The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Hortensius on July 08, 2010, 04:48:41 AM
-
This is what the FAQ section says:
Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"
A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.
Ok, what about hurricanes. On this large scale we DO observe the Coriolis effect. Why do hurricanes in the southern and northern hemispheres rotate in opposit directions? And why is it that this can be fully and easily explained with the spherical spinning earth model?
And if you are sceptical about the existance of oppositely spinning hurricanes, what about foucaults' pendulum?
-
This is what the FAQ section says:
Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"
A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.
Ok, what about hurricanes. On this large scale we DO observe the Coriolis effect. Why do hurricanes in the southern and northern hemispheres rotate in opposit directions? And why is it that this can be fully and easily explained with the spherical spinning earth model?
And if you are sceptical about the existance of oppositely spinning hurricanes, what about foucaults' pendulum?
Most foucaults pendulums have to be forced into working properly by magnets to meet the predictions of RE.
The simple answer to your question is the Coriolis effect is the result of the rotating source of gravitational pull of the heavens, the submoon, and the moon.
-
This is what the FAQ section says:
Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"
A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.
Ok, what about hurricanes. On this large scale we DO observe the Coriolis effect. Why do hurricanes in the southern and northern hemispheres rotate in opposit directions? And why is it that this can be fully and easily explained with the spherical spinning earth model?
And if you are sceptical about the existance of oppositely spinning hurricanes, what about foucaults' pendulum?
Most foucaults pendulums have to be forced into working properly by magnets to meet the predictions of RE.
The simple answer to your question is the Coriolis effect is the result of the rotating source of gravitational pull of the heavens, the submoon, and the moon.
Do you have any evidence of your claim that "Most foucaults pendulums have to be forced into working properly by magnets to meet the predictions of RE."?
Do you have any math to support your claim that the Moon causes any portion of the observed Coriolis Effect, or any evidence to correlate the two?
-
This is what the FAQ section says:
Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"
A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.
Ok, what about hurricanes. On this large scale we DO observe the Coriolis effect. Why do hurricanes in the southern and northern hemispheres rotate in opposit directions? And why is it that this can be fully and easily explained with the spherical spinning earth model?
And if you are sceptical about the existance of oppositely spinning hurricanes, what about foucaults' pendulum?
Most foucaults pendulums have to be forced into working properly by magnets to meet the predictions of RE.
The simple answer to your question is the Coriolis effect is the result of the rotating source of gravitational pull of the heavens, the submoon, and the moon.
Do you have any evidence of your claim that "Most foucaults pendulums have to be forced into working properly by magnets to meet the predictions of RE."?
Do you have any math to support your claim that the Moon causes any portion of the observed Coriolis Effect, or any evidence to correlate the two?
Yes, I've made several pendulums myself. Furthermore, most pendulums that are on display anywhere in the world are directed magnetically.
-
This is what the FAQ section says:
Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"
A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.
Ok, what about hurricanes. On this large scale we DO observe the Coriolis effect. Why do hurricanes in the southern and northern hemispheres rotate in opposit directions? And why is it that this can be fully and easily explained with the spherical spinning earth model?
And if you are sceptical about the existance of oppositely spinning hurricanes, what about foucaults' pendulum?
Most foucaults pendulums have to be forced into working properly by magnets to meet the predictions of RE.
The simple answer to your question is the Coriolis effect is the result of the rotating source of gravitational pull of the heavens, the submoon, and the moon.
Do you have any evidence of your claim that "Most foucaults pendulums have to be forced into working properly by magnets to meet the predictions of RE."?
Do you have any math to support your claim that the Moon causes any portion of the observed Coriolis Effect, or any evidence to correlate the two?
Yes, I've made several pendulums myself. Furthermore, most pendulums that are on display anywhere in the world are directed magnetically.
Again do you have any math to support your claim that the Moon cause any portion of the observed CE or any evidence to correlate the two? Do you have any experimental records of your pendulums? Do you have any evidence that "most pendulums that are on display anywhere in the world are directed magnetically"?
-
Do you really expect me to do a survey right now for 51% of the worlds foucault pendulums? I've already examined some and watched some in action as well as looked through the list in the past of foucault pendulums. Common sense dictates that unless its in an airtight vacuum room, then the pendulum will not behavior predictably. Those pendulums do. This is due to the magnets.
Yes I do I have math to support it. However, thinking about it should tell you that if the moon and submoon have a gravitational pulls they must play a part in it. They are minor parts, but they are still played. One can see their effect on the pendulums based on the current lunar and sublunar cycles.
