The big gears in the sky

FE's believe the spin on a gyroscope is caused by gravitation from the celestial gears, not the torque from a rotating planet? This should be verifiable shouldn't it?

FE's believe the spin on a gyroscope is caused by gravitation from the celestial gears, not the torque from a rotating planet? This should be verifiable shouldn't it?

Since when could man detect a gravitational field?

Through it's effects.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on September 02, 2008, 08:19:53 AM

Yes, but the ship floating in the water that is at the equator is.  So technically, the equator is not really a 2D object, but a 3D place to be.

Actually, by Wikipedia's definition, the Equator is a one-dimensional line. It has no physical existence; it is a purely imaginary construct.

I read that entire entry, and at no point does it refer to it as a one dimensional line. A one dimensional line is one that runs directly between 2 points, and is insufficient to describe the equator on both RE and FE maps alike. And if a 2 dimensional construct cannot exist in the real world, a one dimensional construct couldn't either.

For the sake of dyno's question just consider the equator to be a point that is equal distance from the north and south poles, and answer why a gyroscope will not function there.

I have to say that RS has become remarkably adept at dodging questions. You used to attempt to answer everything but now you have resorted to the much used tactics of
1. picking on grammatical and spelling errors which do not detract from the meaning of the post
2. arguing semantics

poor form

I have to say that RS has become remarkably adept at dodging questions. You used to attempt to answer everything but now you have resorted to the much used tactics of
1. picking on grammatical and spelling errors which do not detract from the meaning of the post
2. arguing semantics

poor form

it is all a part of his "master terrorist" persona.

I have to say that RS has become remarkably adept at dodging questions. You used to attempt to answer everything but now you have resorted to the much used tactics of
1. picking on grammatical and spelling errors which do not detract from the meaning of the post
2. arguing semantics

poor form

That's why they made him a mod, he's fully embraced the flat earth way.  lol 

Since when could man detect a gravitational field?

Well, there are instruments called gravimeters that are routinely used in oil exploration to find areas where the rock is less dense that might indicate the presence of oil or gas reserves.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter[/url

Well, there are instruments called gravimeters that are routinely used in oil exploration to find areas where the rock is less dense that might indicate the presence of oil or gas reserves.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter

Gravimeters don't measure gravitational fields any more than dropping a pen and timing its rate of decent with a stopwatch is measuring a gravitational field. Gravimeters just measure acceleration.

Acceleration on the Focault's Pendulum/Gyroscope is exactly what is created by a spinning earth / rotating gravitational field of the cosmos.

So again, how can we detect a gravitational field?

Gravimeters don't measure gravitational fields any more than dropping a pen and timing its rate of decent with a stopwatch is measuring a gravitational field. Gravimeters just measure acceleration.

But why exactly are they timing differences in their "pen" based on the density of rock?  They are obviously measuring some effect there, that corresponds to how the gravitational field lines should align themselves.

Acceleration on the Focault's Pendulum/Gyroscope is exactly what is created by a spinning earth / rotating gravitational field of the cosmos.

Not sure why you are discussing pendulums and gyroscopes.  That technology doesn't use either one of those principles.

So again, how can we detect a gravitational field?

Should I post my original response to your original question, or does asking the same question repeatedly force me to give different answers each time.

But why exactly are they timing differences in their "pen" based on the density of rock?  They are obviously measuring some effect there, that corresponds to how the gravitational field lines should align themselves.

The gravimeter is just a little weight in a machine which drops down past a laser and computer to track how fast the weight went. That's all it is. The gravimeter isn't detecting gravitons or gravitational field lines or space-time bends. The gravimeter is measuring the acceleration of the weight and nothing more.

That acceleration experienced by the weight could come from a number of sources, from the gravitation of the cosmos to the Dark Energy of the Universal Accelerator seeping through thin parts of the earth's crust. The gravimeter cannot tell us what it is detecting. All it can detect is the weight's acceleration.

Should I post my original response to your original question, or does asking the same question repeatedly force me to give different answers each time.

