The big gears in the sky

Yes they do.  When I was in the southern hemisphere, they didn't rotate in the manner required by the multiple gears theory.

What, clockwise about the south celestial pole?

According to some, they don't even apply to some models of the Earth.  Why would that be different for FE models of the heavens?

The laws of physics apply everywhere.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on October 02, 2008, 03:08:59 AM

Yes they do.  When I was in the southern hemisphere, they didn't rotate in the manner required by the multiple gears theory.

What, clockwise about the south celestial pole?

The gears model requires clockwise and counter-clockwise motion in the southern hemisphere with multiple centers of rotation.  Not the single center of rotation as is observed currently.

The laws of physics apply everywhere.

Then is must be a matter of which laws apply everywhere.  The laws of physics that apply in RE don't apparently apply in FE.  Having looked through physics textbooks, nowhere do I see a reference to the physics of Universal Acceleration (UA), Electromagnetic Acceleration (EA), the fusion in small bodies 32 miles in diameter, non-Newtonian orbital mechanics, etc.

The gears model requires clockwise and counter-clockwise motion in the southern hemisphere with multiple centers of rotation.  Not the single center of rotation as is observed currently.

You can only see one south celestial pole at a time.

Then is must be a matter of which laws apply everywhere.  The laws of physics that apply in RE don't apparently apply in FE.  Having looked through physics textbooks, nowhere do I see a reference to the physics of Universal Acceleration (UA), Electromagnetic Acceleration (EA), the fusion in small bodies 32 miles in diameter, non-Newtonian orbital mechanics, etc.

The laws of physics apply everywhere. Just because we don't fully understand them doesn't mean they don't apply everywhere.

You can only see one south celestial pole at a time.

How many celestial south poles are there?  Can you document that number with any sort of evidence?

How many celestial south poles are there?  Can you document that number with any sort of evidence?

At least three, maybe more. And no, I can't, but it is the only way I can think of for astronomical observations to work on a Flat Earth.

That would be assumption of fact without evidence then.

You mean like belief in a Round Earth?

You mean like belief in a Round Earth?

I have presented the evidence that shapes my beliefs, but unfortunately, due to your belief in a conspiracy (of which there is no evidence either) you don't accept it.  I have yet to even see that sort of evidence for the celestial gears.  Maybe we could see an account by an astronomer that reported this strange behavior, or some 4th century text?

Quote from: goldstein on October 02, 2008, 09:54:17 AM

That would be assumption of fact without evidence then.

You mean like belief in a Round Earth?

There is evidence for a round earth. Note that I didnt say there was conclusive proof.

Quote from: goldstein on October 02, 2008, 09:54:17 AM

That would be assumption of fact without evidence then.

You mean like belief in a Round Earth?

Any facts I might cite you would dismiss as conspiracy theories. Let's say I'm open to ideas and am giving you the benefit of the doubt though... If you wanted to convince me of FET, what would you cite as proof?

Quote from: Rig Navigator on October 02, 2008, 06:34:12 AM

How many celestial south poles are there?  Can you document that number with any sort of evidence?

At least three, maybe more. And no, I can't, but it is the only way I can think of for astronomical observations to work on a Flat Earth.

Depending on which map you cite you run into problem areas where there would be no star coverage, too much star coverage, or noticeable variance in areas of convergence or separation. Rig Navigator rightly says that variances like this would be noted by sailors and astronomers prior to the time "the conspiracy" took root.

BTW, were you the mod that removed the thread where I posted this and my other gears rebuttals the day before yesterday, or was it roundy? Either way, I was on a roll, and I'm disappointed it got cut...

Depending on which map you cite you run into problem areas where there would be no star coverage, too much star coverage, or noticeable variance in areas of convergence or separation. Rig Navigator rightly says that variances like this would be noted by sailors and astronomers prior to the time "the conspiracy" took root.

BTW, were you the mod that removed the thread where I posted this and my other gears rebuttals the day before yesterday, or was it roundy? Either way, I was on a roll, and I'm disappointed it got cut...

Looks like the FEers aren't willing to respond to your diagrams about how their mechanics would be working.