The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Battery72 on August 16, 2012, 04:29:32 AM

Title: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on August 16, 2012, 04:29:32 AM
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980218d.html (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980218d.html)

HOW THEY PROVE THE EARTH ROTATES (REVISED VERSION) (http://#)

What do you think?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 16, 2012, 09:47:21 AM
Does the Earth rotate in FET?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: markjo on August 16, 2012, 10:37:35 AM
The general consensus among FE'ers is no.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 11:20:33 AM
The general consensus among FE'ers is no.

Has the pendulum argument been used here before?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: iwanttobelieve on August 16, 2012, 11:58:10 AM
this could also be explained due to the uneven mass of the earth, the earth tilts back and forth in its upward acceleration. (this could also explain the apparant "setting" of the sun)
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 12:02:24 PM
this could also be explained due to the uneven mass of the earth, the earth tilts back and forth in its upward acceleration. (this could also explain the apparant "setting" of the sun)

This would require a consistent, oscillating rocking back and forth. Every human on earth would also be effected by it, it's not the same as centripetal acceleration, which is what makes a pendulum function in this way. It would also require a consistent gravitational pull from another flat plane or VERY large, very distant body underneath a flat earth.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2012, 12:03:32 PM
The heavens exhibit a slight pull as they rotate, which causes the pendulum to rotate at one rotation per 24 hours, and is the cause of large swirling wind and water systems.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 12:04:45 PM
The heavens exhibit a slight pull as they rotate, which causes the pendulum to rotate at one rotation per 24 hours, and is the cause of swirling wind stems.

Source?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2012, 12:15:45 PM
The heavens exhibit a slight pull as they rotate, which causes the pendulum to rotate at one rotation per 24 hours, and is the cause of swirling wind stems.

Source?

Look up Match's Principle. Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."

From Amir D. Aczel, Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the triumph of science (http://books.google.com/books?id=kvGt2OlUnQ4C&lpg=PA207&ots=wCVb9hZqLj&dq=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&f=false)
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 12:37:56 PM
The heavens exhibit a slight pull as they rotate, which causes the pendulum to rotate at one rotation per 24 hours, and is the cause of swirling wind stems.

Source?

No FE'er has ever been able to provide data as to which direction the pull happens in, what bodies are doing the pulling, and why this would create the Foucault effect. "The heavens" is as specific as you're going to get, thogh since they are equal in every direction it's not clear how they don't cancel themselves out.
Further terrible arguments against the Foucault Pendulum are that every single one ever constructed has been built with a faking mechanism implanted by the Conspiracy in order to create the effect. I'm not making this up, that was the best they could do.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: garygreen on August 16, 2012, 12:41:31 PM
i dont get how FEers can use things like the equivalence principle and machs principle to justify their claims.

1. you think science is methodologically flawed.

2. those principles are inseparable from their foundations and assumptions, all of which you wont accept.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 12:50:34 PM
The heavens exhibit a slight pull as they rotate, which causes the pendulum to rotate at one rotation per 24 hours, and is the cause of swirling wind stems.

Source?

Look up Match's Principle. Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."

From Amir D. Aczel, Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the triumph of science (http://books.google.com/books?id=kvGt2OlUnQ4C&lpg=PA207&ots=wCVb9hZqLj&dq=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&f=false)

So you do accept scientific theories as a part of reality then. I thought all scientists did was guess at things and take potshots at the trashcan with waste paper?

Plus, that source is all chopped up, I can't get a clear understanding of what Mach's principle is if I have less than 1/4 of the book to read. I'm sorry. I'll have to find it somewhere else.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 01:24:05 PM
Source?

No FE'er has ever been able to provide data as to which direction the pull happens in, what bodies are doing the pulling, and why this would create the Foucault effect. "The heavens" is as specific as you're going to get, thogh since they are equal in every direction it's not clear how they don't cancel themselves out.
Your continual inability to wrap your head around Mach's Principle really isn't my problem.

Quote
Further terrible arguments against the Foucault Pendulum are that every single one ever constructed has been built with a faking mechanism implanted by the Conspiracy in order to create the effect. I'm not making this up, that was the best they could do.
No, you were told and still refuse to believe that the large museum pieces all use electromagnets that kick them at a set interval. You are making things up, and your next vacation may be longer than your last few.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Megaman on August 16, 2012, 01:47:53 PM
The heavens exhibit a slight pull as they rotate, which causes the pendulum to rotate at one rotation per 24 hours, and is the cause of swirling wind stems.

Source?

Look up Match's Principle. Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."

From Amir D. Aczel, Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the triumph of science (http://books.google.com/books?id=kvGt2OlUnQ4C&lpg=PA207&ots=wCVb9hZqLj&dq=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&f=false)

If it were caused by gravity of heavenly bodies then wouldn't foucault pendulums in the same general location slowly start to sync up?

i.e. if one was started North to South and another was started East to West wouldn't  their apparent rotations slowly converge until they are swinging in the same direction at the same time? 

Just an idea. I think it would make a cool experiment if this is valid.

Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 01:52:17 PM
The heavens exhibit a slight pull as they rotate, which causes the pendulum to rotate at one rotation per 24 hours, and is the cause of swirling wind stems.

Source?

Look up Match's Principle. Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."

From Amir D. Aczel, Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the triumph of science (http://books.google.com/books?id=kvGt2OlUnQ4C&lpg=PA207&ots=wCVb9hZqLj&dq=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&f=false)

If it were caused by gravity of heavenly bodies then wouldn't foucault pendulums in the same general location slowly start to sync up?

i.e. if one was started North to South and another was started East to West wouldn't  their apparent rotations slowly converge until they are swinging in the same direction at the same time? 

Just an idea. I think it would make a cool experiment if this is valid.

That would be an interesting experiment. You could include the oceans in this, place some pendulums nearby to the ocean, and see if there motions converge with the tides. It would be very impressive if this were to be true.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 01:54:04 PM
Mach's Principle has nothing to do with gravity!
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 01:56:14 PM
Mach's Principle has nothing to do with gravity!

Then I think Tom needs a beating for, again, intentionally misrepresenting information. I did not bother to read all of the scatterings of information from the pieces of the book that he used as a source.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Megaman on August 16, 2012, 02:02:46 PM
The heavens exhibit a slight pull as they rotate, which causes the pendulum to rotate at one rotation per 24 hours, and is the cause of large swirling wind and water systems.