-
Do you really expect me to do a survey right now for 51% of the worlds foucault pendulums? I've already examined some and watched some in action as well as looked through the list in the past of foucault pendulums. Common sense dictates that unless its in an airtight vacuum room, then the pendulum will not behavior predictably. Those pendulums do. This is due to the magnets.
Yes I do I have math to support it. However, thinking about it should tell you that if the moon and submoon have a gravitational pulls they must play a part in it. They are minor parts, but they are still played. One can see their effect on the pendulums based on the current lunar and sublunar cycles.
You really have to stop making claims you can't support. You said most of them were directed by magnets. Surely that means you have evidence to support that claim. I simply ask you to present it. Your appeal to nature ("Common sense dictates...") is a fallacy. Show us evidence that the pendulum will not behave predictably in normal museum air. Do provide the math to support your claim. I'd be interested in particular how you determined the distance to the submoon, its mass, its orbit, and its effect on the FE, if any. Do tell.
-
Do you really expect me to do a survey right now for 51% of the worlds foucault pendulums? I've already examined some and watched some in action as well as looked through the list in the past of foucault pendulums. Common sense dictates that unless its in an airtight vacuum room, then the pendulum will not behavior predictably. Those pendulums do. This is due to the magnets.
Yes I do I have math to support it. However, thinking about it should tell you that if the moon and submoon have a gravitational pulls they must play a part in it. They are minor parts, but they are still played. One can see their effect on the pendulums based on the current lunar and sublunar cycles.
You really have to stop making claims you can't support. You said most of them were directed by magnets. Surely that means you have evidence to support that claim. I simply ask you to present it. Your appeal to nature ("Common sense dictates...") is a fallacy. Show us evidence that the pendulum will not behave predictably in normal museum air. Do provide the math to support your claim. I'd be interested in particular how you determined the distance to the submoon, its mass, its orbit, and its effect on the FE, if any. Do tell.
You really need to read up if you wish to refute my claim. I've already done my research. You can research yourself if you wish. Don't expect me to do your work.
-
Do you really expect me to do a survey right now for 51% of the worlds foucault pendulums? I've already examined some and watched some in action as well as looked through the list in the past of foucault pendulums. Common sense dictates that unless its in an airtight vacuum room, then the pendulum will not behavior predictably. Those pendulums do. This is due to the magnets.
Yes I do I have math to support it. However, thinking about it should tell you that if the moon and submoon have a gravitational pulls they must play a part in it. They are minor parts, but they are still played. One can see their effect on the pendulums based on the current lunar and sublunar cycles.
You really have to stop making claims you can't support. You said most of them were directed by magnets. Surely that means you have evidence to support that claim. I simply ask you to present it. Your appeal to nature ("Common sense dictates...") is a fallacy. Show us evidence that the pendulum will not behave predictably in normal museum air. Do provide the math to support your claim. I'd be interested in particular how you determined the distance to the submoon, its mass, its orbit, and its effect on the FE, if any. Do tell.
You really need to read up if you wish to refute my claim. I've already done my research. You can research yourself if you wish. Don't expect me to do your work.
I didn't really expect you to be able to support your work, given your wild claims and horrible math.
-
Do you really expect me to do a survey right now for 51% of the worlds foucault pendulums? I've already examined some and watched some in action as well as looked through the list in the past of foucault pendulums. Common sense dictates that unless its in an airtight vacuum room, then the pendulum will not behavior predictably. Those pendulums do. This is due to the magnets.
Yes I do I have math to support it. However, thinking about it should tell you that if the moon and submoon have a gravitational pulls they must play a part in it. They are minor parts, but they are still played. One can see their effect on the pendulums based on the current lunar and sublunar cycles.
You really have to stop making claims you can't support. You said most of them were directed by magnets. Surely that means you have evidence to support that claim. I simply ask you to present it. Your appeal to nature ("Common sense dictates...") is a fallacy. Show us evidence that the pendulum will not behave predictably in normal museum air. Do provide the math to support your claim. I'd be interested in particular how you determined the distance to the submoon, its mass, its orbit, and its effect on the FE, if any. Do tell.
You really need to read up if you wish to refute my claim. I've already done my research. You can research yourself if you wish. Don't expect me to do your work.
I didn't really expect you to be able to support your work, given your wild claims and horrible math.
Which horrible math would that be?
