVITY.
Oh, I see, so what is gravity?
Well, it's this force that holds us all down. We don't really know what it actually is, but it's there, trust us. I mean, you're not falling, are you?
Well, no, I suppose not, but it seems a bit far fetched, yet I'll have to go along with it, I suppose.
So, how come we have winter and summer and days and nights?
Ahhh...well, it's because the ball that we are on is tilted 23.5 degrees and it whizzes around the huge centralised sun and one spin of the earth, equals one day and one orbit of the sun, equals 1 year.
Oh, I see, so what makes it orbit the sun and how come we don't get sucked into it?
Well, we are well balanced, somehow, with all the other planets, so we don't get pushed away or pulled in, we just perfectly orbit the sun, except the orbit isn't fully circular, it's ELLIPTICAL, so we move closer in December, about 5 million kilometres.
Oh, I see...but wouldn't that make it hotter?
Well, no, not really, it's just, ermmm, like that. It works. I mean, you're here aren't you?
Well, I suppose so, but why doesn't the earth get pulled into the sun when it gets closer in this strange unexplainable ELLIPTICAL orbit?
Well...it just doesn't, because, ermmm, it's finely balanced, once again.
Oh, ok.
And so on and so on and so on...and yet, if you catch them early enough...like, say... infant age...and feed them slowly, you too can grow up and believe all this stuff. It doesn't matter that each explanation gets more bizarre...just accept it all, because, after all...it works, because we are here, aren't we?
Any chance of it not being like this and maybe the explanations are bizarre because there might be a better explanation?
NO...NO.NOOOO....THIS IS THE ONLY EXPLANATION AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO DARES TO THINK THERE IS ANOTHER, WILL BE RIDICULED.
And basically this is what we are dealing with. Fabrications after fabrications of the earth that we live on and we HAVE to be TOLD what it is and accept it and accept everything that goes with it, from the sublime to the absolutely ridiculous in small and extremely large proportions, respectively.
If anyone wants to pick holes in it...do so, because they have ready made answers...and if they don't...they will make one up to fit, no matter how ridiculous it appears.
Bloody tilted earth. lol
Solar winds and what not and here we are spinning at over 1000 mph, whilst whizzing around the sun at 67,000 mph, etc.
Oh and our solar system is about 25,000 light years.....yes, I said 25 THOUSAND LIGHT YEARS away from the centre of the GALAXY and that galaxy makes one.....I said ONE, rotation, every?....every?...I bet you were thinking I was going to say, every 100 years or so.
Actually, it's closer to 250 million years. Yes that's right, it takes about 250 million years to make one rotation.
They've obviously done all the calculations, so don't even go there, because us humans with our telescopes and calculators and other little gizmos, can work this stuff out and it's all ROUGHLY correct, because they say it is, which should be good enough for the average Joe, eh?
No direct proof of any of this is required, because you wouldn't understand, anyway. I mean, you can go to university and study it and pretend you know and make a few people sit gaping mouthed at your story telling scientific mimicking of text books and such, but there is no need to go to any trouble in giving any direct proof of any of it, but make sure that anyone who has an alternative theory, prove that theory DIRECTLY and if they can't, you can then ridicule them and tell them that their theory is worthless, whilst hanging on to your own text book induced one, as the proof in that global pudding. ::)
Well, just because YOU can't, for the life of you, understand it, doesn't mean other people cannot. You seem to have the unique ability to not understand very basic, simple concepts. I wouldn't call that free-thinking. I'd call that just...unfortunate...without any real thinking at all.
It's of no consequence to me, what you call it, to be fair.
What counts is what I think, not what you think. I'm happy in the knowledge, for now, that I've managed to, at the very least, rid myself of even entertaining a rotating globe and a lot of the nonsense that goes with it.
What I have to do now is...I have to fine tune my ideas on my flat earth and ice dome, which I'm SLOWLY but surely, picking at, bit by bit, with the help of someone.
Whether I get it all in order, I don't know, but I believe 100% that I'm on the right track, regardless of what you or any other person, thinks.
Well I look forward to seeing the results of your efforts, and I'm sure they will be of great benefit to the FET community.
-
I hope, free thinkers that are looking at all this round earth SHOEHORNED nonsense, can see it for what it is.
The stuff they have had to fit in, just to account for what we observe, that in reality, would defy the logic and common sense of every rational person who has the ability to THINK for THEMSELVES.
Etc.
So you've totally avoided the subject to state your own personal incredulity in a great, long rant. That's wonderful, nobody doubted that you claim not to believe the accepted model. Now, pardon me, I'm going to refer to the last somewhat on topic response between the two of us.
Earth as a gyroscope is an absolute load of garbage. How people can even suggest it, is nonsensical.
Your earth is a BALL or let's go for the the little extra and say, your oblate spheroid, in space. It doesn't have anything else aiding it like an earth gyroscope has.
Now one minute people say the earth is slowly spinning compared to it's size and now it's spinning like a gyroscope.
Your earth tilt and the way it's shown, is nonsense and absolutely defies logic when people take the time to look at it, in how it's supposed to work.
Scepti, what do you think a gyroscope has assisting it? If you're referring to the gimbal, that's just to replicate a three dimensional axis of movement as opposed to the two dimensions it would have on a surface.
