Motive

  • 44 Replies
  • 8809 Views
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Motive
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2008, 05:03:27 AM »
Since you are to... well I won't go there.  There has been enough name calling here lately.

And yet, you've still shown no post; except for one where an REer makes up his own version of the celestial gears.

I'm not quite clear on what you're trying to prove impossible.

I'm not trying to prove it is impossible, because that's not my idea. REers claim it's not possible for the Earth to be rotating. Thus, I'm waiting.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Motive
« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2008, 10:35:34 AM »
And yet, you've still shown no post; except for one where an REer makes up his own version of the celestial gears.

Well, I went farther back into the archives.  Here is, what I believe is, the original celestial gear post...

Quote
So, how exactly would one explain under FE theory that the star field could rotate in TWO directions at the same time? (not even including near the equator where the paths are perpendicular).

The stars spin in opposite directions over certain areas because that is what is observed. That's simply how the stars move. The turning of the "gears" keep each other generally moving in opposite directions. Not literal gears, but celestial systems rubbing against each other, affecting each other gravometrically.

Over the Flat Earth exists a number of stellar multiple systems. One is over Australia, one is over South America, and another is over the North Pole. Each have unique properties and keep each other in motion via gravitational gears. Formation was caused by a conglomerate of stellar interactions and the influence of the sun which makes a path through the teeth of these gears.

Here is an animation for visual effect:



The movement of these stars is what is attributed to the Focault Pendulum, Corolis Effect, gyroscopes, and other spinning phenomena. Bodies will be captured geometrically and propelled in the direction and apogee of the close stars overhead, which make one rotation around the hub per twenty four hours. The South Celestial Systems over the Southern Hemisphere are spinning in the opposite direction and so bodies will be deflected in the opposite direction.

As for why the stars spin in different directions over different parts of the earth; that's more of a hypothetical question. No true answer will ever be given because astronomy is completely observational. There is no experimentation in Astronomy. Any number of stellar models could be created to explain the movements of such intricate multiple systems.

Quote
I'm not trying to prove it is impossible, because that's not my idea. REers claim it's not possible for the Earth to be rotating. Thus, I'm waiting.

I seem to remember that the rotating Earth is one of the differences between FE and RE theory.  RE believes that the Earth is a sphere rotating around an axis, and FE believes that the Earth is a plane with the Sun, Moon, stars and planets moving overhead.  Having reread this thread, I am not quite sure where you are getting the argument that a RE wouldn't be rotating.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Motive
« Reply #32 on: September 17, 2008, 01:13:56 PM »
Well, I went farther back into the archives.  Here is, what I believe is, the original celestial gear post...

Yes, I'm aware of the post. Now where does he say there are two poles rotating in the southern hemisphere? If we have a north and south, what's the third one?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Motive
« Reply #33 on: September 17, 2008, 01:29:57 PM »
Yes, I'm aware of the post. Now where does he say there are two poles rotating in the southern hemisphere? If we have a north and south, what's the third one?

There are actually three in that diagram for the southern hemisphere.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Motive
« Reply #34 on: September 17, 2008, 01:38:09 PM »
There are actually three in that diagram for the southern hemisphere.

Here is an animation for visual effect:
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Motive
« Reply #35 on: September 17, 2008, 02:14:11 PM »
There are actually three in that diagram for the southern hemisphere.

Here is an animation for visual effect:

Well, it is all we have to work on.  Of course, this concept has been out there for almost a year now and still Tom has not come out with something that contradicts any of those diagrams.

I am sure that you have read the posts where he refers to multiple gears.  That implies multiple centers of rotation.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43018
Re: Motive
« Reply #36 on: September 17, 2008, 02:20:43 PM »
Well, I went farther back into the archives.  Here is, what I believe is, the original celestial gear post...

Yes, I'm aware of the post. Now where does he say there are two poles rotating in the southern hemisphere? If we have a north and south, what's the third one?

Divito, the celestial gear theory deals with the "stellar gears" rotating about numerous celestial poles, not geographic poles.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Motive
« Reply #37 on: September 18, 2008, 12:34:29 PM »
Yes, I'm aware of the post. Now where does he say there are two poles rotating in the southern hemisphere? If we have a north and south, what's the third one?

Here:

Over the Flat Earth exists a number of stellar multiple systems. One is over Australia, one is over South America, and another is over the North Pole.

In case geography isn't your strong point, both Australia and South America are in the southern hemisphere.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Motive
« Reply #38 on: September 18, 2008, 12:47:53 PM »
So, a "stellar multiple system" was interpreted to mean rotating pole, and the visual concept showcased by the animation was determined to be the actual theory? I've seen leaps before, but whoa.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Motive
« Reply #39 on: September 18, 2008, 12:57:54 PM »
So, a "stellar multiple system" was interpreted to mean rotating pole, and the visual concept showcased by the animation was determined to be the actual theory? I've seen leaps before, but whoa.

Then point out where we misunderstood the posts?  In all of the discussions, I have yet to see a single post by Tom as the originator, or any other FEer for that matter, saying that we misinterpreted his concept.  Maybe you would be so kind as to point out where we made our mistakes so we are all using the same information?

Re: Motive
« Reply #40 on: September 18, 2008, 12:58:36 PM »
So, a "stellar multiple system" was interpreted to mean rotating pole, and the visual concept showcased by the animation was determined to be the actual theory? I've seen leaps before, but whoa.

Explain to me what you thought TB meant by "multiple system". Here's an animation he linked to of a multiple system (side view):



Looks like a rotating pole to me.

We didn't take the animation to be the whole thery, we read what was written. The animation was for visual effect.


*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Motive
« Reply #41 on: September 18, 2008, 01:18:05 PM »
We didn't take the animation to be the whole thery, we read what was written. The animation was for visual effect.

Yes, but even by the animation, he was claiming they were over geographic territories. They couldn't be just over those territories because they were rotating around Polaris as well as rotating their own system. Even if you take what he says at face value, it's incorrect.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Motive
« Reply #42 on: September 18, 2008, 01:34:36 PM »
We didn't take the animation to be the whole thery, we read what was written. The animation was for visual effect.

Yes, but even by the animation, he was claiming they were over geographic territories. They couldn't be just over those territories because they were rotating around Polaris as well as rotating their own system. Even if you take what he says at face value, it's incorrect.

His explanation was a bit confused. How do you explain stellar motion?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Motive
« Reply #43 on: September 18, 2008, 01:42:11 PM »
How do you explain stellar motion?

Celestial gears is a good idea. Tom has butchered it though.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Motive
« Reply #44 on: September 18, 2008, 01:54:23 PM »
How do you explain stellar motion?

Celestial gears is a good idea. Tom has butchered it though.

So what's your take on it?