-
I've already examined some and watched some in action as well as looked through the list in the past of foucault pendulums. Common sense dictates that unless its in an airtight vacuum room, then the pendulum will not behavior predictably. Those pendulums do. This is due to the magnets.
It's been said that there is nothing so uncommon as common sense. Part of what makes those pendulums so predictable is that their mass and the length of cable do a very good job of dampening most of the subtle external influences. The magnets are only to provide an extra "kick" to keep the pendulums moving for long periods of time and do not influence the path of the pendulum. Well built, unpowered pendulums can swing for 15 minutes or more. This is more than long enough to demonstrate the concept.
-
Do you really expect me to do a survey right now for 51% of the worlds foucault pendulums? I've already examined some and watched some in action as well as looked through the list in the past of foucault pendulums. Common sense dictates that unless its in an airtight vacuum room, then the pendulum will not behavior predictably. Those pendulums do. This is due to the magnets.
Yes I do I have math to support it. However, thinking about it should tell you that if the moon and submoon have a gravitational pulls they must play a part in it. They are minor parts, but they are still played. One can see their effect on the pendulums based on the current lunar and sublunar cycles.
You really have to stop making claims you can't support. You said most of them were directed by magnets. Surely that means you have evidence to support that claim. I simply ask you to present it. Your appeal to nature ("Common sense dictates...") is a fallacy. Show us evidence that the pendulum will not behave predictably in normal museum air. Do provide the math to support your claim. I'd be interested in particular how you determined the distance to the submoon, its mass, its orbit, and its effect on the FE, if any. Do tell.
You really need to read up if you wish to refute my claim. I've already done my research. You can research yourself if you wish. Don't expect me to do your work.
I didn't really expect you to be able to support your work, given your wild claims and horrible math.
Which horrible math would that be?
The math you've presented today in this forums.
-
I've already examined some and watched some in action as well as looked through the list in the past of foucault pendulums. Common sense dictates that unless its in an airtight vacuum room, then the pendulum will not behavior predictably. Those pendulums do. This is due to the magnets.
It's been said that there is nothing so uncommon as common sense. Part of what makes those pendulums so predictable is that their mass and the length of cable do a very good job of dampening most of the subtle external influences. The magnets are only to provide an extra "kick" to keep the pendulums moving for long periods of time and do not influence the path of the pendulum. Well built, unpowered pendulums can swing for 15 minutes or more. This is more than long enough to demonstrate the concept.
The concept is not what needs demonstrating.
-
Do you really expect me to do a survey right now for 51% of the worlds foucault pendulums? I've already examined some and watched some in action as well as looked through the list in the past of foucault pendulums. Common sense dictates that unless its in an airtight vacuum room, then the pendulum will not behavior predictably. Those pendulums do. This is due to the magnets.
Yes I do I have math to support it. However, thinking about it should tell you that if the moon and submoon have a gravitational pulls they must play a part in it. They are minor parts, but they are still played. One can see their effect on the pendulums based on the current lunar and sublunar cycles.
You really have to stop making claims you can't support. You said most of them were directed by magnets. Surely that means you have evidence to support that claim. I simply ask you to present it. Your appeal to nature ("Common sense dictates...") is a fallacy. Show us evidence that the pendulum will not behave predictably in normal museum air. Do provide the math to support your claim. I'd be interested in particular how you determined the distance to the submoon, its mass, its orbit, and its effect on the FE, if any. Do tell.
You really need to read up if you wish to refute my claim. I've already done my research. You can research yourself if you wish. Don't expect me to do your work.
I didn't really expect you to be able to support your work, given your wild claims and horrible math.
Which horrible math would that be?
The math you've presented today in this forums.
Are you referring to Gauss's law?
-
Do you really expect me to do a survey right now for 51% of the worlds foucault pendulums? I've already examined some and watched some in action as well as looked through the list in the past of foucault pendulums. Common sense dictates that unless its in an airtight vacuum room, then the pendulum will not behavior predictably. Those pendulums do. This is due to the magnets.
Yes I do I have math to support it. However, thinking about it should tell you that if the moon and submoon have a gravitational pulls they must play a part in it. They are minor parts, but they are still played. One can see their effect on the pendulums based on the current lunar and sublunar cycles.
You really have to stop making claims you can't support. You said most of them were directed by magnets. Surely that means you have evidence to support that claim. I simply ask you to present it. Your appeal to nature ("Common sense dictates...") is a fallacy. Show us evidence that the pendulum will not behave predictably in normal museum air. Do provide the math to support your claim. I'd be interested in particular how you determined the distance to the submoon, its mass, its orbit, and its effect on the FE, if any. Do tell.
