Or it's just affected by the same force that makes the stars move. With the celestial gears model for example, and the basic fact that distances between stars don't vary, that much wouldn't be at odds with what is already observed. Whether what is already observed is justifiable is a whole other matter, but even so we would expect it to stay lined up, at least approximately.
The Coriolis Effect
Water Currents
The rotation of small scale liquids in opposing hemispheres was debunked by Snopes.
As for water currents on a large scale; they're simply gradually put into motion by the winds. Water currents in the Northern Hemisphere will tend to rotate in one direction while currents in the Southern Hemisphere will tend to turn in another direction.
Wind Currents
The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To me that seems to say nothing concrete about what is so simple to observe:
The dynamics of a multiple stellar system demand that every body of a swirling star system move in tandem with each member body as if the entire system were a solid disk. The underlying cause for the rotation is due to vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of mass - an imaginary point completely compliant with the Newtonian system. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement, where the stars move around around a shared gravitational influence.
Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through a shared gravometric influence. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another. The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
The stars in the night sky trace almost perfect circles around the hub of the earth because by necessity the mechanics of a multiple system rely intimately on the movements and vectors of every member body. Circular movement is the most perfect, stable movement. If one celestial body is out of place or moves in a different fashion than the other bodies of the group the entire system becomes inherently imbalanced. Eddies, or stars that move out of tandem, will either leave the system entirely or are compelled by the stellar system to move back into its locked pace and apogee. This is why there are no elliptical orbits, and why an entire cluster moves at a set uniform speed.
Galaxies also actually rotate at a set uniform speed and apogee throughout its disk. Galaxies move as if they were a solid disk. Describing the movements of galaxies have been a challenge to astronomers, requiring the dynamics of multiple star systems we know today.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Therefore, since galaxies rotate in the same fashion as the stellar systems over our heads, we see that there is a pretense for the multiple systems I've described.
But that could only apply to a Bipolar Model such as Tom's.QuoteI could ask one of the scientists at the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base to repeat it, if you like.
First off, the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base is an American Military Base funded by the Department of Defense, the same guys who maintain our fleet of GPS satellites.
Secondly, it's not inconceivable that the sun might "switch gears" once it moves past the equator into the realm of the Southern Gear, circling around Sigma Octantis in the winter.
This would give the Northern Hemisphere its short winter days and the Southern Hemisphere its long winter days.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921460#msg1921460They include nothing but more unsupported hypotheses and were essentially in the claims made by Tom Bishop.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921461#msg1921461
They include nothing but more unsupported hypotheses and were essentially in the claims made by Tom Bishop.I present what the models contain, not the evidence given in favour of them. That just invites debate.
In addition the UA claims to be justified by Einstein's Equivalence Principle but that is equivalent to (Gravitational Mass) = (Inertial Mass).
But here you say, "This model is connected to celestial gravitation. Here, the stars also exert a gravitational force."
So according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle, that UA is claimed to depend on,
if "stars also exert a gravitational force" on each other and on earth-bound objects the earth and earth-bound objects should exert "a gravitational force" on each other.
They can't have it both ways.
for example, only some kinds of matter may exert a gravitational attraction, or matter may only exert gravitational attraction in specific circumstances. For most models, the Earth does not.
The Cavendish experiment is not always accepted as reliable, but when it is applying the conclusion to mass in general rather than just the specific element tested is not viewed as any more reasonable than assuming, for example, every metal is magnetic.
Except that, again, "Mass in general" is subject inertial forces therefore "Mass in general" is subject gravitational forces.They include nothing but more unsupported hypotheses and were essentially in the claims made by Tom Bishop.I present what the models contain, not the evidence given in favour of them. That just invites debate.QuoteIn addition the UA claims to be justified by Einstein's Equivalence Principle but that is equivalent to (Gravitational Mass) = (Inertial Mass).
But here you say, "This model is connected to celestial gravitation. Here, the stars also exert a gravitational force."
So according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle, that UA is claimed to depend on,
if "stars also exert a gravitational force" on each other and on earth-bound objects the earth and earth-bound objects should exert "a gravitational force" on each other.
