how about this?

We can't discuss your theory yet as it is nowhere near developed nor have you provided the exact FE you believe in.

I know FE has no working map, but the one that you feel represents the earth the best would make it more debatable.

We have replicated fusion (Sun isn't different). We also have replicated super high energy fusion (particle accelerator) which is basically the "awesome" reactions you were talking about.

Sure, the same way solar energy cells stop working at night.  

So then pressure areas cease to exist at night... so, let me think. No weather at night, I suppose.

Oh, also no jet stream.
Come to think of it, when has it ever rained or snowed at night?
You might be on to something.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 12, 2010, 03:42:49 PM

Sure, the same way solar energy cells stop working at night.  

So then pressure areas cease to exist at night... so, let me think. No weather at night, I suppose.

Oh, also no jet stream.
Come to think of it, when has it ever rained or snowed at night?
You might be on to something.

Wut?

It's funny, the ground doesn't instantly freeze at night, either.  Obviously the effects of the sun last into nighttime; my theory conforms to the norm rather than bucking it.

It's funny, the ground doesn't instantly freeze at night, either.  Obviously the effects of the sun last into nighttime; my theory conforms to the norm rather than bucking it.

No, the theory that the earth is round is the norm.  You are foolishly bucking a wealth of knowledge.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 12, 2010, 04:47:41 PM

It's funny, the ground doesn't instantly freeze at night, either.  Obviously the effects of the sun last into nighttime; my theory conforms to the norm rather than bucking it.

No, the theory that the earth is round is the norm.  You are foolishly bucking a wealth of knowledge.

Actually I believe I'm reinterpreting it.  It's high time somebody did.  Right or wrong it at least makes for entertaining discussions.

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on March 12, 2010, 05:13:07 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 12, 2010, 04:47:41 PM

It's funny, the ground doesn't instantly freeze at night, either.  Obviously the effects of the sun last into nighttime; my theory conforms to the norm rather than bucking it.

No, the theory that the earth is round is the norm.  You are foolishly bucking a wealth of knowledge.

Actually I believe I'm reinterpreting it.  It's high time somebody did.  Right or wrong it at least makes for entertaining discussions.

Except there is nothing to discuss. You told us about a half-finished, unprovable theory and haven't even described key parts of the world you believe it exists in (geography of your FE, solar orbit, etc).

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 12, 2010, 05:35:16 PM

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on March 12, 2010, 05:13:07 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 12, 2010, 04:47:41 PM

It's funny, the ground doesn't instantly freeze at night, either.  Obviously the effects of the sun last into nighttime; my theory conforms to the norm rather than bucking it.

No, the theory that the earth is round is the norm.  You are foolishly bucking a wealth of knowledge.

Actually I believe I'm reinterpreting it.  It's high time somebody did.  Right or wrong it at least makes for entertaining discussions.

Except there is nothing to discuss. You told us about a half-finished, unprovable theory and haven't even described key parts of the world you believe it exists in (geography of your FE, solar orbit, etc).

Well, I've found the discussion entertaining, anyway.

Anyway, all theories are half-finished, no theories are provable, and my theory does indeed describe key parts of the world I believe it exists in.  It just doesn't describe all of them, but I really don't see why that's such a problem.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 05:37:50 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 12, 2010, 05:35:16 PM

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on March 12, 2010, 05:13:07 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 12, 2010, 04:47:41 PM

It's funny, the ground doesn't instantly freeze at night, either.  Obviously the effects of the sun last into nighttime; my theory conforms to the norm rather than bucking it.

No, the theory that the earth is round is the norm.  You are foolishly bucking a wealth of knowledge.

Actually I believe I'm reinterpreting it.  It's high time somebody did.  Right or wrong it at least makes for entertaining discussions.

Except there is nothing to discuss. You told us about a half-finished, unprovable theory and haven't even described key parts of the world you believe it exists in (geography of your FE, solar orbit, etc).

Well, I've found the discussion entertaining, anyway.

Anyway, all theories are half-finished, no theories are provable, and my theory does indeed describe key parts of the world I believe it exists in.  It just doesn't describe all of them, but I really don't see why that's such a problem.