I was wondering if you could clarify this.

If the apparent rotation of a foucault pendulum is caused by the pull of the heavens rotating over a flat earth, how is it possible that a foucault pendulum placed at the equator has no apparent rotation?

Furthermore, how is it possible that as you move away from the equator (North or SOUTH), the apparent rotational period of a foucault pendulum decreases?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 02:04:25 PM
No, you were told and still refuse to believe that the large museum pieces all use electromagnets that kick them at a set interval. You are making things up, and your next vacation may be longer than your last few.

Sorry, implying a bam threat for a post that is completely on topic and breaches no forum rule is the sign of very very poor moderating abilities.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: trig on August 16, 2012, 03:30:14 PM
Quote
Further terrible arguments against the Foucault Pendulum are that every single one ever constructed has been built with a faking mechanism implanted by the Conspiracy in order to create the effect. I'm not making this up, that was the best they could do.
No, you were told and still refuse to believe that the large museum pieces all use electromagnets that kick them at a set interval. You are making things up, and your next vacation may be longer than your last few.
No. You are the one who wants to see something strange in the electromagnetic mechanism that is needed so you don't have to give the pendulum a push every few hours.

You can make your own pendulum and not put any electromagnetic mechanism to counteract drag. In the few hours it takes to settle, the pendulum will have already shown you if the Earth is flat or round, and it is a relatively inexpensive, simple experiment to do in any school or university, especially if you live in Europe or the US.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 03:37:58 PM
Quote
Further terrible arguments against the Foucault Pendulum are that every single one ever constructed has been built with a faking mechanism implanted by the Conspiracy in order to create the effect. I'm not making this up, that was the best they could do.
No, you were told and still refuse to believe that the large museum pieces all use electromagnets that kick them at a set interval. You are making things up, and your next vacation may be longer than your last few.
No. You are the one who wants to see something strange in the electromagnetic mechanism that is needed so you don't have to give the pendulum a push every few hours.

You can make your own pendulum and not put any electromagnetic mechanism to counteract drag. In the few hours it takes to settle, the pendulum will have already shown you if the Earth is flat or round, and it is a relatively inexpensive, simple experiment to do in any school or university, especially if you live in Europe or the US.

FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much, apparently.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 05:52:41 PM
Quote
Further terrible arguments against the Foucault Pendulum are that every single one ever constructed has been built with a faking mechanism implanted by the Conspiracy in order to create the effect. I'm not making this up, that was the best they could do.
No, you were told and still refuse to believe that the large museum pieces all use electromagnets that kick them at a set interval. You are making things up, and your next vacation may be longer than your last few.
No. You are the one who wants to see something strange in the electromagnetic mechanism that is needed so you don't have to give the pendulum a push every few hours.

You can make your own pendulum and not put any electromagnetic mechanism to counteract drag. In the few hours it takes to settle, the pendulum will have already shown you if the Earth is flat or round, and it is a relatively inexpensive, simple experiment to do in any school or university, especially if you live in Europe or the US.

I never disputed that Foucault's pendulum works. I simply refuted the strawman you and others are foisting.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Megaman on August 16, 2012, 06:15:12 PM
Since we all agree that it works, can we get back to the main topic.

Namely that FE's theory can't accurately explain the behavior of Foucault pendulums.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 06:31:08 PM
Look up Match's Principle.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Megaman on August 16, 2012, 06:41:06 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but I saw nothing in mach's principle that would account for a Foucault pendulum having different rotational periods based on its longitude.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 06:51:21 PM
Then yes, you missed something.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Megaman on August 16, 2012, 07:02:33 PM
Wow, that was so helpful! Thanks man!  :D
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 17, 2012, 05:33:38 AM
Look up Match's Principle.

How exactly does mach's principle pertain to the rotational period of a pendulum? Last I knew it pertained to the "sound barrier."
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: trig on August 17, 2012, 08:43:18 AM
Maybe I'm missing something but I saw nothing in mach's principle that would account for a Foucault pendulum having different rotational periods based on its longitude.
Yes, you are missing the fact that FE'ers do not understand Mach's Principle enough to make their case. They can only say "look at Mach's Principle", just like they would say "look at that ink blot test until you see a butterfly". To my knowledge, Mach's Principle has never gotten to the point where a specific experiment can either falsify or verify the principle. It is not like Special Relativity or General Relativity, which are inspired in the Mach Principle but are falsifiable and have been tested with experiments or observations.

In particular, Mach's Principle does not even give a hint at exact formulas to predict Focault's Pendulum's movements, but the simple Laws of Motion by Newton, plus the known facts about the Earth and its motions, accurately predict the movements of Foucault's Pendulum. GR would be an improvement, but it would be such a small one that it is not worth the trouble.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: garygreen on August 17, 2012, 09:14:16 AM
Mach is really only saying that there is no privileged inertial frame, and that the Earth rotates not with respect to Newtonian, absolute space, but with respect to all of the other masses in the universe.  Since there is no privileged frame of reference for motion, it makes as much sense to say that the heavens are rotating around us as it does to say that the Earth is rotating.  It's not at all suggesting that the Earth could just as well be flat, nor that the shape, size, location, and surroundings of the Earth are different from the scientific description. 

The point is that Mach's principle still only explains Foucault pendulums if the Earth is a spheroid.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on August 17, 2012, 03:30:18 PM
Mach explains that inertia is relative to the observed. This is exactly what we see here on earth with the Foucault pendulum. But you were correct that Mach was not challenging accepted Orthodoxy as it relates to the shape of the earth. I did not claim he was.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 17, 2012, 03:39:59 PM
Using Mach's principle on a flat earth is problematic.  It only works if the two scenarios appear exactly the same.  Either the earth is spinning, or the entire rest of the universe is spinning around the earth. 

With a flat earth, though, we have a problem.  The northern and southern hemiplanes (whatever you want to call them) would need to spin in opposite directions.  Making the sky over the hemiplanes spin in opposite directions instead does not appear exactly the same.  Mach's principle makes little sense in this situation.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on August 17, 2012, 03:58:19 PM
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 17, 2012, 04:07:29 PM
Except that what's observed is not the same as the two hemiplanes rotating in opposite directions and meeting at the equator like two giant gears.  How this would physically work in the real world is mind-boggling.  The two hemiplanes would only meet at a single point, meaning there would only be one constantly changing spot at the equator where it would be possible to cross over.  Unless the two hemiplanes were constantly smushing into each other, but I imagine that would make a lot of noise.