Yes, please tell me how we can detect a gravitational field when we don't even know what a gravitational field even is. As far as I know science has yet to detect the sub atomic graviton particle thought to be the mechanism for gravity.

NASA and other satellite agencies uses variances on the pull of satellites caused by the grav flux of different density rock and magma on earth and other bodies to do deep crust and mantle mapping, but seeing as you deny the integrity/existence of both NASA and satellites, that probably won't help this argument much.

Yes, please tell me how we can detect a gravitational field when we don't even know what a gravitational field even is. As far as I know science has yet to detect the sub atomic graviton particle thought to be the mechanism for gravity.

So explain the mechanism for a magnetic field?  Is there a particle that is the mechanism?  Has it been detected?

I can use a compass, iron filings or more fancy devices to map that field without being able to describe the mechanism, but I doubt that you would find someone that would deny that there are magnetic fields present.

I'm not trying to disrupt the topic (I agree with Rig Engineer) but as well as answering his/her question, could you please answer mine.

I just want to clear this up: Are the gears a just a metaphor for an unknown force, or are they really gears (presumably made of some exotic substance similar to dark matter)? Or something else?

I'm not trying to disrupt the topic (I agree with Rig Engineer) but as well as answering his/her question, could you please answer mine.

I just want to clear this up: Are the gears a just a metaphor for an unknown force, or are they really gears (presumably made of some exotic substance similar to dark matter)? Or something else?

No the gear are real actual gears, that drive the stars. They are hidden from view however, which is why they have never been seen. The reason that we know that they exist is because in order for Flat Earth to work they have to exist.
So since we know the earth to be flat, the existance of the planetary gears is proven without proof.
Does this help?

proven without proof.

L0ok out 0f teh windoh!!!!1!11!  lololololol!!!!11!1!!! 

Just saving a flat earther the effort. 

Seriously tho, there hasn't even been an attempt at this one by the FEers.  All they managed was a 'teh conspiracy!'.  nothing funny at all.  I got no lolz.  This make me sad. 

I'm not trying to disrupt the topic (I agree with Rig Engineer) but as well as answering his/her question, could you please answer mine.

I just want to clear this up: Are the gears a just a metaphor for an unknown force, or are they really gears (presumably made of some exotic substance similar to dark matter)? Or something else?

The gears are actually real in their description. Currently it stands as 3 outer gears that circle one inner gear.

I have read several posts that do describe them as being made of dark matter. None go to the trouble  of proving it though.

specialBus, you're going to get banned soon, in my opinion. If you don't want to get banned, then try as hard as you can to form an opinion, and talk about that, instead of nonsense. This is the debate forum. If you need to talk nonsense, there is a forum specifically for that.

specialBus, you're going to get banned soon, in my opinion. If you don't want to get banned, then try as hard as you can to form an opinion, and talk about that, instead of nonsense. This is the debate forum. If you need to talk nonsense, there is a forum specifically for that.

I beg to differ this is a forum where people with an IQ in the range 0-10 try to convince the entire rest of the world that the earth is flat.
There is no debate, just meaningless drivel with no supporting evidence. Thus I feel that my nonsensical answers fit right in with Flat Earth theory, and the imbecile who support it.

Quote

specialBus, you're going to get banned soon, in my opinion. If you don't want to get banned, then try as hard as you can to form an opinion, and talk about that, instead of nonsense. This is the debate forum. If you need to talk nonsense, there is a forum specifically for that.

I beg to differ this is a forum where people with an IQ in the range 0-10 try to convince the entire rest of the world that the earth is flat.
There is no debate, just meaningless drivel with no supporting evidence. Thus I feel that my nonsensical answers fit right in with Flat Earth theory, and the imbecile who support it.

Imbecile should be plural, to show more than one participant. Imbeciles. The word imbecile implies a degree of mental retardation though. I have not seen this exhibited, so I'm hesitant to cite it's existence.

Quote

specialBus, you're going to get banned soon, in my opinion. If you don't want to get banned, then try as hard as you can to form an opinion, and talk about that, instead of nonsense. This is the debate forum. If you need to talk nonsense, there is a forum specifically for that.