You haven't proposed a mechanism, nor provided a map of FE, nor provided an accurate diagram of the suns orbit.

Don't give me the all theories are half-finished, because at this point, this is just a hypothesis. Until we can test it, it is not a theory.

You left out the parts that lets us debate.

It's funny, the ground doesn't instantly freeze at night, either.  Obviously the effects of the sun last into nighttime; my theory conforms to the norm rather than bucking it.

I agree, the ground doesn't freeze at night. However, what also is "funny" is that I was basing my discussion on your comparison of "coriolons" to a photovoltaic array, which stop producing electrical power the moment light is removed. If you're shifting your theory to that of conservation of thermal energy, then so be it.

This would also mean that the Coriolis Effect is stronger during the day than at night, and it's weakening effects can be easily measured as the Sun passes through it's cycle. It would also be stronger in the areas of the planet experiencing summer, and much weaker, perhaps nonexistent, during the harsh winter months. Would that be a correct assumption?

Though I agree with you on an entertaining discussion.

You haven't proposed a mechanism,

Tell me the mechanism for gravity, and I will gladly concede the point.

nor provided a map of FE,

Yes, I know the popular media image of the FEer is the rich jetsetting playboy, but unfortunately that's a rather inaccurate representation.  Sadly, I can't afford the kind of work required to map the entire Earth.  And I must confess, I'm also not a trained cartographer, so you'd probably call my map into question anyway, and rightly so.

nor provided an accurate diagram of the suns orbit.

I told you, I don't do diagrams.  If you want to debate you're going to have to do it the old-fashioned way.

Don't give me the all theories are half-finished, because at this point, this is just a hypothesis. Until we can test it, it is not a theory.

Look up all definitions of the word theory before you make that baseless accusation.

You left out the parts that lets us debate.

!

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 05:45:48 PM

You haven't proposed a mechanism,

Tell me the mechanism for gravity, and I will gladly concede the point.

Quote

nor provided a map of FE,

Yes, I know the popular media image of the FEer is the rich jetsetting playboy, but unfortunately that's a rather inaccurate representation.  Sadly, I can't afford the kind of work required to map the entire Earth.  And I must confess, I'm also not a trained cartographer, so you'd probably call my map into question anyway, and rightly so.

Quote

nor provided an accurate diagram of the suns orbit.

I told you, I don't do diagrams.  If you want to debate you're going to have to do it the old-fashioned way.

Quote

Don't give me the all theories are half-finished, because at this point, this is just a hypothesis. Until we can test it, it is not a theory.

Look up all definitions of the word theory before you make that baseless accusation.

Quote

You left out the parts that lets us debate.

!

So tell me, what can we debate?

We are debating your theory, not the cause of gravity.

As unusual as the many FE theories are, I'm forced to concede to the many discrepancies between them, and to their individual interpretations of their "beliefs." I'm sure as man was first mapping the planet and understanding its layout, there were many varied beliefs then as to how it actually looked. It still required years of refinement and improvements in measurement tools to bring us to the present understanding we have of our planet.

Indeed, now we have electronic devices that can offer specific ability to map with precision unheard of a few decades ago. Many of the RE beliefs then were probably as dubious as the FE ideas we read here today.

I don't blame anyone for what they come up with. If nothing else, it provides interesting -and often amusing- discussion.

I agree, the ground doesn't freeze at night. However, what also is "funny" is that I was basing my discussion on your comparison of "coriolons" to a photovoltaic array, which stop producing electrical power the moment light is removed. If you're shifting your theory to that of conservation of thermal energy, then so be it.

It wasn't the best analogy, I admit, which is why I amended it; but my point was that you can use energy gathered by a solar array and stored on a battery at nighttime; in other words, there's a lingering effect.  But it's not a very good analogy to what I was getting across.

This would also mean that the Coriolis Effect is stronger during the day than at night, and it's weakening effects can be easily measured as the Sun passes through it's cycle. It would also be stronger in the areas of the planet experiencing summer, and much weaker, perhaps nonexistent, during the harsh winter months. Would that be a correct assumption?