By the way, something can spin relatively slowly, but still have huge angular momentum. It just needs to have a huge mass which, surprise, the Earth does. Nothing logic defying about it if you know half a thing about the science behind it.
-
I hope, free thinkers that are looking at all this round earth SHOEHORNED nonsense, can see it for what it is.
The stuff they have had to fit in, just to account for what we observe, that in reality, would defy the logic and common sense of every rational person who has the ability to THINK for THEMSELVES.
What!..we are living on a ball?, oh, ok, so why don't we fall off?
Ahhhhh, well, the ball isn't quite a ball shape in full...it's like a slightly squashed ball and it's spinning at 1000 mph, plus.
But, why don't we get flung off?
Well! we don't, because of GRAVITY.
Oh, I see, so what is gravity?
Well, it's this force that holds us all down. We don't really know what it actually is, but it's there, trust us. I mean, you're not falling, are you?
Gravity has been measured and proven to exist by the cavendish experiment. Which has been done many times, and experiment which you simply dismiss as meaningless.
Well, no, I suppose not, but it seems a bit far fetched, yet I'll have to go along with it, I suppose.
So, how come we have winter and summer and days and nights?
Ahhh...well, it's because the ball that we are on is tilted 23.5 degrees and it whizzes around the huge centralised sun and one spin of the earth, equals one day and one orbit of the sun, equals 1 year.
Oh, I see, so what makes it orbit the sun and how come we don't get sucked into it?
Well, we are well balanced, somehow, with all the other planets, so we don't get pushed away or pulled in, we just perfectly orbit the sun, except the orbit isn't fully circular, it's ELLIPTICAL, so we move closer in December, about 5 million kilometres.
Oh, I see...but wouldn't that make it hotter?
Well, no, not really, it's just, ermmm, like that. It works. I mean, you're here aren't you?
The Energy radiated by an object is proportiaonl to Temperature^4. 5 million kilometres in 1/30 of 150 million kilometres. And something as big as the earth takes time to cool and heat up.
Well, I suppose so, but why doesn't the earth get pulled into the sun when it gets closer in this strange unexplainable ELLIPTICAL orbit?
Well...it just doesn't, because, ermmm, it's finely balanced, once again.
Oh, ok.
As the Earth gets closer to the Sun it's kinetic energy increases. The centrifugal forces increase faster then gravity as it gets closer to the Sun.
And so on and so on and so on...and yet, if you catch them early enough...like, say... infant age...and feed them slowly, you too can grow up and believe all this stuff. It doesn't matter that each explanation gets more bizarre...just accept it all, because, after all...it works, because we are here, aren't we?
Any chance of it not being like this and maybe the explanations are bizarre because there might be a better explanation?
NO...NO.NOOOO....THIS IS THE ONLY EXPLANATION AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO DARES TO THINK THERE IS ANOTHER, WILL BE RIDICULED.
And basically this is what we are dealing with. Fabrications after fabrications of the earth that we live on and we HAVE to be TOLD what it is and accept it and accept everything that goes with it, from the sublime to the absolutely ridiculous in small and extremely large proportions, respectively.
If anyone wants to pick holes in it...do so, because they have ready made answers...and if they don't...they will make one up to fit, no matter how ridiculous it appears.
You have absoultely no idea how scientific processes work. Scientist do not accept everything without thinking. If they did what you think what they do, we would have the same technology and scientific theories as we in 1900. Scientists are taught to question what they know. If some scientists conduct an experiment disproving a current theory, then other scientists will accept that (though first other will repeat the experiment to check if it wasn't just experimental error). When there was that whole faster the light neutrinos business. Other scientists didn't simply dismiss the experiment. It was repeated and checked for errors (though it turned out to be just an experimental error). When Einstein came up with is theory of relativity which contradicted previously accepted newtonian physics, he wasn't simply ridiculed by the scientific community, his theories were tested and found to be true. The scientists who go down in history are the ones who make new discoveries and disprove older theories, not the ones who simply go with current theroies.
Bloody tilted earth. lol
Solar winds and what not and here we are spinning at over 1000 mph, whilst whizzing around the sun at 67,000 mph, etc.
Oh and our solar system is about 25,000 light years.....yes, I said 25 THOUSAND LIGHT YEARS away from the centre of the GALAXY and that galaxy makes one.....I said ONE, rotation, every?....every?...I bet you were thinking I was going to say, every 100 years or so.
Actually, it's closer to 250 million years. Yes that's right, it takes about 250 million years to make one rotation.
For it to rotate once every 100 years it would have to rotate at over a 1000 times the speed of light. Even for once every 250 million years it still means rotating at about 200 kilometres per second.
Your justing using an argument from incredibility here, a logical fallacy.
They've obviously done all the calculations, so don't even go there, because us humans with our telescopes and calculators and other little gizmos, can work this stuff out and it's all ROUGHLY correct, because they say it is, which should be good enough for the average Joe, eh?
No direct proof of any of this is required, because you wouldn't understand, anyway. I mean, you can go to university and study it and pretend you know and make a few people sit gaping mouthed at your story telling scientific mimicking of text books and such, but there is no need to go to any trouble in giving any direct proof of any of it, but make sure that anyone who has an alternative theory, prove that theory DIRECTLY and if they can't, you can then ridicule them and tell them that their theory is worthless, whilst hanging on to your own text book induced one, as the proof in that global pudding. ::)
This would all make sense if you bothered to actually learn a bit about physics and not just dismiss things because you don't like them or don't understand them. You seem to value your own opinions more then experiments which have been repeated many times.