Mach's principle makes sense on a round earth because whether the rest of the universe is rotating around the earth, or the earth is rotating, what's observed appears exactly the same.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on August 17, 2012, 09:27:16 PM
Check this out

Lockheed U-2 Flight - 70,000ft (2 Seat TU-2 Trainer) (http://#ws)
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: BoatswainsMate on August 17, 2012, 10:42:00 PM
Well, I dont know about anyone els, but I dont see a flat Earth. It curves. Nice video. I am sure as schnitzel that someone will claim that "it looks flat"
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 18, 2012, 05:40:04 AM
I'd also like to point out that even if both hemiplanes were rotating in opposite direction, the sky wouldn't look right.  We would see the stars only rotating around the south pole in the southern hemiplane, or around the north pole in the northern hemiplane.  Shots taken from the equator, where you can clearly see that there are two axes of rotation would be impossible.

So yeah, Mach's principle doesn't make much sense since there's no analogous movement of the earth that would create the same appearance as having the sky gears over the poles. 

I suppose you could have the southern hemiplane be the bottom half of the disc, though, but you'd think people might notice the sharp, sudden turn at the equator as they moved to the bottom half of the disc.  Unless we somehow rounded the disc, making it, hmm, a sphere perhaps.

I can draw pictures if any of the FEers who have been relying on Mach's principle to explain the coriolis effect aren't getting this.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Moon squirter on August 18, 2012, 08:34:32 AM
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.

Can you please provide evidence that the heavens "diverge" at certain places.  I have never seen any record of this in astronomy through the millennia.  This could be of real scientific importance.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: KristaGurl on August 20, 2012, 08:42:28 AM
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.

This is stupid.  Do you not understand that Mach's principle does not prove at ALL that a pendulum works because the stars are pulling it on a flat earth?  Yes, Mach's principle is correct, but it does not prove that the stars would have that kind of effect on a pendulum.  Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the sun or moon override that power?  I mean, to me... if the stars are as close as FE'ers think, they would be WAY too small to have any kind of effect on a pendulum.  What you guys are doing is called misdirection.  You're trying to get us to focus on the idea of Mach's principle without proving that Mach's principle really has anything at all to do with how a pendulum works.  Again... this is circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on August 30, 2012, 01:21:03 AM
Aren't you saying that the pendulum's movement is not inertial?  :-\
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on August 30, 2012, 01:22:05 AM
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.

Can you please provide evidence that the heavens "diverge" at certain places.  I have never seen any record of this in astronomy through the millennia.  This could be of real scientific importance.

Note the divergent paths of the stars at the equator:
(http://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/screen/paranal-trail-ut1-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: sandokhan on August 30, 2012, 02:12:34 AM
It is very easy to prove that the Earth is absolutely stationary; that is, it does not rotate around its own axis. Perhaps then the RE will be asking themselves the question: if the Earth is indeed stationary, what is its real shape?

Of course it would really help if the official faq would be replaced completely with the data I have amassed here; ISS/Atlantis do really orbit, as do the satellites, the sun rises and sets, the real sun-earth distance, the heavenly body which actually causes the solar eclipses, the northern/southern stellar circumpolar constellations/regular stellar paths and the REAL FE map, and much more.


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143#p34382 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143#p34382)

The most complete, up-to-date demonstration of the fact that the trajectories of the clouds are absolutely incompatible with an Earth that would rotate around its own axis; it includes the data from the freelists archive on the angular momentum, boundary layer and much more.


http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm (http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm)

Restoring Forces Paradox by Dr. Neville Jones, one of the most superb arguments for the fact that the Earth is actually stationary.


From Cosmos without Gravitation:

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”

This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


The atmospheric pressure does not obey an attractive gravitational law:

SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.


Foucault's Pendulum explained:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374)


Geocentric Coriolis force:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747)


G.B. Airy experiment, stellar parallax/aberration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580)

"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)


Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.



Ring Laser Gyroscopes and the Telluric Currents/Ether:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899)


I was the first to explain that there are three kinds of stellar orbits.

Here is the photograph to prove it:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0903/5hOHPsanterne900.jpg (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0903/5hOHPsanterne900.jpg)

See the following links for complete explanations:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p34143 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p34143)
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33509 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33509)
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33520 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33520)
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 30, 2012, 03:22:31 AM
Of course, its utter bullshit.

Some of it is very disturbing, such as the site http://www.realityreviewed.com/ (http://www.realityreviewed.com/) which says on the opening page:

"There is a very real and serious danger that the Zionist/Nazi regimes of Britain, the United States and so-called 'Israel' are going to commit another false flag atrocity in London, with a view to pinning the blame upon Iran/Syria and/or Venezuela and thus starting World War III. Under the dark shadow of what will be a short and very bloody war, Canaan (i.e., Palestine, or so-called 'Israel') will be deliberately destroyed by the Zionist regimes, again spouting the lie that "Iran did it." Thus 6 million Jews, that superstitious, magic number, will finally be a valid victim count from a real holocaust. This real holocaust of the Jews will usher in the return of the Devil itself, the god of the Zionists (see the article on 'Vati-Canus' on this site). England will then become 'Zion' and London will be the 'New Jerusalem'."

The rest of the site is a collection of Conspirationism, twisted taws of physics and lies.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 05:32:08 AM
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.

Can you please provide evidence that the heavens "diverge" at certain places.  I have never seen any record of this in astronomy through the millennia.  This could be of real scientific importance.

Note the divergent paths of the stars at the equator:
(http://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/screen/paranal-trail-ut1-4.jpg)

That doesn't look like divergent paths to me. It looks like they appear to move in a straight line.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: hoppy on August 30, 2012, 06:05:25 AM
I just watched the OP video again. It says near the beginning of video that the pemdulum is mounted on bearing that don't turn with the earth. How can that be unless they are using a motor to turn the bearing against the "earth's rotation".  What kind of bearing would not turn with the earth and the bldg?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 06:20:33 AM
I just watched the OP video again. It says near the beginning of video that the pemdulum is mounted on bearing that don't turn with the earth. How can that be unless they are using a motor to turn the bearing against the "earth's rotation".  What kind of bearing would not turn with the earth and the bldg?