They can't have it both ways.for example, only some kinds of matter may exert a gravitational attraction, or matter may only exert gravitational attraction in specific circumstances. For most models, the Earth does not.Except that "only some kinds of matter may exert a gravitational attraction" is indirect contradiction the the Equivalence Principle.
If matter has mass and is subject to inertial forces (the ultimate measure of masses) then the Equivalence Principle states that it is also subject to gravitational attraction.
And matter on earth is subject to inertial forces.
Either flat earthers accept Einstein's Equivalence or they don't.Quote from: JaneThe Cavendish experiment is not always accepted as reliable, but when it is applying the conclusion to mass in general rather than just the specific element tested is not viewed as any more reasonable than assuming, for example, every metal is magnetic.
Celestial Gears is a Bi-Polar explanation. I was not thinking about the Monopole model at the time when I wrote that bit in the Wiki. We were interested in the Bi-Polar model as possibly the official FE model because we had come across the later Zetetic works after Rowbotham which promoted a two-pole model. Anyway, we didn't really know at the time that we would end up with multiple models and it should have been made clear that those explanations applied to the Bi-Polar model.At the June solstice both the eastern side of Australia and the western side of South America are in darkness as in:
The best Monopole explanation for the Southern Stars is probably this one provided by P-Brane.
If the same stars could be observed at the same time from Australia and South America, it might disprove that explanation. However, those locations are many hours apart and one location may be day when the other is in night.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921460#msg1921460Linking to a bunch of nonsense in a section off limits to debate is a rather dishonest tactic.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921461#msg1921461
That just invites debate.Wow, debating in the debate section. Someone stop the presses, this is a big event.
If the same stars could be observed at the same time from Australia and South America, it might disprove that explanation. However, those locations are many hours apart and one location may be day when the other is in night.Why so far apart?
The reason why the celestial poles are opposite from each other is explained in the video, as are the answers to other questions poised.No, it is merely asserted in a manner which makes absolutely no sense.
Of interest, I notice that when looking at the southern star trails that the outside trails are brighter and thicker, compared to the less vibrant inner stars. It's like we are looking down a tube.I notice that they are brighter when higher in the sky as they have to pass through less air.
Except that "only some kinds of matter may exert a gravitational attraction" is indirect contradiction the the Equivalence Principle.The equivalence principle is about the relationship between force an acceleration. It does not claim that all masses exert a gravitational force, and even if it did that claim wouldn't follow so it can be safely rejected. You've got to know that's a dumb argument, seriously.
If matter has mass and is subject to inertial forces (the ultimate measure of masses) then the Equivalence Principle states that it is also subject to gravitational attraction.
Linking to a bunch of nonsense in a section off limits to debate is a rather dishonest tactic.No, it just means I don't have to repeat myself endlessly. No one's stopping you debating it in the debate section. Of course that requires you to actually read it and engage with it rather than doing your usual ignore it and argue against what you think should happen rather than think in terms of what is after all a different model, so don't you worry your pretty little head.
It allows you to continue to link to refuted nonsense without putting in any effort to discuss it.
Wow, debating in the debate section. Someone stop the presses, this is a big event....It's not in the debate section. Idiot. Plus, like I've said time and time again, I'm not a FEer. I'm hardly in any position to argue for the evidence, I just argue for what the models actually state and let people argue against that rather than perpetually make themselves look ignorant with straw men. So why would I invite debate on something I can't debate?
Celestial Gears is a Bi-Polar explanation. I was not thinking about the Monopole model at the time when I wrote that bit in the Wiki. We were interested in the Bi-Polar model as possibly the official FE model because we had come across the later Zetetic works after Rowbotham which promoted a two-pole model. Anyway, we didn't really know at the time that we would end up with multiple models and it should have been made clear that those explanations applied to the Bi-Polar model.
The best Monopole explanation for the Southern Stars is probably this one provided by P-Brane.