-
Scepti, your "experiment" sucks. It does not even begin to represent reality, or the physics of the system it is supposed to represent. Try this instead, it will be more accurate:
- get a model train set, with enough track to make a circle, and one flatbed car
- get a small gyroscope that you can mount on the flatbed on gimbals so that it is free to move in all axes
- set the gyroscope spinning, but on a slight tilt, to represent the earth's tilt (23.5°)
- start the model train running around it's circular track
- observe the gyroscope and tell me what it does
If you actually do this experiment, you might just find out something very interesting!
Do you have a train set, because I don't. If you do. How about doing this experiment and posting it up.
Unfortunately I do not have a suitable train set, or a suitable gyroscope. I was hoping to find something on YouTube, but it seems that no-one else has bothered to try this either. If I do find something later, I'll be sure to put it up.
In the mean time, would you care to tell me how a gyroscope works in your weightless vacuum?
Just the same as they work anywhere else. Weight and atmosphere are not required for a gyroscope to work. In fact, with no weight to support, and no (or little) gas surrounding a gyroscope, there would be next to no friction, meaning that it would be an even more perfect gyroscope than can be achieved normally.
Your earth is a BALL or let's go for the the little extra and say, your oblate spheroid, in space. It doesn't have anything else aiding it like an earth gyroscope has.
Now one minute people say the earth is slowly spinning compared to it's size and now it's spinning like a gyroscope.
Your earth tilt and the way it's shown, is nonsense and absolutely defies logic when people take the time to look at it, in how it's supposed to work.
Yes, it's a ball, a VERY LARGE ball with a LOT of mass, which means it does not need to spin all that fast (~1000mph at the equator is heaps fast enough) to stabilise in the same manner as a gyroscope.
-
This gyroscope carry on is scraping the barrel.
You people believe in a vacuum of space, regardless of it not being quite a full vacuum, because, well, it has BITS of dust in it and such, doesn't it?
So this gyroscope earth spins around the sun and apparently keeps it's poles in one position...YET, it manages to go around it by showing the sun it's north pole and south pole over the course of the revolution.
Come on people, have a serious think as to why this cannot work. Yes, I know how it appears on animated drawings, but surely some of you can see how wrong it is and cannot work the way they say it does, regardless of this silly space gyroscope analogy.
For any person who can think for themselves are are not fully brainwashed...go and look at my diagrams and then do the table experiment I told about and you will see how silly the axial tilt of a rotating globe around a central point, (sun) cannot work.
-
This gyroscope carry on is scraping the barrel.
You people believe in a vacuum of space, regardless of it not being quite a full vacuum, because, well, it has BITS of dust in it and such, doesn't it?
So this gyroscope earth spins around the sun and apparently keeps it's poles in one position...YET, it manages to go around it by showing the sun it's north pole and south pole over the course of the revolution.
Come on people, have a serious think as to why this cannot work. Yes, I know how it appears on animated drawings, but surely some of you can see how wrong it is and cannot work the way they say it does, regardless of this silly space gyroscope analogy.
For any person who can think for themselves are are not fully brainwashed...go and look at my diagrams and then do the table experiment I told about and you will see how silly the axial tilt of a rotating globe around a central point, (sun) cannot work.
How could a gyroscope (or object behaving like a gyroscope, such as a spinning round earth), continuously change orientation so as to keep one pole pointed at the centre of it's (very roughly) circular course? The thing about gyroscopes is that they DON'T change their orientation (unless acted on by an outside force), that's what makes them so useful!
-
This gyroscope carry on is scraping the barrel.
You people believe in a vacuum of space, regardless of it not being quite a full vacuum, because, well, it has BITS of dust in it and such, doesn't it?
So this gyroscope earth spins around the sun and apparently keeps it's poles in one position...YET, it manages to go around it by showing the sun it's north pole and south pole over the course of the revolution.
Come on people, have a serious think as to why this cannot work. Yes, I know how it appears on animated drawings, but surely some of you can see how wrong it is and cannot work the way they say it does, regardless of this silly space gyroscope analogy.
For any person who can think for themselves are are not fully brainwashed...go and look at my diagrams and then do the table experiment I told about and you will see how silly the axial tilt of a rotating globe around a central point, (sun) cannot work.
How could a gyroscope (or object behaving like a gyroscope, such as a spinning round earth), continuously change orientation so as to keep one pole pointed at the centre of it's (very roughly) circular course? The thing about gyroscopes is that they DON'T change their orientation (unless acted on by an outside force), that's what makes them so useful!
So what makes the earth change it's orientation around the sun?
You can clearly see by my digram how we are told it works and you know that this can't happen in normal circumstances, so what circumstance dictates what is happening?
Explain it very simply, why the earth tilts and moves it's poles around the sun, basically making the north pole orientate outwards into space, then back inwards towards the sun as it makes a CIRCLE around it. We can forget about the Elliptical carry on for now as it's irrelevant.