You really need to read up if you wish to refute my claim. I've already done my research. You can research yourself if you wish. Don't expect me to do your work.
I didn't really expect you to be able to support your work, given your wild claims and horrible math.
Which horrible math would that be?
The math you've presented today in this forums.
Are you referring to Gauss's law?
Are you trying to apply Gauss's Law without considering what S must be for the special case?
-
I'm applying it perfectly fine. The appropriate shape for an infinite plane would be a pillbox.
-
I'm applying it perfectly fine. The appropriate shape for an infinite plane would be a pillbox.
Then don't be so silly as to use the formula for the special case of a finite sphere as your first equation and be talking about an infinite slab (BTW it's a slab not a plane.).
-
I'm applying it perfectly fine. The appropriate shape for an infinite plane would be a pillbox.
Then don't be so silly as to use the formula for the special case of a finite sphere as your first equation and be talking about an infinite slab (BTW it's a slab not a plane.).
This case is a plane. I can do the math for a slab if you'd like but it comes up the same. I used the proper formula.
-
I'm applying it perfectly fine. The appropriate shape for an infinite plane would be a pillbox.
Then don't be so silly as to use the formula for the special case of a finite sphere as your first equation and be talking about an infinite slab (BTW it's a slab not a plane.).
This case is a plane. I can do the math for a slab if you'd like but it comes up the same. I used the proper formula.
Do tell us: How is the FE a plane now? I guess we better tell BP not to worry about that well since it's not even on the FE plane; it must be below the FE and out of this world. Do tell us how any two dimensional object like a plane has mass at all, as we're really curious. I suggest that you publish these amazing results right away. I see a Nobel in your future if you're right.
-
I'm applying it perfectly fine. The appropriate shape for an infinite plane would be a pillbox.
Then don't be so silly as to use the formula for the special case of a finite sphere as your first equation and be talking about an infinite slab (BTW it's a slab not a plane.).
This case is a plane. I can do the math for a slab if you'd like but it comes up the same. I used the proper formula.
Do tell us: How is the FE a plane now? I guess we better tell BP not to worry about that well since it's not even on the FE plane; it must be below the FE and out of this world. Do tell us how any two dimensional object like a plane has mass at all, as we're really curious. I suggest that you publish these amazing results right away. I see a Nobel in your future if you're right.
Please tell me how a slab can exist out in the world?
No mathematical constructs exist in the world. Gaussian surfaces don't, but you don't seem to have an issue using those either?
-
This is what the FAQ section says:
Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"
A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.
Ok, what about hurricanes. On this large scale we DO observe the Coriolis effect. Why do hurricanes in the southern and northern hemispheres rotate in opposit directions? And why is it that this can be fully and easily explained with the spherical spinning earth model?
And if you are sceptical about the existance of oppositely spinning hurricanes, what about foucaults' pendulum?
Most foucaults pendulums have to be forced into working properly by magnets to meet the predictions of RE.
The simple answer to your question is the Coriolis effect is the result of the rotating source of gravitational pull of the heavens, the submoon, and the moon.
This is incorrect.
If the earth was not spinning, then the pedulum in air resistance would not have any positive angular momentum relative to the earth on the azimuth angle.
-
I'm applying it perfectly fine. The appropriate shape for an infinite plane would be a pillbox.
Then don't be so silly as to use the formula for the special case of a finite sphere as your first equation and be talking about an infinite slab (BTW it's a slab not a plane.).
This case is a plane. I can do the math for a slab if you'd like but it comes up the same. I used the proper formula.
Do tell us: How is the FE a plane now? I guess we better tell BP not to worry about that well since it's not even on the FE plane; it must be below the FE and out of this world. Do tell us how any two dimensional object like a plane has mass at all, as we're really curious. I suggest that you publish these amazing results right away. I see a Nobel in your future if you're right.
Please tell me how a slab can exist out in the world?
No mathematical constructs exist in the world. Gaussian surfaces don't, but you don't seem to have an issue using those either?
Again no answer to our question, why I am not surprised? Slabs exits in all sorts of places. Are you having trouble finding slabs? Many constructs exist in the world, but I think you're just trying to derail the thread. So let me ask everyone here to ask you: Do you believe in the first formula in your post and its origin? Do you understand that the formula is true only if the Earth is a sphere?
-
Do you understand that the formula is true only if the Earth is a sphere?