A ball bearing like you'd find on a hard drive, skate board, car, bike, motorcycle, yo yo, almost any lawn/yard/farm/industrial machine. They moved quite freely, and you'll notice that if you dangle the object from the bearing, and turn your hand, the object will not turn with it. I didn't look up to see what type of bearing it uses, but this one seems to make the most sense to me.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: trig on September 03, 2012, 09:30:47 AM
Note the divergent paths of the stars at the equator:
(http://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/screen/paranal-trail-ut1-4.jpg)
This photograph, as well as many other similar ones, are not made by simply opening the shutter and waiting a few hours. Until a few years ago every single photo of this kind you could find showed the stars moving exactly as expected: drawing concentric circles.

The photographer here did not even try to conceal the fact that he did much more than placing a camera on a tripod and opening the shutter. Notice how the buildings do not appear vertical?

I do not know the exact details of this technique, but it is not designed to show exact paths of stars, it is designed to be art. It is, in reality, a digital composition from multiple shots, and I have shown the explanations of the photographers of similar photos in this forum.

Now, get us a photo with the photographer's explanation of the technique, or take a photo yourself.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2012, 10:19:00 AM
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: The Knowledge on September 03, 2012, 05:09:41 PM
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.

There is no divergence. The angular distance between each star remains constant. Ichimaru Gin can confirm this with his Celestron computer controlled star tracking telescope, which could not function if stellar divergence occurred.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: trig on September 03, 2012, 05:24:03 PM
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.
This is, as everything Tom Bishop says, just the poorly analyzed imagination of an intellectually lazy person with a pet theory.

As told earlier, the stars, all of them, make a circle on the sky at the rate of one full circle per day. All those circles are concentric (no divergence). And the only divergence comes from the distortion caused by the atmosphere from some 15 degrees above the horizon down to the horizon. And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above. The maximum divergence is about a half of one degree (too small to see in a photograph taken without camera movement).
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2012, 06:21:24 PM
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: The Knowledge on September 03, 2012, 06:25:49 PM
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?

No. Fail harder.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 03, 2012, 10:01:30 PM
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?

For heaven's sake, don't question the clergy of science. You know how it upsets the masses.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on September 03, 2012, 10:22:56 PM
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.

Have you been to the the equator recently Tom? Show us some time lapse video.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2012, 10:26:27 PM
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.

Have you been to the the equator recently Tom? Show us some time lapse video.

Do a search for star trails of the celestial equator:

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtkreu/6686990851/#lightbox/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtkreu/6686990851/#lightbox/)

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html)

You can clearly see that the stars diverge, in contradiction to what should happen if the earth were round according to Trig and co.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 03, 2012, 10:30:21 PM
I also find it terribly ironic that the only defense I've seen thus far was that the picture was fake...
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Moon squirter on September 03, 2012, 11:17:21 PM
I also find it terribly ironic that the only defense I've seen thus far was that the picture was fake...

Erm... If I were inside a rotating celestial dome of stars and took a picture of the celestial equator with a wide angle lens, I would expect to see evidence of the stars rotating around both celestial poles on the left and right of the image.

Mapping the inside of a celestial sphere onto a flat image presents the same type of problems as mapping a globe onto a map. If you are inside the sphere, a flat image will present predictable distortions.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: trig on September 04, 2012, 01:32:46 AM
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?
The distorted composite of several photographs that shows totally distorted buildings is not a proof or disproof of anything.

If anything, it is indirectly proving that you will use any graphic material, with no concern at all for the circumstances, technique or equipment used, to try to save your dead theory. In a photograph that looks a lot like this one the photographer explicitly told that it was a composite of many photos, compiled into one for artistic purposes. And I showed the link to this information in this forum.

Now that another artistic compilation of several photos appears in this forum, showing totally distorted buildings, you should have the decency to show the information about the photographer, the technique and the equipment used. Or are you telling me that a building with 15 degrees off-kilter walls and straight shadows really exists?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: trig on September 04, 2012, 01:40:32 AM
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?

For heaven's sake, don't question the clergy of science. You know how it upsets the masses.
For Heaven's sake, do question the clergy of science. And stop these low-content posts in upper fora. Do you have any evidence that the compilation of photographs that was made here, with no concern at all for covering the fact that this is not a straight, simple long exposure, was anything other than an artistic endeavor?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on September 04, 2012, 02:02:11 AM
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.

Have you been to the the equator recently Tom? Show us some time lapse video.

Do a search for star trails of the celestial equator:

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtkreu/6686990851/#lightbox/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtkreu/6686990851/#lightbox/)

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html)

You can clearly see that the stars diverge, in contradiction to what should happen if the earth were round according to Trig and co.

Rotation of the Sky at the Equator
     The stars move parallel to each other, and the Celestial Equator. Since the Poles are on the Horizon, the Equator rises vertically at the East point, and sets vertically at the West point. All stars rise vertically in the East, and set vertically in the West (see the Equatorial view of the sky in Kenya, below). All the paths of the stars are cut in half by the horizon, so all stars are up half the time, and down half the time, regardless of their position. No star is circumpolar, no matter how close it is to the Celestial Pole.  :P

A panoramic view of stars setting on the western horizon, as seen at the Equator, in Kenya. On the left, stars circle clockwise around the South Celestial Pole, rising on the left (which is east, when facing south) and setting on the right (which is west, when facing south). On the right, stars circle counterclockwise around the North Celestial Pole, rising on the right (which is east, when facing north) and setting on the left (which is west, when facing north). Everywhere, the stars set at right angles to the horizon (the horizontal white line), as they all move parallel to the Celestial Equator, which crosses the Horizon at right angles at the Equator.

Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 04, 2012, 07:20:35 AM
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.

Have you been to the the equator recently Tom? Show us some time lapse video.

Do a search for star trails of the celestial equator:

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtkreu/6686990851/#lightbox/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtkreu/6686990851/#lightbox/)

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html)

You can clearly see that the stars diverge, in contradiction to what should happen if the earth were round according to Trig and co.