-
The earth doesn't change its orientation. It changes its position. There is a difference. Please watch the video that I posted previously to understand. The spinning gyroscope remains in the same orientation even though the position in the room changes.
-
The earth doesn't change its orientation. It changes its position. There is a difference. Please watch the video that I posted previously to understand. The spinning gyroscope remains in the same orientation even though the position in the room changes.
For the earth to show both poles to the sun whilst being on a so called axis, it has to change it's orientation, yet it's shown in animations that the north pole allegedly points in one direction, all the time, making a person think it must be correct, when it's bogus. It's a con job and the earth, even if it was spinning or stationary and moving around the sun, would not move in the way that is claimed.
Instead, it would move in the way my bottom diagram shows.
I mean, naturally it's all bogus but I'm simply trying to make my point.
-
The earth doesn't change its orientation. It changes its position. There is a difference. Please watch the video that I posted previously to understand. The spinning gyroscope remains in the same orientation even though the position in the room changes.
For the earth to show both poles to the sun whilst being on a so called axis, it has to change it's orientation, yet it's shown in animations that the north pole allegedly points in one direction, all the time, making a person think it must be correct, when it's bogus. It's a con job and the earth, even if it was spinning or stationary and moving around the sun, would not move in the way that is claimed.
Instead, it would move in the way my bottom diagram shows.
I mean, naturally it's all bogus but I'm simply trying to make my point.
In your bottom diagram the orientation changes. It's axis points in different direcion. How is the sun changing the earths orientation in your diagram?
-
The earth doesn't change its orientation. It changes its position. There is a difference. Please watch the video that I posted previously to understand. The spinning gyroscope remains in the same orientation even though the position in the room changes.
For the earth to show both poles to the sun whilst being on a so called axis, it has to change it's orientation, yet it's shown in animations that the north pole allegedly points in one direction, all the time, making a person think it must be correct, when it's bogus. It's a con job and the earth, even if it was spinning or stationary and moving around the sun, would not move in the way that is claimed.
Instead, it would move in the way my bottom diagram shows.
I mean, naturally it's all bogus but I'm simply trying to make my point.
In your bottom diagram the orientation changes. It's axis points in different direcion. How is the sun changing the earths orientation in your diagram?
The axis points do not change direction in relation to the centralised sun, the follow a set pattern in a set position around the sun, as they should if it were to be realistic.
They stay at a set angle, as opposed to the way your earth has them shifting orientation away from the sun, which as I showed on the merry go round, would defy logic, which basically round earth science continually does, because it has to, to make all the absolute nonsensical bull crap, fit.
-
The axis points do not change direction in relation to the centralised sun, the follow a set pattern in a set position around the sun, as they should if it were to be realistic.
Here's your problem, you're thinking the axis shouldn't change relative to the sun. No, it doesn't change, at all. No matter where the Earth is around the sun, the axis of rotation is in the same position. Much like a gyroscope.
They stay at a set angle, as opposed to the way your earth has them shifting orientation away from the sun, which as I showed on the merry go round, would defy logic, which basically round earth science continually does, because it has to, to make all the absolute nonsensical bull crap, fit.
Once again, the axis doesn't shift orientation. It stays approximately the same over the course of a given year. It does, however, change position around the sun. That means, relative to the sun, the axis appears to shift orientation. Relative to a third party observer, it does nothing but move around the sun, as would be expected.
-
The axis points do not change direction in relation to the centralised sun, the follow a set pattern in a set position around the sun, as they should if it were to be realistic.
Here's your problem, you're thinking the axis shouldn't change relative to the sun. No, it doesn't change, at all. No matter where the Earth is around the sun, the axis of rotation is in the same position. Much like a gyroscope.
They stay at a set angle, as opposed to the way your earth has them shifting orientation away from the sun, which as I showed on the merry go round, would defy logic, which basically round earth science continually does, because it has to, to make all the absolute nonsensical bull crap, fit.
Once again, the axis doesn't shift orientation. It stays approximately the same over the course of a given year. It does, however, change position around the sun. That means, relative to the sun, the axis appears to shift orientation. Relative to a third party observer, it does nothing but move around the sun, as would be expected.
If it didn't change position then you would see light and dark on the same areas as it spun and the south pole , or most of it, would be in TOTAL darkness 24/7/365.
You can harp on about relative to a third party observer all day long but it's reality we are dealing with, not fictional third party observers.
-
The axis stays in the same position, pointing at the North Star, and rotates around that exposing every part to the sun every day , except when you have midnight sun.
-
The axis stays in the same position, pointing at the North Star, and rotates around that exposing every part to the sun every day , except when you have midnight sun.
And what causes the midnight sun?
-
Here's your problem, you're thinking the axis shouldn't change relative to the sun. No, it doesn't change, at all. No matter where the Earth is around the sun, the axis of rotation is in the same position. Much like a gyroscope.
They stay at a set angle, as opposed to the way your earth has them shifting orientation away from the sun, which as I showed on the merry go round, would defy logic, which basically round earth science continually does, because it has to, to make all the absolute nonsensical bull crap, fit.
Once again, the axis doesn't shift orientation. It stays approximately the same over the course of a given year. It does, however, change position around the sun. That means, relative to the sun, the axis appears to shift orientation. Relative to a third party observer, it does nothing but move around the sun, as would be expected.