This is not the case and can not be shown to be the case.
-
Do you understand that the formula is true only if the Earth is a sphere?
This is not the case and can not be shown to be the case.
Go ahead and show us the proof for Newton's Law of Gravitation with the assumption that the Earth is flat. We'll be waiting. Cue Jeopardy! Theme here. All the proofs I see require that some celestial body orbit another. Nowhere in FE is there an example to provide you with experimental evidence to allow you to support NLoG. Do tell us when you've found it.
-
This is what the FAQ section says:
Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"
A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.
Ok, what about hurricanes. On this large scale we DO observe the Coriolis effect. Why do hurricanes in the southern and northern hemispheres rotate in opposit directions? And why is it that this can be fully and easily explained with the spherical spinning earth model?
And if you are sceptical about the existance of oppositely spinning hurricanes, what about foucaults' pendulum?
Please read my GEOCENTRIC CORIOLIS FORCE message...also my work on the Foucault's pendulum...
-
Please read my GEOCENTRIC CORIOLIS FORCE message...also my work on the Foucault's pendulum...
I can't find it
-
Do you understand that the formula is true only if the Earth is a sphere?
Not true
-
Do you understand that the formula is true only if the Earth is a sphere?
Not true
Please provide any evidence that you have that Newton's Law of Gravitation is true if the Earth is not a sphere. Thanks.
-
Do you understand that the formula is true only if the Earth is a sphere?
Not true
Please provide any evidence that you have that Newton's Law of Gravitation is true if the Earth is not a sphere. Thanks.
Newtons law of gravitation is a general mathematical description of the gravitational force between two point masses with known masses and with known positions with respect to each other. If you want to calculate the gravitational field of a sphere, you simply add up the gravitational force contributions of all the point masses in the sphere, with respect to some point in space. Get that? I wish I could write maths here, but its not possible...
Lets say you stand on a spherical planet. Each mass element, each particle inside the planet exerts a gravitational force on your body. The total force acting on your body is simply the sum of contributions from all particles inside the planet. Anyway, the same goes for a plane slab, or for a pyramid or a cube or for any shape you prefer. You don't need a sphere, the physics is the same...
A sphere has one nice property though! One can proof that (because of the spherical symmetry of a sphere) the gravitational field of a sphere, outside the sphere, is the same as the gravitational field of a single particle (with an equal mass as that of the sphere) that would be located at the center of the sphere. In this way, the gravitational field of a sphere as a whole is described by the same well known expression for Newtons gravitation of a point mass. This is not true for general shapes...
Still Newtonian gravity works fine for any geometry or shape...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
-
Do you understand that the formula is true only if the Earth is a sphere?
Not true
Please provide any evidence that you have that Newton's Law of Gravitation is true if the Earth is not a sphere. Thanks.
Newtons law of gravitation is a general mathematical description of the gravitational force between two mass elements with known masses and with known positions with respect to each other. If you want to calculate the gravitational field of a sphere, you simply add up the gravitational force contributions of all the mass elements in the sphere, with respect to some point in space. Get that? I wish I could write maths here, but its not possible...
Lets say you stand on a spherical planet. Each mass element, each particle inside the planet exerts a gravitational force on your body. The total force acting on your body is simply the sum of contributions from all particles inside the planet. Anyway, the same goes for a plane slab, or for a pyramid or a cube or for any shape you prefer. You don't need a sphere...
UNDER CONSTRUCTION ;)
You misconstrue my point. Unless you have some evidence to support NLoG, you don't have NLoG to explain the gravitation on the FE. The collection of the evidence support Newton's formula iff the Earth is a sphere. For example, a test of NLoG might be to predict the orbital speed of Venus. But you can't do that test in FET as Venus travels on Nexus lines and doesn't obey NLoG. With tests for this nature, NLoG remains unproven under FET and unavailable to FEers. You can't both deny the evidence of NLoG and use NLoG.
-
For example, a test of NLoG might be to predict the orbital speed of Venus. But you can't do that test in FET as Venus travels on Nexus lines and doesn't obey NLoG.
Ah, right. I understand your point now. No, I don't think FET + Newtonian gravity can account for the planetary orbits or things like that...
-
For example, a test of NLoG might be to predict the orbital speed of Venus. But you can't do that test in FET as Venus travels on Nexus lines and doesn't obey NLoG.
Ah, right. I understand your point now. No, I don't think FET + Newtonian gravity can account for the planetary orbits or things like that...
Thanks!