If the same stars could be observed at the same time from Australia and South America, it might disprove that explanation. However, those locations are many hours apart and one location may be day when the other is in night.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/bewhvwa30mhkz50/Startrails%202015%20-%20Northern%20Hemisphere%20at%200.51%20sec%20-%20jungynz.jpg?dl=1) Startrails 2015 - Northern Hemisphere at 0:51 sec - jungynz | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ji2wlfh1cug1ns/Startrails%202015%20-%20Southern%20Hemisphere%20at%203.27%20sec%20-%20jungynz.jpg?dl=1) Startrails 2015 - Southern Hemisphere at 3:27 sec - jungynz |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/gs7v5esow1wyilx/Anti%20Crepuscular%20Sun%20Rays%20are%20KEY%20to%20Southern%20Star%20Rotation%20FLAT%20EARTH%20at%200.44%20sec%20perspective%20-%20p-brane.jpg?dl=1) Anti Crepuscular Sun Rays are KEY to Southern Star Rotation FLAT EARTH perspective at 0:44 sec - p-brane |
Totally incorrect! Are you serious in claiming that the "equivalence principle is about the relationship between force an acceleration" that's Newton!Except that "only some kinds of matter may exert a gravitational attraction" is indirect contradiction the the Equivalence Principle.The equivalence principle is about the relationship between force an acceleration. It does not claim that all masses exert a gravitational force, and even if it did that claim wouldn't follow so it can be safely rejected. You've got to know that's a dumb argument, seriously.
If matter has mass and is subject to inertial forces (the ultimate measure of masses) then the Equivalence Principle states that it is also subject to gravitational attraction.
Principle of Equivalence (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/grel.html)
Experiments performed in a uniformly accelerating reference frame with acceleration a are indistinguishable from the same experiments performed in a non-accelerating reference frame which is situated in a gravitational field where the acceleration of gravity = g = -a = intensity of gravity field. One way of stating this fundamental principle of general relativity is to say that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass.
Phys.org, How Einstein's equivalence principle extends to the quantum world (https://phys.org/news/2018-08-einstein-equivalence-principle-quantum-world.html#jCp)
UQ physicist, Dr. Magdalena Zych from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems, and the University of Vienna's Professor Caslav Brukner have been working to discover if quantum objects interact with gravity only through curved space-time.
"Einstein's equivalence principle contends that the total inertial and gravitational mass of any objects are equivalent, meaning all bodies fall in the same way when subject to gravity," Dr. Zych said.
"Physicists have been debating whether the principle applies to quantum particles, so to translate it to the quantum world we needed to find out how quantum particles interact with gravity.
Equivalence principle[/b]]Equivalence principle (http://[b)
Equivalence principle, fundamental law of physics that states that gravitational and inertial forces are of a similar nature and often indistinguishable. In the Newtonian form it asserts, in effect, that, within a windowless laboratory freely falling in a uniform gravitational field, experimenters would be unaware that the laboratory is in a state of nonuniform motion. All dynamical experiments yield the same results as obtained in an inertial state of uniform motion unaffected by gravity. This was confirmed to a high degree of precision by an experiment conducted by the Hungarian physicist Roland Eötvös. In Einstein’s version, the principle asserts that in free-fall the effect of gravity is totally abolished in all possible experiments and general relativity reduces to special relativity, as in the inertial state.
Totally incorrect! Are you serious in claiming that the "equivalence principle is about the relationship between force an acceleration" that's Newton!Not f=ma, but rather that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a force acting one way and an acceleration acting the other way. At no point does the equivalence principle make any claims about the idea of mass causing gravity. It just doesn't. It's just that gravity was the only force the equivalence could feasibly be applied to, but there's no mention of where gravity originates, let alone any justification for that statement.
the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.Provides evidence or justification for the claim that:
if any masses exert a gravitational force then all masses must exert a gravitational force
Totally incorrect! Are you serious in claiming that the "equivalence principle is about the relationship between force an acceleration" that's Newton!Not f=ma, but rather that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a force acting one way and an acceleration acting the other way. At no point does the equivalence principle make any claims about the idea of mass causing gravity. It just doesn't. It's just that gravity was the only force the equivalence could feasibly be applied to, but there's no mention of where gravity originates, let alone any justification for that statement.