If it didn't change position then you would see light and dark on the same areas as it spun and the south pole , or most of it, would be in TOTAL darkness 24/7/365.
Would you care to elaborate on that? Because I don't see how that's true. The Earth changes position as well as rotates, that's why slightly different parts of the Earth are lit on two given days. The way you suggest it, with the north pole always oriented toward the sun, would result in total darkness for the south pole at all times.
You can harp on about relative to a third party observer all day long but it's reality we are dealing with, not fictional third party observers.
Okay, let's try this, then. You occupy a fixed point in space that is neither on the Earth or the sun. You can observe both. If the previous two are true, you would see the Earth's rotational axis keep it's orientation all the way around the sun. The inclination of the axis would not change, nor would it's direction, while the Earth and the axis would change their position around the sun. This is what has been explained to you multiple times, and this is reality as far as the common model is concerned.
-
The axis stays in the same position, pointing at the North Star, and rotates around that exposing every part to the sun every day , except when you have midnight sun.
And what causes the midnight sun?
The axial tilt of the Earth.
-
So, the Earth is tilted and stays in that position because it's motion isn't affected by another force. Why doesn't the sun affect the tilt as the Earth revolves around it?
-
The tilt does wobble. Partially because the Earth is not a perfect sphere, partially because of tidal forces from the moon, sun and other celestial bodies in our solar system.
-
"wobble", please elaborate. When does it do this and how can you prove it?
-
So, the Earth is tilted and stays in that position because it's motion isn't affected by another force. Why doesn't the sun affect the tilt as the Earth revolves around it?
They (REers) sat it DOES. They have quantified how much is does and have found that it DOES only very little. This results in a precession.
-
"wobble", please elaborate. When does it do this and how can you prove it?
This may help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession)
-
The axis stays in the same position, pointing at the North Star, and rotates around that exposing every part to the sun every day , except when you have midnight sun.
And what causes the midnight sun?
The axial tilt of the Earth.
Care to elaborate on how this happens.
-
That's a gyroscope. Are you saying the Earth is a gyroscope?
Precession is a phenomena that applies to rotating objects in general, when the axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the applied force that produces a torque. So even though they first discuss gyroscopes, if you scroll down to the bottom they also show how it applies to the Earth. You need to actually read this stuff and try to understand it for the idea to make sense. This is because these concepts are not trivial to understand for anyone! You can observe precession if you spin one of those toy tops. In that case, the force producing the torque would be the gravity from the Earth. We are of course assuming a RET here, because we are discussing RE concepts.
The point is if you understand precession, angular momentum, and torque, you can then apply these general concepts to a specific instance: the Earth-Sun system. Once you do all this, you can find that these general concepts are internally consistent with the Earth-Sun system.
This is one of the biggest problems for FET: RET indeed HAS internally consistent ideas, whereas we do not yet.
-
The axis stays in the same position, pointing at the North Star, and rotates around that exposing every part to the sun every day , except when you have midnight sun.
And what causes the midnight sun?
The axial tilt of the Earth.
Care to elaborate on how this happens.
The sun lights half the Earth at a time. Because of the tilt, the Antarctic or Arctic will be completely in the sunlight for a couple months a year. If there was no tilt, they would always be half lit, half unlit.
-
The axis stays in the same position, pointing at the North Star, and rotates around that exposing every part to the sun every day , except when you have midnight sun.
And what causes the midnight sun?
The axial tilt of the Earth.
Care to elaborate on how this happens.
The sun lights half the Earth at a time. Because of the tilt, the Antarctic or Arctic will be completely in the sunlight for a couple months a year. If there was no tilt, they would always be half lit, half unlit.
And this is why I'm telling you that the tilt is obviously orientating differently, which would be impossible.
It's going AROUND a BALL, as a BALL on a so called TILT.
What you should see is half the tilted earth lit as it spins on it's own so called axis and the so called south pole or most of it, would be in total darkness. In fact, it would be lifeless and frozen solid.
It's a very good con but it's fallible and yet people cannot see it, but if they put some real thought into my bottom diagram as opposed to the diagram above it that we are told happens...they will see how wrong the official one is and why it cannot work.
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd how earth is on it's axis and yet always points to polaris whilst on the supposed other half it points to the southern star, lol.
I mean, shouldn't people be thinking this would fit much better with a flat earth and seeing polaris as the direct light from the centre of earth's circle.
Tilting the earth at 23.5 degrees for crying out loud. It's great, because it accounts for what we see.
If all this made any sense, I would be shouting, " yes, we are being told the truth, it's clearly a globe."
The fact that I'm not, is because it's so embarrassingly nonsensical, it borders on the lunacy and yet anyone who thinks alternate to this, is the lunatic. lol
I mean...ask yourself, why should anyone who questions something be labelled a lunatic? I mean, why can't they just be wrong or told that their thinking doesn't fit?
Lunatic and all of its other likewise words are used, because it's the best way to stop people questioning it all.
I question why any round earther who has no intention of changing, would come to a flat earth forum and stay just to shout, " the earth is not flat", or whatever. It makes no sense at all, unless those people were genuinely curious about their own model, yet it's denied strongly by just about all on here, yet they still feel the need to PROTECT it at all costs and seem fearful that their model will be nibbled at and seen to be the ridiculous nonsense that it is.