Rotation of the Sky at the Equator
     The stars move parallel to each other, and the Celestial Equator. Since the Poles are on the Horizon, the Equator rises vertically at the East point, and sets vertically at the West point. All stars rise vertically in the East, and set vertically in the West (see the Equatorial view of the sky in Kenya, below). All the paths of the stars are cut in half by the horizon, so all stars are up half the time, and down half the time, regardless of their position. No star is circumpolar, no matter how close it is to the Celestial Pole.  :P

A panoramic view of stars setting on the western horizon, as seen at the Equator, in Kenya. On the left, stars circle clockwise around the South Celestial Pole, rising on the left (which is east, when facing south) and setting on the right (which is west, when facing south). On the right, stars circle counterclockwise around the North Celestial Pole, rising on the right (which is east, when facing north) and setting on the left (which is west, when facing north). Everywhere, the stars set at right angles to the horizon (the horizontal white line), as they all move parallel to the Celestial Equator, which crosses the Horizon at right angles at the Equator.

This is all correct. This shows that there is not divergence. The stars are not moving different directions, or moving at weird angles, or any of this. The appear to be moving the opposite direction from the other pole because you are facing the other way. It's like watching a clock in the mirror.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 04, 2012, 11:17:50 AM
I think you are butchering the semantics. These are clearly not straight lines.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html)
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 04, 2012, 11:29:21 AM
It has also been explained that this is an art form. That image is obviously taken from a different location and angle than the one previously posted in this thread. These images are taken to look cool. That's it.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 04, 2012, 11:30:45 AM
What does that have to do with the fact that the stars are clearing converging/diverging as viewed from the equator? ???
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: The Knowledge on September 04, 2012, 11:53:33 AM
What does that have to do with the fact that the stars are clearing converging/diverging as viewed from the equator? ???

Are you claiming that my statement that the angular distance between stars does not vary is untrue? In which case, present evidence of variable angular distance between any two stars of your choice, and explain how Ichi's Magic Telescope works to track celestial objects. If not, then you admit that stars are not converging or diverging.
Either will do me fine.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 04, 2012, 11:56:45 AM
What does that have to do with the fact that the stars are clearing converging/diverging as viewed from the equator? ???

They are not. It is an artistic layout attempting to show the curvature and rotation of the Earth by showing how the viewpoint would change as you move north/south.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 04, 2012, 12:32:13 PM
Are you claiming that my statement that the angular distance between stars does not vary is untrue? In which case, present evidence of variable angular distance between any two stars of your choice, and explain how Ichi's Magic Telescope works to track celestial objects. If not, then you admit that stars are not converging or diverging.
Either will do me fine.

Is Ichi viewing stars at the equator and measuring the distance between two stars about different poles? If not, I'm not sure how this question is at all pertinent.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 04, 2012, 12:33:20 PM
What does that have to do with the fact that the stars are clearing converging/diverging as viewed from the equator? ???

They are not. It is an artistic layout attempting to show the curvature and rotation of the Earth by showing how the viewpoint would change as you move north/south.

The picture is a fake then?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 04, 2012, 01:20:21 PM
No one said it was fake. It's an art form. Pictures can be distorted or modified to fit the artist's style.

Also, if pictures of the Earth from Space are all fake and/or edited, then why cannot someone say the same about photo evidence the FE presents?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 04, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
I'm just trying to figure out why the "artists" would distort pictures as such, and then only do it at the equator. Especially when all similar pictures looking toward the celestial poles seem to depict the exact same thing.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: trig on September 04, 2012, 01:51:36 PM
What does that have to do with the fact that the stars are clearing converging/diverging as viewed from the equator? ???

They are not. It is an artistic layout attempting to show the curvature and rotation of the Earth by showing how the viewpoint would change as you move north/south.

The picture is a fake then?
It is a fake if the author explicitly declares that there is no distortion in the paths of the stars that are being shown. It is not a fake if, as I am sure is the case, he used an extreme wide angle lens to get a nice effect, and did not hide it.

The real way to see if the stars are diverging or not is to use a telescope with equatorial mount and follow any star. You will see that, if you correct slightly (less than 0.5 degrees in altitude) for stars close to the horizon, there is no divergence between the stars. Every one stays at the same declination and right ascension all night long.

But Tom Bishop should know this by heart. He owns two computer controlled, state of the art astronomical telescopes. He is talking about photographs but he could be measuring the divergence of the stars with better than one arc minute of error. Why does he waste his time and ours with artistic photos?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 04, 2012, 02:10:03 PM
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg (http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg)
Quote from: http://www.astronet.ru/db/xware/msg/apod/2009-03-14
For example, this dramatic 5 hour long exposure was made on February 24 from Haute-Provence Observatory (OHP) in southeastern France. Actually a composite of 300 consecutive 1-minute exposures, the image nicely shows stars near the celestial equator tracing nearly straight lines in projection, while stars north and south of the equator, respectively, appear to circle the north and south celestial poles.

How is a time-exposure distorting the paths of the stars?  ???
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on September 04, 2012, 02:49:13 PM
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg (http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg)
Quote from: http://www.astronet.ru/db/xware/msg/apod/2009-03-14
For example, this dramatic 5 hour long exposure was made on February 24 from Haute-Provence Observatory (OHP) in southeastern France. Actually a composite of 300 consecutive 1-minute exposures, the image nicely shows stars near the celestial equator tracing nearly straight lines in projection, while stars north and south of the equator, respectively, appear to circle the north and south celestial poles.

How is a time-exposure distorting the paths of the stars?  ???

The FES argues against common sense. If you guys were really Zetetic, you would seek the truth and see it for yourselves. The stars rise in the east, set in the west. So are you saying that at the equator half rises in the west and sets in the east? How is that even possible? What a joke.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 04, 2012, 03:07:33 PM
Who said that?  ???   And what does that have to do with the picture which clearly shows the stars diverging from eachother at the equator?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: trig on September 04, 2012, 03:17:29 PM
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg (http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg)
Quote from: http://www.astronet.ru/db/xware/msg/apod/2009-03-14
For example, this dramatic 5 hour long exposure was made on February 24 from Haute-Provence Observatory (OHP) in southeastern France. Actually a composite of 300 consecutive 1-minute exposures, the image nicely shows stars near the celestial equator tracing nearly straight lines in projection, while stars north and south of the equator, respectively, appear to circle the north and south celestial poles.