I'm not sure.  It seems to be fairly stable all year long, and in fact I would imagine that the closer you are to the sun the weaker the effect, since the effect is non-existent at the equator.  I believe that's because the coriolons actually form an invisible tail behind the sun that stretches all along the sun's orbit, like a belt above the Earth.  The number of coriolons along any given stretch of the belt doesn't vary based on distance from the sun.  They radiate outwards from this belt (the Coriolis Belt, I guess you could call it) in all directions except directly down, which is why at the equator the effect is non-existent.  I see no reason why they should behave exactly like solar rays since that's not what they are.

Though I agree with you on an entertaining discussion.

SEE UGABOGA?

So tell me, what can we debate?

I guess that's for you to figure out.

Quote from: markjo on March 12, 2010, 03:43:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 12, 2010, 02:56:52 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 02:51:13 PM

So how does FE explain the Coriolis effect on hurricanes?

I blame what I call coriolons, tiny, unobservable particles that just slightly nudge things in one direction or the other, depending on which side of the equator you are on.  They are emitted by the sun.  Obviously my theory is hypothetical since coriolons are far too small to be seen even with the most powerful microscopes, but it's supported quite strongly by the observational evidence.

Please keep low content posts out of the serious forums.

I think it was a pretty justified post to make. In fact, I agree with Markjo.

I found a storm in the southern hemisphere that rotates counter-clockwise!  See for yourself:


Wait...this is from Jupiter....and it's the biggest storm in the Solar system (outside the sun).
I'm sorry, I can only assume that the red spot is in Jupiter's southern hemisphere.

Let's stop the stupid debate over which what what spins on what side of the equator.  This doesn't prove/disprove anything.  It's all nonsense.

I found a storm in the southern hemisphere that rotates counter-clockwise!  See for yourself:


Wait...this is from Jupiter....and it's the biggest storm in the Solar system (outside the sun).
I'm sorry, I can only assume that the red spot is in Jupiter's southern hemisphere.

Let's stop the stupid debate over which what what spins on what side of the equator.  This doesn't prove/disprove anything.  It's all nonsense.

That's because the hemisphere it is in actually spins the opposite direction to earth. Hence the backwards motion.

Let's stop the stupid debate over which what what spins on what side of the equator.  This doesn't prove/disprove anything.  It's all nonsense.

Actually, Mizzle, the Coriolis Effect is a result of the planet's shape and rotation. It proves/disproves quite a bit on a forum devoted to that exact topic.

Nice find on the Great Red Spot of Jupiter, though.

I believe that's because the coriolons actually form an invisible tail behind the sun that stretches all along the sun's orbit, like a belt above the Earth.  The number of coriolons along any given stretch of the belt doesn't vary based on distance from the sun.  They radiate outwards from this belt (the Coriolis Belt, I guess you could call it) in all directions except directly down, which is why at the equator the effect is non-existent.  I see no reason why they should behave exactly like solar rays since that's not what they are.

So, just to be clear, undetectable subatomic particles called Coriolons radiate in a way as of yet to be discovered, but likely from an invisible "particle stream," or something along those lines (forgive my attempt to name your theories), that is created from the passage of the Sun as it passes in its circular motion above the flat ground? These particles are undetectable by all means except the effect they cause, that is, to deflect the atmospheric fluids in the way we call the Coriolis Effect. That about cover it?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 12, 2010, 06:21:07 PM

I believe that's because the coriolons actually form an invisible tail behind the sun that stretches all along the sun's orbit, like a belt above the Earth.  The number of coriolons along any given stretch of the belt doesn't vary based on distance from the sun.  They radiate outwards from this belt (the Coriolis Belt, I guess you could call it) in all directions except directly down, which is why at the equator the effect is non-existent.  I see no reason why they should behave exactly like solar rays since that's not what they are.

So, just to be clear, undetectable subatomic particles called Coriolons radiate in a way as of yet to be discovered, but likely from an invisible "particle stream," or something along those lines (forgive my attempt to name your theories), that is created from the passage of the Sun as it passes in its circular motion above the flat ground? These particles are undetectable by all means except the effect they cause, that is, to deflect the atmospheric fluids in the way we call the Coriolis Effect. That about cover it?