No, it just means I don't have to repeat myself endlessly.And that is the issue, all you seem to want to do is repeat yourself endlessly rather than acknowledge and deal with the problems your claims make.
No one's stopping you debating it in the debate section.At which point you eventually run away and then bring it up again later on.
...It's not in the debate section. Idiot.Really?
Plus, like I've said time and time again, I'm not a FEer.You sure seem to like defending them and pretending they have answers to all the problems.
I did not claim that "the equivalence principle make any claims about the idea of mass causing gravity".You're the one that decided to talk about this. I gave you the links, you opted to make a claim which you are now refusing to justify, and now claim is irrelevant. So why did you choose to bring it up? It's pretty crucial to celestial gravitation, which is after all typically the crux of celestial gears. So, once more, I'm going to ask you a straight question.
My only claim was that gravitational mass is identical to the inertial mass and the rest is simple logic.
Now I suggest again that if you want a debate on "celestial gravitation" and/or the "Equivalence Principle" make another thread.
This topic is, "What Exactly is the Celestial Gears Model?"
how about you take the time to explain how:Quotethe gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.Provides evidence or justification for the claim that:Quoteif any masses exert a gravitational force then all masses must exert a gravitational force
Really?Preaching? No one's claiming it's true. Just giving it so you can actually try making an informed argument. If you want to go and make a thread in debate or something dedicated to walking through the flaws with every FE idea so you've got a similar resource to link back to, no one's stopping you. Don't throw a tantrum just because I took your favourite toy away and you don't get to claim victory just by demanding someone go over a long, involved idea to someone that is never going to listen. Now you don't get to fall back on exhaustion, you can take the radical step of looking at what FEers actually say. Incredible huh?
So what is "Flat Earth Debate" meant to be for if not debate?
It sure seems like it is in the debate section.
Yes, your preaching isn't in the debate section, which is why it shouldn't be linked to in the debate section.
I'm not a FEer. I'm hardly in any position to argue for the evidence, I just argue for what the models actually state and let people argue against that rather than perpetually make themselves look ignorant with straw men. So why would I invite debate on something I can't debate?
I don't feel the need to shove my voice in every little place.
Exactly what is this claim which I am now refusing to justify? But in any caseI did not claim that "the equivalence principle make any claims about the idea of mass causing gravity".You're the one that decided to talk about this. I gave you the links,you opted to make a claim which you are now refusing to justify, and now claim is irrelevant.
My only claim was that gravitational mass is identical to the inertial mass and the rest is simple logic.
Now I suggest again that if you want a debate on "celestial gravitation" and/or the "Equivalence Principle" make another thread.
This topic is, "What Exactly is the Celestial Gears Model?"
So why did you choose to bring it up?I chose to bring "the Celestial Gears Model" up to find out how it explained the "Southern Star Rotation" about the South Celestial Pole.
It's pretty crucial to celestial gravitation, which is after all typically the crux of celestial gears. So, once more, I'm going to ask you a straight question.And if you want more on "celestial gravitation" go and make your own thread on that topic because there is much much more to be said on that than can be handled in this thread!
To me that seems to say nothing concrete about what is so simple to observe:Now post something relevant to how the ""celestial gears model" that seems to be raised so often as the explanation of the "Southern Star Rotation" or buzz off!
Looking north in the Northern Hemisphere the stars seem to rotate anti-clockwise about the North Celestial Pole, near Polaris, and
looking south in the Southern Hemisphere the stars seem to rotate clockwise about the South Celestial Pole, near the tiny barely visibly Sigma Octantis.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So without having to read voluminous posts mainly ridiculing "Celestial Gears" can anybody answer:
exactly what is this "celestial gears model" that seems to be raised so often as the explanation of the "Southern Star Rotation"?