-
The axis stays in the same position, pointing at the North Star, and rotates around that exposing every part to the sun every day , except when you have midnight sun.
And what causes the midnight sun?
The axial tilt of the Earth.
Care to elaborate on how this happens.
The sun lights half the Earth at a time. Because of the tilt, the Antarctic or Arctic will be completely in the sunlight for a couple months a year. If there was no tilt, they would always be half lit, half unlit.
And this is why I'm telling you that the tilt is obviously orientating differently, which would be impossible.
It's going AROUND a BALL, as a BALL on a so called TILT.
What you should see is half the tilted earth lit as it spins on it's own so called axis and the so called south pole or most of it, would be in total darkness. In fact, it would be lifeless and frozen solid.
It's a very good con but it's fallible and yet people cannot see it, but if they put some real thought into my bottom diagram as opposed to the diagram above it that we are told happens...they will see how wrong the official one is and why it cannot work.
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd how earth is on it's axis and yet always points to polaris whilst on the supposed other half it points to the southern star, lol.
I mean, shouldn't people be thinking this would fit much better with a flat earth and seeing polaris as the direct light from the centre of earth's circle.
Tilting the earth at 23.5 degrees for crying out loud. It's great, because it accounts for what we see.
If all this made any sense, I would be shouting, " yes, we are being told the truth, it's clearly a globe."
The fact that I'm not, is because it's so embarrassingly nonsensical, it borders on the lunacy and yet anyone who thinks alternate to this, is the lunatic. lol
I mean...ask yourself, why should anyone who questions something be labelled a lunatic? I mean, why can't they just be wrong or told that their thinking doesn't fit?
Lunatic and all of its other likewise words are used, because it's the best way to stop people questioning it all.
I question why any round earther who has no intention of changing, would come to a flat earth forum and stay just to shout, " the earth is not flat", or whatever. It makes no sense at all, unless those people were genuinely curious about their own model, yet it's denied strongly by just about all on here, yet they still feel the need to PROTECT it at all costs and seem fearful that their model will be nibbled at and seen to be the ridiculous nonsense that it is.
Mmm, no we certainly question things. The difference between what everyone else does and what you do, is that after we question things we think about it and try to learn. You question things and then, having learned nothing, you say: well they do not make any sense at all! But really, its your questions that do not make much sense. This is what you do:
"How can the Earth be round? It looks flat to me! Let me look into this....bah! Its all hard and confusing, and when people explain things to me, I cannot understand them. Conspiracy!!!"
-
The axis stays in the same position, pointing at the North Star, and rotates around that exposing every part to the sun every day , except when you have midnight sun.
And what causes the midnight sun?
The axial tilt of the Earth.
Care to elaborate on how this happens.
The sun lights half the Earth at a time. Because of the tilt, the Antarctic or Arctic will be completely in the sunlight for a couple months a year. If there was no tilt, they would always be half lit, half unlit.
And this is why I'm telling you that the tilt is obviously orientating differently, which would be impossible.
It's going AROUND a BALL, as a BALL on a so called TILT.
What you should see is half the tilted earth lit as it spins on it's own so called axis and the so called south pole or most of it, would be in total darkness. In fact, it would be lifeless and frozen solid.
It's a very good con but it's fallible and yet people cannot see it, but if they put some real thought into my bottom diagram as opposed to the diagram above it that we are told happens...they will see how wrong the official one is and why it cannot work.
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd how earth is on it's axis and yet always points to polaris whilst on the supposed other half it points to the southern star, lol.
I mean, shouldn't people be thinking this would fit much better with a flat earth and seeing polaris as the direct light from the centre of earth's circle.
Tilting the earth at 23.5 degrees for crying out loud. It's great, because it accounts for what we see.
If all this made any sense, I would be shouting, " yes, we are being told the truth, it's clearly a globe."
The fact that I'm not, is because it's so embarrassingly nonsensical, it borders on the lunacy and yet anyone who thinks alternate to this, is the lunatic. lol
I mean...ask yourself, why should anyone who questions something be labelled a lunatic? I mean, why can't they just be wrong or told that their thinking doesn't fit?
Lunatic and all of its other likewise words are used, because it's the best way to stop people questioning it all.
I question why any round earther who has no intention of changing, would come to a flat earth forum and stay just to shout, " the earth is not flat", or whatever. It makes no sense at all, unless those people were genuinely curious about their own model, yet it's denied strongly by just about all on here, yet they still feel the need to PROTECT it at all costs and seem fearful that their model will be nibbled at and seen to be the ridiculous nonsense that it is.
Mmm, no we certainly question things. The difference between what everyone else does and what you do, is that after we question things we think about it and try to learn. You question things and then, having learned nothing, you say: well they do not make any sense at all! But really, its your questions that do not make much sense. This is what you do:
"How can the Earth be round? It looks flat to me! Let me look into this....bah! Its all hard and confusing, and when people explain things to me, I cannot understand them. Conspiracy!!!"
And yet, here you are answering to me. You need to re-think who you are typing to. I'm obviously never going to make sense to you, so what are you doing wasting your time with me? ;D
Don't embarrass yourself by answering to me, just talk with your own little crowd of WE'S.