How is a time-exposure distorting the paths of the stars?  ???
Again and again, it is not the fact that it is a time exposure, it is the extreme wide angle that some photographers use, just because circular star trails are boring. And in some cases the way in which the camera is moved to compose neat effects.

If you find that a telescope with a correctly set equatorial mount cannot stay pointed towards one star, to within less than half a degree of error, then you are in the fast track towards a Nobel Prize.

Otherwise you can continue playing the game of pretending surprise at the distortions on photos you did not take or check how they were done.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on September 04, 2012, 06:00:14 PM
Who said that?  ???   And what does that have to do with the picture which clearly shows the stars diverging from eachother at the equator?

So what if they look like they are diverging. Fact is they rise in the east and set in the west. Any wide angle lense will gaive you that look on diverging. The stars are equal distace from each other from starrise to startset, period.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 04, 2012, 06:51:25 PM
Barrel distortion from a wide-angle lens would flatten any curvature in this photo:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg (http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg)

It would not create curvature in the direction(s) seen here.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on September 04, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
Barrel distortion from a wide-angle lens would flatten any curvature in this photo:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg (http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg)

It would not create curvature in the direction(s) seen here.

No matter how badly doctored the initial images are, I don't know how you can tell the direction of rotation. Secondly have have been diverted from the celestial gears discussion which has been my focus. My explanations have blown any thought of celestial gears away. Reading this Tom, Thork, Rushy?

Yes the wide angle flattens out but it's still curved and the stars still do what they do so........

If the earth were truly flat, most of us would see most of the same stars every night regardless of north/ south "hemisplane" it's just the angle of perception will differ. We all know this doesn't happen so........the earth must be a shere.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 04, 2012, 08:14:51 PM
I don't think you're having the same conversation trig and I are having.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: trig on September 05, 2012, 02:40:27 AM
Barrel distortion from a wide-angle lens would flatten any curvature in this photo:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg (http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg)

It would not create curvature in the direction(s) seen here.
Don't you know that there is positive and negative barrel distortion? And, anyhow, you are trying to bury the real demonstration of divergence or no divergence of the stars. The telescope with Equatorial Mount has been in use for centuries and our astronomers know really how much the stars diverge. And you can find out for yourself, for a meager 200 dollars or so. Even less if you look for a second hand telescope. Or ask Tom Bishop for a night of exploration with his two state of the art Celestron and Orion telescopes.

PS. Don't you think that in a photo without significant distortion the buildings would look, actually, vertical? If there is a distortion that changes a building to a wedge, why are you even claiming to know what tricks the photographer used?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 05, 2012, 07:48:32 AM
The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 05, 2012, 07:55:42 AM
The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.

Which has me wondering, why do people still talk to you?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Thork on September 05, 2012, 09:40:17 AM
The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.

Which has me wondering, why do people still talk to you?
Because he is wise. And famous.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 05, 2012, 10:08:29 AM
The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.

Which has me wondering, why do people still talk to you?
Because he is wise. And famous.

He's so famous that I'd never heard the name "Tom Bishop" until I entered this website.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Thork on September 05, 2012, 11:01:17 AM
You also thought that the earth was round. Shows what you know.

Tom is an internet celebrity. You can google him and everything. He even has tribute sites named after him.
http://tinyurl.com/cpd5q35 (http://tinyurl.com/cpd5q35)

People blog about him
Quote from: http://debunkingcreationism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/why-do-creationists-distance-themselves.html
For example, consider "Tom Bishop," over at the Flat Earth forums.  Just check out this post.

They talk about him on other forums
Quote from: http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=479441&page=11
This is f*cking hysterical. Make sure to read Tom Bishop's response.

They discuss him besting round Earthers
Quote from: http://www.homedefenceuk.com/hobbies_loadfive.html
The issue of ships sinking into the so-called "horizon" is less easily dismissed.  In Flat Earth Theory, a ship disappears beyond a finite

vanishing point from the bottom up, and the hull can be "restored" through a telescope.  Flat Earth Proponent Tom Bishop cites the

chapter "Disappearance of ships at sea" from Thomas Winship's 'Zetetic Cosmogony' (1899).  Round Earther General Disarray counters

by claiming to "have personally verified with my own telescope that things which sink below the horizon cannot be restored

with magnification." It's a killer response but, fool that he is, the General has tried to recreate the experiment with the sun, not a ship.

Of course it won't work!  At this point I rather lost interest.

Just a few examples. He's up there with the best of them as far as internet legends go ... and we are lucky that he calls here home.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Thork on September 05, 2012, 11:08:45 AM
Lol. It seems I'm mentioned on the same page.

Quote from: http://www.homedefenceuk.com/hobbies_loadfive.html
Thork wants to know "how the round-earthers explain the manufacture of industrial flat glass,

using the float process?" Dammit, I'm a Round Earther, and I can't answer that.  He's helpfully

provided a handy link as a reminder for those of you who might be rusty on industrial glass

manfacturing processes.  As you can plainly see, this method is impossible on a globe, and he's got the maths to prove it.  Bazinger,

he's got me already.  Other sceptics aren't so easily swayed, and the argument continues for a further 29 pages.
Me and my famous glass thread. :P trig will be furious when he sees this.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 05, 2012, 11:17:14 AM
You also thought that the earth was round. Shows what you know.

Tom is an internet celebrity. You can google him and everything. He even has tribute sites named after him.
http://tinyurl.com/cpd5q35 (http://tinyurl.com/cpd5q35)

People blog about him
Quote from: http://debunkingcreationism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/why-do-creationists-distance-themselves.html
For example, consider "Tom Bishop," over at the Flat Earth forums.  Just check out this post.

Ah, yes, the website where they talk about he's defending an outdated view of a flat earth, they mention him because of a certain description he gave.

They talk about him on other forums
Quote from: http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=479441&page=11
This is f*cking hysterical. Make sure to read Tom Bishop's response.

The forum where they make fun of him, call him the idiot king, or something of that colorful nature.