I beg to differ this is a forum where people with an IQ in the range 0-10 try to convince the entire rest of the world that the earth is flat.
There is no debate, just meaningless drivel with no supporting evidence. Thus I feel that my nonsensical answers fit right in with Flat Earth theory, and the imbecile who support it.

That may be so, but that's no reason to be a jerk about it.

I see no reason why not.

What are the theories on what the gears are made of?

I see no reason why not.

That is why you are a jerk.

What are the theories on what the gears are made of?

I've heard both dark matter, and nothing at all. With the nothing at all answer, it was kind of implied that it would do it's thing on it's own.

Quote from: specialBus on September 04, 2008, 12:00:30 PM

Quote

specialBus, you're going to get banned soon, in my opinion. If you don't want to get banned, then try as hard as you can to form an opinion, and talk about that, instead of nonsense. This is the debate forum. If you need to talk nonsense, there is a forum specifically for that.

I beg to differ this is a forum where people with an IQ in the range 0-10 try to convince the entire rest of the world that the earth is flat.
There is no debate, just meaningless drivel with no supporting evidence. Thus I feel that my nonsensical answers fit right in with Flat Earth theory, and the imbecile who support it.

That may be so, but that's no reason to be a jerk about it.

While I do agree, partially, I can honestly state I've never been a member of a forum that had a moderator named anything even close to professor Gaypenguin before. Or Osama bin Laden (Seriously, how much of a dick do you have to be to choose that as the way you want to be represented? Plus ObL's been dead for 2 1/2 years now... might be time to pick a new Av.)

Statistically speaking though, I may be a bit of a dick myself.

Who am I kidding, I'm a huge dick. If I met any given person they might think I was interesting for a while, but soon enough I'd fuck it up. Let me prove it.

I like Obama, but I'll only vote for him if he doesn't turn coat on much more than 2 more points in this election season. Or not... In reality I'll vote for him even if he recited the Koran in full on live TV, ate a baby, and picked his teeth with the constitution.

I'd never support Palin or McCain, because even given 300,000,000 Americans, they only support the decisions of one underaged unwed mother ever. They respect that girl's decision, but that's it. After her all unwed mothers are going to Hell, just like before. Except that given that Hell is a late 19'th century Christian construct, unprecedented in most major religions, all those unwed mothers really have nothing to fear. Nothing to fear at all.

It's my assertion that G W Bush is not a bad guy. He was a tool, or a puppet at best. I don't even think he understands the entirety of what has gone on in the past 8 years.

Quote from: specialBus on September 04, 2008, 12:56:45 PM

I see no reason why not.

That is why you are a jerk.

Why else would I believe in flat earth? Surely it is a pre-requisite?

Since when was bin laden dead? and i agree, it is one of the most insensative names i have heard.

Since when was bin laden dead? and I agree, it is one of the most insensitive names i have heard.

The Pakistani army killed bin Laden and several followers in late 05. Benazir Bhutto stated this fact in multiple adresses both in Pakistan, and in the US prior to her assasination. A number of conspiracy theorists aribute her assertions of OBL's death to her assasination, given that the western world was not willing to accept OBLs' slipping their grasp, and that Pakistan did not want to impart that info.

In a post Musharef world though, we'll find out soon enough.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Here's a good watch. I'll try to find the other vids.

In all reality I would glass parking lot the entire middle east if I could bring Benazir back... She was more kind in her life than I could ever hope to be in mine... More kind than I could even be in hindsight, and she gave me hope for the future.

Benazir Bhutto?  Seriously?  She may have been pretty good compared to other rulers, but hardly the messiah some people treat her like. 

Benazir Bhutto?  Seriously?  She may have been pretty good compared to other rulers, but hardly the messiah some people treat her like. 

She's dead and gone Lolz... Can't defend herself. You seriously want to talk about her like that? She did wonders for Islamic women before the Islamic fundamentalists and the Taliban decided they should get back in the kitchen... Given the strictness of the current Islamic regime there will never be anyone like her ever again.