You're the one that decided to talk about this. I gave you the links, you opted to make a claim which you are now refusing to justify, and now claim is irrelevant. So why did you choose to bring it up? It's pretty crucial to celestial gravitation, which is after all typically the crux of celestial gears. So, once more, I'm going to ask you a straight question.how about you take the time to explain how:Quotethe gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.Provides evidence or justification for the claim that:Quoteif any masses exert a gravitational force then all masses must exert a gravitational forceGood riddannce to bad rubbish.
<< ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D >>I read you posts and ignore what I cannot be bothered answering again and again ad nauseum.
I asked how "the Celestial Gears Model" explains the Southern Star rotation and YOU have posted NOTHING relevant.No, you've just ignored it several times over. Try again.
So I repeat, I yo want to debate "Celestial Gravitation" YOU make a thread on "Celestial Gravitation".
Read what was in the topic!I asked how "the Celestial Gears Model" explains the Southern Star rotation and YOU have posted NOTHING relevant.No, you've just ignored it several times over. Try again.
So I repeat, I you want to debate "Celestial Gravitation" YOU make a thread on "Celestial Gravitation".
The aspect of celestial gravitation that you were objecting to is crucial to the whole bloody concept of celestial gears. You don't get to throw out an objection to that and then go on this much of a run around when you are asked to justify it. Just say you made a mistake and move on, this is pathetic.
And I've seen celestial gears applied to the monopole model as it is. I can certainly imagine its origins being in the bipolar, but that's not the only time it's applied.
(http://i35.tinypic.com/devgr9.gif)
That's the typical image. I think the purple symbolises the outer star system with it too rotating, though I'd need to track down the thread again and I can't even remember which site it was on so that's not easy.
So without having to read voluminous posts mainly ridiculing "Celestial Gears" can anybody answer:You dragged "celestial gravitation" quite unnecessarily into what was such a simple question that both Tom Bishop (without all the fuss) and you have now answered.
exactly what is this "celestial gears model" that seems to be raised so often as the explanation of the "Southern Star Rotation?
The aspect of celestial gravitation that you were objecting to is crucial to the whole bloody concept of celestial gears.
And I've seen celestial gears applied to the monopole model as it is.
In this thread I am not the slightest bit interested in the "concept of celestial gears", "bloody" or not.The aspect of celestial gravitation that you were objecting to is crucial to the whole bloody concept of celestial gears.
NO, the first link in your previous post was: Re: Jane's FE Compendium « Reply #2 on: June 22, 2017, 09:53:54 AM » Celestial Gravitation (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921460#msg1921460).QuoteAnd I've seen celestial gears applied to the monopole model as it is.
And you were the one that started the discussion of celestial gravitation which, I remind you, is the principle upon which celestial gears is based.
Preaching? No one's claiming it's true. Just giving it so you can actually try making an informed argument.Except you are completely ignoring the problems with it, and aren't updating your sermon when they are pointed out. That sure seems more like preaching.
demanding someone go over a long, involved idea to someone that is never going to listen. Now you don't get to fall back on exhaustion, you can take the radical step of looking at what FEers actually say.Again, stop with the pathetic insults. I do listen. I do look at what FEers say. It is you that repeatedly ignores what is said so you can continue with your agenda.
This is debate. You can debate it.Yes, so why did you claim it wasn't?
I know not butting in on topics where you have nothing to contribute is a foreign concept to youAgain with the pathetic insults and projection.
every single time you get called outYou aren't calling anyone out here. You are just insulting people because you aren't getting your way.
Good riddannce to bad rubbish.Bye bye then.
How many times do I have to say that I'm not going to say more on Celestial Gravitation here because it is irrelevant to this topic?Repeating that isn't going to make you right.
In this thread I am not the slightest bit interested in the "concept of celestial gears",That is palpably clear. Just never make a thread again. The moment you get called out you backtrack and even outright lie, right after being called out.
Exactly what is "celestial gears model" and what are these "celestial gears"?
...
exactly what is this "celestial gears model" that seems to be raised so often as the explanation of the "Southern Star Rotation?
<< Can't you read! >>If you must go on make a thread on Celestial Gravitation or the Equivalence Principle.
<BS deleted>