They discuss him besting round Earthers
Quote from: http://www.homedefenceuk.com/hobbies_loadfive.html
The issue of ships sinking into the so-called "horizon" is less easily dismissed.  In Flat Earth Theory, a ship disappears beyond a finite

vanishing point from the bottom up, and the hull can be "restored" through a telescope.  Flat Earth Proponent Tom Bishop cites the

chapter "Disappearance of ships at sea" from Thomas Winship's 'Zetetic Cosmogony' (1899).  Round Earther General Disarray counters

by claiming to "have personally verified with my own telescope that things which sink below the horizon cannot be restored

with magnification." It's a killer response but, fool that he is, the General has tried to recreate the experiment with the sun, not a ship.

Of course it won't work!  At this point I rather lost interest.

Just a few examples. He's up there with the best of them as far as internet legends go ... and we are lucky that he calls here home.
[/quote]

Satirical news website. Says so right up top.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: BoatswainsMate on September 05, 2012, 11:30:50 AM
So in other words, yes, Tom is famous. Now there are different kinds of fame.

We have a guy on our ship who is just down right dumb, cant do anything right. He makes us laugh with his stupidity and frustrated also. Everyone knows him, but no one likes him. He makes snarky remarks and has an authority problem. In times of stress he panics. He views himself smart, yet cannot grasp simple instructions.

That is Toms fame. He is the guy that we all laugh at, we know him, but we don't like him. He makes such dumb posts and has some very strange thoughts to the point where we comment because it makes us laugh.

So Thork, that is Toms fame. The known local idiot.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Thork on September 05, 2012, 11:41:31 AM
Everyone knows him, but no one likes him.
This seems incredibly cruel. There is most likely a reason he has social problems and everyone around him 'hating' him will only lead to further paranoia and strange behaviour.

Tom will always be thought of as stark raving mad and ridiculed on the internet, because he preaches an unpopular message. No one wants to be told they've been fooled. They'd rather believe Tom was a nutjob.

But the fact is people do know of and exchange opinions on Tom all over the internet. And as Oscar Wilde said “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”. His message is out there even if people choose not to heed his sensible reasoning.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: trig on September 05, 2012, 11:53:59 AM
Lol. It seems I'm mentioned on the same page.

Quote from: http://www.homedefenceuk.com/hobbies_loadfive.html
Thork wants to know "how the round-earthers explain the manufacture of industrial flat glass,

using the float process?" Dammit, I'm a Round Earther, and I can't answer that.  He's helpfully

provided a handy link as a reminder for those of you who might be rusty on industrial glass

manfacturing processes.  As you can plainly see, this method is impossible on a globe, and he's got the maths to prove it.  Bazinger,

he's got me already.  Other sceptics aren't so easily swayed, and the argument continues for a further 29 pages.
Me and my famous glass thread. :P trig will be furious when he sees this.

Having trouble recognizing real reporting from satire, lately, Thork?

Following his own link (curiously named "hobbies_loadfive") the very first thing I see is:
Quote
Home Defence UK is a satirical news website.  That's pretty obvious.  The real news wouldn't ask me for
pictures of:

- A UK student demonstrator immolating themself.
- A naughty, saucy Carry On-style policeman
- Dave out of Chas N' Dave painting a gypsy caravan

So, Thork's claim to fame is by being the butt of a satire. Figure how furious I am.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Thork on September 05, 2012, 12:03:29 PM
No complaints about my post. I wasn't the butt of the joke. Seems plenty of people across the web are still puzzled by the glass thread. You guys never gave a definitive and convincing argument. Obviously. I guess neutrals weren't buying "The glass company are liars" as a proper answer.

I thought you'd be particularly irritated as you were so vocal about how wrong I was. +1 for FET in the end.  But anyway, this thread is about earth's rotation - well actually lack of, so lets steer it back on course. :)
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: trig on September 05, 2012, 12:43:45 PM
No complaints about my post. I wasn't the butt of the joke. Seems plenty of people across the web are still puzzled by the glass thread. You guys never gave a definitive and convincing argument. Obviously. I guess neutrals weren't buying "The glass company are liars" as a proper answer.

I thought you'd be particularly irritated as you were so vocal about how wrong I was. +1 for FET in the end.  But anyway, this thread is about earth's rotation - well actually lack of, so lets steer it back on course. :)
It is a sad day when you have to defend yourself with "no, I was not the butt of the joke". You know you are the butt when everyone else is laughing, except you.

No, wait, it is a happy day, for some.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: clemenza089 on September 05, 2012, 10:27:28 PM
Who said that?  ???   And what does that have to do with the picture which clearly shows the stars diverging from eachother at the equator?

It's a perspective "thing". Assuming the paths in front of the camera belong to "rising" stars, if you had a picture of the sky "behind" the camera with the same lens, they would appear to converge again. When we look with the naked eye, we wouldn't perceive those paths as diverging (maybe concentric, but that's still sort of parallel), if they were just plotted in the sky.
In fact, no photo can really replace the image an eye can see.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on September 12, 2012, 01:44:24 AM
Barrel distortion from a wide-angle lens would flatten any curvature in this photo:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg (http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg)

It would not create curvature in the direction(s) seen here.

No matter how badly doctored the initial images are, I don't know how you can tell the direction of rotation. Secondly have have been diverted from the celestial gears discussion which has been my focus. My explanations have blown any thought of celestial gears away. Reading this Tom, Thork, Rushy?

Yes the wide angle flattens out but it's still curved and the stars still do what they do so........

If the earth were truly flat, most of us would see most of the same stars every night regardless of north/ south "hemisplane" it's just the angle of perception will differ. We all know this doesn't happen so........the earth must be a sphere.

I'm still waiting on a response from the 3 amigos. The silence is deafening. So Tom and Rushy, how did you go downloading the free ISS and SATTRACKER apps?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Ski on September 12, 2012, 02:13:37 AM
No matter how badly doctored the initial images are, I don't know how you can tell the direction of rotation.

I'm still waiting on a response from the 3 amigos. The silence is deafening.

I don't know about the others, but Tom and I lost interest in responding to you after the examples in bold made it obvious to me that you and ThinkingMan were more interested in talking over me or addressing strawmen than actually listening.

The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.

Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Beorn on September 12, 2012, 02:13:39 AM
No complaints about my post. I wasn't the butt of the joke. Seems plenty of people across the web are still puzzled by the glass thread. You guys never gave a definitive and convincing argument. Obviously. I guess neutrals weren't buying "The glass company are liars" as a proper answer.