-
It's a very good con but it's fallible and yet people cannot see it, but if they put some real thought into my bottom diagram as opposed to the diagram above it that we are told happens...they will see how wrong the official one is and why it cannot work.
The reason why we believe the RE model and not yours is exactly that we have put serious thought in it. Your reasoning is incredibly flawed, north pole points towards and away from the Sun at different times of the year exactly because it does not change it's orientation. If north pointed "left" it is summer when earth is to the "right side" of the sun, and when the earth is on the "left side" of the sun north is still tilted in the same direction, left, so it points away from the sun and then it's winter.
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd how earth is on it's axis and yet always points to polaris whilst on the supposed other half it points to the southern star, lol.
No. Because we understand this concept. Polaris is in no way a special star, it only happens to be located along the earth's rotational axis.
I mean, shouldn't people be thinking this would fit much better with a flat earth and seeing polaris as the direct light from the centre of earth's circle.
Tilting the earth at 23.5 degrees for crying out loud. It's great, because it accounts for what we see.
Yes, it accounts for what we see. And you think that proves that it's wrong??
If all this made any sense, I would be shouting, " yes, we are being told the truth, it's clearly a globe."
The fact that I'm not, is because it's so embarrassingly nonsensical, it borders on the lunacy and yet anyone who thinks alternate to this, is the lunatic. lol
I mean...ask yourself, why should anyone who questions something be labelled a lunatic? I mean, why can't they just be wrong or told that their thinking doesn't fit?
Lunatic and all of its other likewise words are used, because it's the best way to stop people questioning it all.
I question why any round earther who has no intention of changing, would come to a flat earth forum and stay just to shout, " the earth is not flat", or whatever. It makes no sense at all, unless those people were genuinely curious about their own model, yet it's denied strongly by just about all on here, yet they still feel the need to PROTECT it at all costs and seem fearful that their model will be nibbled at and seen to be the ridiculous nonsense that it is.
I don't think anyone here is equating lunacy with eagerness to question things. And as for why I (a "round earther") come here, well it's for the entertainment. I was shocked when you were leaving! I didn't come here for a long while, but have noticed that you're back! Yay!
-
The axis stays in the same position, pointing at the North Star, and rotates around that exposing every part to the sun every day , except when you have midnight sun.
And what causes the midnight sun?
The axial tilt of the Earth.
Care to elaborate on how this happens.
The sun lights half the Earth at a time. Because of the tilt, the Antarctic or Arctic will be completely in the sunlight for a couple months a year. If there was no tilt, they would always be half lit, half unlit.
And this is why I'm telling you that the tilt is obviously orientating differently, which would be impossible.
It's going AROUND a BALL, as a BALL on a so called TILT.
What you should see is half the tilted earth lit as it spins on it's own so called axis and the so called south pole or most of it, would be in total darkness. In fact, it would be lifeless and frozen solid.
It's a very good con but it's fallible and yet people cannot see it, but if they put some real thought into my bottom diagram as opposed to the diagram above it that we are told happens...they will see how wrong the official one is and why it cannot work.
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd how earth is on it's axis and yet always points to polaris whilst on the supposed other half it points to the southern star, lol.
I mean, shouldn't people be thinking this would fit much better with a flat earth and seeing polaris as the direct light from the centre of earth's circle.
Tilting the earth at 23.5 degrees for crying out loud. It's great, because it accounts for what we see.
If all this made any sense, I would be shouting, " yes, we are being told the truth, it's clearly a globe."
The fact that I'm not, is because it's so embarrassingly nonsensical, it borders on the lunacy and yet anyone who thinks alternate to this, is the lunatic. lol
I mean...ask yourself, why should anyone who questions something be labelled a lunatic? I mean, why can't they just be wrong or told that their thinking doesn't fit?
Lunatic and all of its other likewise words are used, because it's the best way to stop people questioning it all.
I question why any round earther who has no intention of changing, would come to a flat earth forum and stay just to shout, " the earth is not flat", or whatever. It makes no sense at all, unless those people were genuinely curious about their own model, yet it's denied strongly by just about all on here, yet they still feel the need to PROTECT it at all costs and seem fearful that their model will be nibbled at and seen to be the ridiculous nonsense that it is.
Mmm, no we certainly question things. The difference between what everyone else does and what you do, is that after we question things we think about it and try to learn. You question things and then, having learned nothing, you say: well they do not make any sense at all! But really, its your questions that do not make much sense. This is what you do:
"How can the Earth be round? It looks flat to me! Let me look into this....bah! Its all hard and confusing, and when people explain things to me, I cannot understand them. Conspiracy!!!"
And yet, here you are answering to me. You need to re-think who you are typing to. I'm obviously never going to make sense to you, so what are you doing wasting your time with me? ;D
Don't embarrass yourself by answering to me, just talk with your own little crowd of WE'S.
Oh yeah, I know you won't ever make sense to me. And I do not think it is a waste of time 8). You are quite interesting from a psychological point of view.
And I don't feel embarrassed at all. I feel amused.
-
Some of us have a very good imagination. And surprise, nothing is ever created without imagination.
-
And this is why I'm telling you that the tilt is obviously orientating differently, which would be impossible.
Yes, and hence the reason it is fixed, and not moving (which would be required to stay aligned with the sun).
It's going AROUND a BALL, as a BALL on a so called TILT.