Sounds good.  See, it's not so ridiculous.

So then do you have a theory on what is so unique about the Equator (which to FE would just be an arbitrary line) that the resulting deflection from the Coriolons would differ based on location from it?

Sounds good.  See, it's not so ridiculous.

You say that as if anything on this forum could be considered ridiculous.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 12, 2010, 06:37:03 PM

I found a storm in the southern hemisphere that rotates counter-clockwise!  See for yourself:


Wait...this is from Jupiter....and it's the biggest storm in the Solar system (outside the sun).
I'm sorry, I can only assume that the red spot is in Jupiter's southern hemisphere.

Let's stop the stupid debate over which what what spins on what side of the equator.  This doesn't prove/disprove anything.  It's all nonsense.

That's because the hemisphere it is in actually spins the opposite direction to earth. Hence the backwards motion.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not tracking.  Thanks.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 12, 2010, 06:41:39 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 12, 2010, 06:37:03 PM

I found a storm in the southern hemisphere that rotates counter-clockwise!  See for yourself:


Wait...this is from Jupiter....and it's the biggest storm in the Solar system (outside the sun).
I'm sorry, I can only assume that the red spot is in Jupiter's southern hemisphere.

Let's stop the stupid debate over which what what spins on what side of the equator.  This doesn't prove/disprove anything.  It's all nonsense.

That's because the hemisphere it is in actually spins the opposite direction to earth. Hence the backwards motion.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not tracking.  Thanks.

Coriolis occurs because of the rotation of the earth. The rotation of earth is opposite to the rotation of Jupiter's southern hemisphere (it is gas so different part spin different ways) and due to this opposite spin axis, all weather systems spin in opposite directions.

Coriolis occurs because of the rotation of the earth. The rotation of earth is opposite to the rotation of Jupiter's southern hemisphere (it is gas so different part spin different ways) and due to this opposite spin axis, all weather systems spin in opposite directions.

Which would mean that other planets are effected by the "Coriolons." Does each planet have its own invisible "Coriolon particle stream?"

Do you think eventually it'd just be easier for some of these guys to say, "you know what, maybe it is round."

Jupiter doesn't appear to be made entirely of gas..  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure
Jupiter does rotate the same direction as Earth..   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_motion#Earth_and_the_planets

So, why is it that storm is spinning that way again?

The video you provided showed it spinning the opposite way. And I have seen many sources that ignore the spin of Jupiter because of it's high gas content - It clearly has many bands in different spin axis.

And upon further information, it can be noted that it is an anti-cyclonic storm. If Jupiter has the same spin axis as earth, and the storm spins the opposite way, this can be explained through the understanding of anti-cyclones. They spin in the opposite direction to regular storm systems (cyclones, hurricanes etc)

Jupiter doesn't appear to be made entirely of gas..  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure
Jupiter does rotate the same direction as Earth..   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_motion#Earth_and_the_planets

So, why is it that storm is spinning that way again?

Simple.  It is a high pressure system, not a low pressure system.  Also, Jupiter spins more quickly in Earth, therefore the Coriolis effect is much more pronounced.  You are correct on the other 2 points.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 12, 2010, 07:54:49 PM

Jupiter doesn't appear to be made entirely of gas..  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure
Jupiter does rotate the same direction as Earth..   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_motion#Earth_and_the_planets

So, why is it that storm is spinning that way again?

Simple.  It is a high pressure system, not a low pressure system.  Also, Jupiter spins more quickly in Earth, therefore the Coriolis effect is much more pronounced.  You are correct on the other 2 points.

Beat you. I win.

The video you provided showed it spinning the opposite way. And I have seen many sources that ignore the spin of Jupiter because of it's high gas content - It clearly has many bands in different spin axis.

The articles I linked to addressed this. 
And why should the high pressure system behave any differently?  A high pressure system could just as well spin the other way, right?

Either way, as with the bathtub claim, the point is that there are many variables that factor in to which way fluids spin around a point.  Could just be happenstance of Earth's geographical features.
I like to believe that, if the Earth is a sphere, the atmosphere rotates with the Earth, because if it didn't the air would be much more turbulent given the speed of rotation.