I thought you'd be particularly irritated as you were so vocal about how wrong I was. +1 for FET in the end.  But anyway, this thread is about earth's rotation - well actually lack of, so lets steer it back on course. :)

The glass thread was what nudged me to the agnostic side.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on September 12, 2012, 02:56:31 AM
No matter how badly doctored the initial images are, I don't know how you can tell the direction of rotation.

I'm still waiting on a response from the 3 amigos. The silence is deafening.

I don't know about the others, but Tom and I lost interest in responding to you after the examples in bold made it obvious to me that you and ThinkingMan were more interested in talking over me or addressing strawmen than actually listening.

The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.
Not true on my part. I just posted something and wanted to see what the answer would be, but since that answer is not coming I assume there is no answer. The earth is a sphere. All FE theories have been crushed over and over, a few times in this thread alone.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2012, 04:57:50 AM
Not true on my part. I just posted something and wanted to see what the answer would be, but since that answer is not coming I assume there is no answer. The earth is a sphere. All FE theories have been crushed over and over, a few times in this thread alone.

Do you mean this thread where numerous pictures of star trails rotating away from each other were presented to the RE'ers and dismissed as fakes?
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: MrT on September 12, 2012, 06:41:32 AM

Do you mean this thread where numerous pictures of star trails rotating away from each other were presented to the RE'ers and dismissed as fakes?

Incorrect.

That is just not the case.  The pictures are not "fake."  The pictures simply don't show what you claim them to show.  The pictures in no way show the stars rotating away from each other.  The pictures are exactly what you would expect to see on a rotating, round Earth.

Claiming that the look of an image is a result of the type of photography, the length of the lens, and the angle of view is a far different thing than calling the image "fake." 

Anywhere near the equator if you look north or south the stars would appear to be rotating in a fairly small arc towards the horizon due to the fact that you are looking towards the axis of rotation of the Earth.  If a wide enough lens (I.E. anything even remotely likely to be used to photograph star trails) is used then the field of view when looking east or west will encompass some visibility in the north and south directions as well.  Because the image captured by the camera is such a wide view, the star trails will appear to move in two arcs of rotation, because you can see a bit north and south.  This is a perspective effect due to the field of view of the lens.

If you actually track the path of any of the stars (meaning, not the star trails in long-exposure photography) and compare that to other stars, you can see that the paths do not diverge.  The stars are extensively studied, tracked and charted.  I have often seen people ask for evidence of stars rotating on two seperate, diverging paths, and the only evidence I've ever seen posted is misunderstood pictures of star trails.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 12, 2012, 08:07:41 AM
No matter how badly doctored the initial images are, I don't know how you can tell the direction of rotation.

I'm still waiting on a response from the 3 amigos. The silence is deafening.

I don't know about the others, but Tom and I lost interest in responding to you after the examples in bold made it obvious to me that you and ThinkingMan were more interested in talking over me or addressing strawmen than actually listening.

I'm not sure how I talked over you. I listened, I calculated, I even went through and studied other similar pictures and research how these images are taken. The most common technique is a wide angle lens. Just because I was debating your claim in the debate forum does not mean I was not listening.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on September 13, 2012, 05:33:49 AM
Another proof of the earth's rotation is eastward angular deviation from free fall. If you were to drop a boulder down the centre of a long enough mine shaft, as the earth rotates, the boulder would move slowly towards the east wall due to the earth's rotation.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 13, 2012, 06:05:14 AM
Another proof of the earth's rotation is eastward angular deviation from free fall. If you were to drop a boulder down the centre of a long enough mine shaft, as the earth rotates, the boulder would move slowly towards the east wall due to the earth's rotation.

Due to the coriolis effect, I believe it should stray towards the westward wall. I'll do some research.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on September 13, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Another proof of the earth's rotation is eastward angular deviation from free fall. If you were to drop a boulder down the centre of a long enough mine shaft, as the earth rotates, the boulder would move slowly towards the east wall due to the earth's rotation.

Due to the coriolis effect, I believe it should stray towards the westward wall. I'll do some research.

You are right. I got it backwards LOL.
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: clemenza089 on September 13, 2012, 09:56:44 PM
Another proof of the earth's rotation is eastward angular deviation from free fall. If you were to drop a boulder down the centre of a long enough mine shaft, as the earth rotates, the boulder would move slowly towards the east wall due to the earth's rotation.

Due to the coriolis effect, I believe it should stray towards the westward wall. I'll do some research.

You are right. I got it backwards LOL.

Wrong again, horizontal momentum is preserved, while the horizontal speed of the shaft decreases...
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: Battery72 on September 14, 2012, 12:59:28 AM
Another proof of the earth's rotation is eastward angular deviation from free fall. If you were to drop a boulder down the centre of a long enough mine shaft, as the earth rotates, the boulder would move slowly towards the east wall due to the earth's rotation.

Due to the coriolis effect, I believe it should stray towards the westward wall. I'll do some research.

You are right. I got it backwards LOL.

Wrong again, horizontal momentum is preserved, while the horizontal speed of the shaft decreases...

You are right as well, I think it's bit of both.
In the Earth's rotating frame of reference, a freely moving body follows an apparent path that deviates from the one it would follow in a fixed frame of reference. Because of this Coriolis effect, falling bodies veer eastward from the vertical plumb line below their point of release, and projectiles veer right in the northern hemisphere (and left in the southern) from the direction in which they are shot. The Coriolis effect has many other manifestations, especially in meteorology, where it is responsible for the differing rotation direction of cyclones in the northern and southern hemispheres. Hooke, following a 1679 suggestion from Newton, tried unsuccessfully to verify the predicted half millimeter eastward deviation of a body dropped from a height of 8.2 meters, but definitive results were only obtained later, in the late 18th and early 19th century, by Giovanni Battista Guglielmini in Bologna, Johann Friedrich Benzenberg in Hamburg and Ferdinand Reich in Freiberg, using taller towers and carefully released weights
Title: Re: Earth's rotation
Post by: ThinkingMan on September 14, 2012, 05:30:51 AM
I did my research. Eastward was correct. How sadly stupid of me. At least that's easier than relativity.