What you should see is half the tilted earth lit as it spins on it's own so called axis and the so called south pole or most of it, would be in total darkness. In fact, it would be lifeless and frozen solid.
Which is not the case, because the tilt doesn't rotate with the sun.
It's a very good con but it's fallible and yet people cannot see it, but if they put some real thought into my bottom diagram as opposed to the diagram above it that we are told happens...they will see how wrong the official one is and why it cannot work.
And it's been explained why your bottom diagram does not reflect reality.
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd how earth is on it's axis and yet always points to polaris whilst on the supposed other half it points to the southern star, lol.
No. A sphere has two opposite sides, and those two points happened to be aligned with two distant objects. I don't see what's odd with that.
-
The axis stays in the same position, pointing at the North Star, and rotates around that exposing every part to the sun every day , except when you have midnight sun.
And what causes the midnight sun?
The axial tilt of the Earth.
Care to elaborate on how this happens.
The sun lights half the Earth at a time. Because of the tilt, the Antarctic or Arctic will be completely in the sunlight for a couple months a year. If there was no tilt, they would always be half lit, half unlit.
And this is why I'm telling you that the tilt is obviously orientating differently, which would be impossible.
It's going AROUND a BALL, as a BALL on a so called TILT.
What you should see is half the tilted earth lit as it spins on it's own so called axis and the so called south pole or most of it, would be in total darkness.
True, until
It comes to the other side of the orbit. Easily demonstrated with a flashlight and globe.
In fact, it would be lifeless and frozen solid.
That's your opinion which we know if based on ignorance.
It's a very good con but it's fallible and yet people cannot see it,
Because it's not a con.
but if they put some real thought into my bottom diagram as opposed to the diagram above it that we are told happens...they will see how wrong the official one is and why it cannot work.
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd how earth is on it's axis and yet always points to polaris whilst on the supposed other half it points to the southern star, lol.
Polaris is Polaris because of the axis tilt. Whatever star the Earth happened to be pointing at, if any, would have been named Polaris. There is no south star, Sigma Octantis is close, but not quite.
I mean, shouldn't people be thinking this would fit much better with a flat earth and seeing polaris as the direct light from the centre of earth's circle.
No.
Tilting the earth at 23.5 degrees for crying out loud. It's great, because it accounts for what we see.
If all this made any sense, I would be shouting, " yes, we are being told the truth, it's clearly a globe."
I doubt it.
The fact that I'm not, is because it's so embarrassingly nonsensical, it borders on the lunacy and yet anyone who thinks alternate to this, is the lunatic. lol
I mean...ask yourself, why should anyone who questions something be labelled a lunatic? I mean, why can't they just be wrong or told that their thinking doesn't fit?
Lunatic and all of its other likewise words are used, because it's the best way to stop people questioning it all.
I question why any round earther who has no intention of changing, would come to a flat earth forum and stay just to shout, " the earth is not flat", or whatever. It makes no sense at all, unless those people were genuinely curious about their own model, yet it's denied strongly by just about all on here, yet they still feel the need to PROTECT it at all costs and seem fearful that their model will be nibbled at and seen to be the ridiculous nonsense that it is.
I am curious about my model. I have learned more about it here than in any science class. I am also curious about people like you. It's worked out very well for me.
-
Enough with the "troll" accusation. Nobody here is trolling, it's called DEBATE. Not everyone thinks in a box.
Oh please. A debate would be Scepti explaining why I was able to do his "experiment", even with the convoluted rotation he insists must happen in reality, and still get a result where the football never changes it's orientation. (I can tell you why, but he won't)
A debate would be Scepti explaining what causes this convoluted rotation when the axis is tilted but not when the axis is perpendicular to it's orbit.
Instead, I'm labeled a "con man". ::)
No, there is no debate going on here. Scepti is either trolling, willfully blind or a stellar example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Period.
-
Enough with the "troll" accusation. Nobody here is trolling, it's called DEBATE. Not everyone thinks in a box.
Oh please. A debate would be Scepti explaining why I was able to do his "experiment", even with the convoluted rotation he insists must happen in reality, and still get a result where the football never changes it's orientation. (I can tell you why, but he won't)
A debate would be Scepti explaining what causes this convoluted rotation when the axis is tilted but not when the axis is perpendicular to it's orbit.
Instead, I'm labeled a "con man". ::)
No, there is no debate going on here. Scepti is either trolling, willfully blind or a stellar example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Period.
You're a con man. You didn't do the experiment, at all.
-
Enough with the "troll" accusation. Nobody here is trolling, it's called DEBATE. Not everyone thinks in a box.
Oh please. A debate would be Scepti explaining why I was able to do his "experiment", even with the convoluted rotation he insists must happen in reality, and still get a result where the football never changes it's orientation. (I can tell you why, but he won't)
A debate would be Scepti explaining what causes this convoluted rotation when the axis is tilted but not when the axis is perpendicular to it's orbit.
Instead, I'm labeled a "con man". ::)
No, there is no debate going on here. Scepti is either trolling, willfully blind or a stellar example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Period.
You're a con man. You didn't do the experiment, at all.
Do you have any evidence to back up your accusations. Your calling him a con man with no evidence to back you up.
Also Sceptimatic, why do you keep ignoring the evidence I post, even when I explained it you continued to ignore it.