how about this?

  • 119 Replies
  • 9549 Views
?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: how about this?
« Reply #90 on: March 13, 2010, 03:03:15 PM »
The Coriolis force.  Also the action of the Foucault pendulum, I believe.

Well that brings up another thought. To my knowledge, all Foucault pendulums are installed indoors to shield it from air currents.  This would mean that "coriolons" pass through solid matter to still create the effect that the rest of us assume is caused by kenetic energy. Would you agree this to be true?

If so, the action of "coriolons" deflecting air and solid objects involves the transfer of energy from said particles to said matter. This would mean that everything, not just air, is constantly absorbing this energy. A Foucault pendulum would therefore not be affected from the coriolons as much indoors as it would outdoors, as any solid matter would absorb some of this "deflecting energy." If there was such a phenomenon, I'm sure someone could invent a device that could detect this energy, even if the particles themselves were undetectable.
Wow, its amazing to me how people can misread science. There is no "particle" carrying the "Coriolis force". Like the centrifugal force it is a fictitious force resulting from a rotating frame of reference. It completely disappears when observed in an inertial frame.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #91 on: March 13, 2010, 03:21:03 PM »

Wow, its amazing to me how people can misread science. There is no "particle" carrying the "Coriolis force". Like the centrifugal force it is a fictitious force resulting from a rotating frame of reference. It completely disappears when observed in an inertial frame.

Quite agree, friend.

Please read back, and you will see the discussion about the Coriolis Effect, and how it doesn't comply with present FE beliefs. The fictitious particle, "coriolon" was either a theory or a joke concocted by Roundy. All of the following posts were both to humor him and keep an open mind on his theory.

We are well aware that no such particle exists outside this forum. This is not a misread of science, but an entertaining discussion on a hypothetical situation. Please consider this before demeaning anyone on this thread.


Thanks. :)

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: how about this?
« Reply #92 on: March 13, 2010, 06:03:01 PM »
I don't think the noobs here even know what they are arguing or talking about. 
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #93 on: March 13, 2010, 06:45:24 PM »
I don't think the noobs here even know what they are arguing or talking about. 

I figured that was a general requirement to maintain active membership on this forum.

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: how about this?
« Reply #94 on: March 13, 2010, 07:41:50 PM »
Ah.  My business is done here.
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #95 on: March 13, 2010, 08:01:46 PM »
Then I appreciate the reinforcement. I thought it was just me.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: how about this?
« Reply #96 on: March 13, 2010, 08:43:10 PM »
So... Did I just win at Coriolis force?

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #97 on: March 14, 2010, 08:11:48 AM »
Yes. We both did.

...and then there was....



silence.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: how about this?
« Reply #98 on: March 14, 2010, 12:46:36 PM »
The Coriolis force.  Also the action of the Foucault pendulum, I believe.

Well that brings up another thought. To my knowledge, all Foucault pendulums are installed indoors to shield it from air currents.  This would mean that "coriolons" pass through solid matter to still create the effect that the rest of us assume is caused by kenetic energy. Would you agree this to be true?

If so, the action of "coriolons" deflecting air and solid objects involves the transfer of energy from said particles to said matter. This would mean that everything, not just air, is constantly absorbing this energy. A Foucault pendulum would therefore not be affected from the coriolons as much indoors as it would outdoors, as any solid matter would absorb some of this "deflecting energy." If there was such a phenomenon, I'm sure someone could invent a device that could detect this energy, even if the particles themselves were undetectable.

A minute amount might be absorbed, and thus I imagine there would be a negligible difference in the action of the pendulum, probably too small to detect with conventional instruments.  It can surely be no more than that.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #99 on: March 14, 2010, 01:00:01 PM »
A minute amount might be absorbed, and thus I imagine there would be a negligible difference in the action of the pendulum, probably too small to detect with conventional instruments.  It can surely be no more than that.

So the energy transfer is small enough to be undetectable by conventional instruments, but large enough to move entire airmasses on a large enough scale to be observable visually?

Please continue.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: how about this?
« Reply #100 on: March 14, 2010, 01:10:55 PM »
A minute amount might be absorbed, and thus I imagine there would be a negligible difference in the action of the pendulum, probably too small to detect with conventional instruments.  It can surely be no more than that.

So the energy transfer is small enough to be undetectable by conventional instruments, but large enough to move entire airmasses on a large enough scale to be observable visually?

Please continue.

Well, I think it would have to be.  The thing is, I think coriolons are only felt by freely moving matter, like water, air, and swinging pendulums.  If an object's at rest, they pass right through it, like neutrinos; but they differ from neutrinos in that when an object is exhibiting significant kinetic energy, they affect the object's trajectory.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: how about this?
« Reply #101 on: March 14, 2010, 01:21:20 PM »
A minute amount might be absorbed, and thus I imagine there would be a negligible difference in the action of the pendulum, probably too small to detect with conventional instruments.  It can surely be no more than that.

So the energy transfer is small enough to be undetectable by conventional instruments, but large enough to move entire airmasses on a large enough scale to be observable visually?

Please continue.

Well, I think it would have to be.  The thing is, I think coriolons are only felt by freely moving matter, like water, air, and swinging pendulums.  If an object's at rest, they pass right through it, like neutrinos; but they differ from neutrinos in that when an object is exhibiting significant kinetic energy, they affect the object's trajectory.

If there is no indication that this unobservable particle exists, other than mere thought... from what evidence did you draw its existence?

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #102 on: March 14, 2010, 01:22:14 PM »
Well, I think it would have to be.  The thing is, I think coriolons are only felt by freely moving matter, like water, air, and swinging pendulums.  If an object's at rest, they pass right through it, like neutrinos; but they differ from neutrinos in that when an object is exhibiting significant kinetic energy, they affect the object's trajectory.

Well I agree with you on that... based on your hypothesis, it definitely would have to be.

However, the pendulum itself could be classified as a conventional instrument. It wouldn't be possible to utilize the basic concepts used in the pendulum to fashion any other type of detection instrumentation?

Such as one that could allow us to gauge the strongest particle fields on the planet, perhaps. From there, with just a few calculations, I'm sure it would be possible to track the exact movement of these particles. I would be fascinated to see something like that represented graphically.

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #103 on: March 14, 2010, 01:25:18 PM »
If there is no indication that this unobservable particle exists, other than mere thought... from what evidence did you draw its existence?

Well Roundy's theory is that these particles are themselves undetectable, and one can only observe the effect they create on our planet, namely the Coriolis Effect. Those two elements do at times come uncomfortably close to contradiction, which has now become the main focal point of this rather enlightening discussion.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 01:40:00 PM by Xibar »

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: how about this?
« Reply #104 on: March 14, 2010, 01:41:46 PM »
How do coriolons know where the equator is?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: how about this?
« Reply #105 on: March 14, 2010, 01:47:47 PM »
If there is no indication that this unobservable particle exists, other than mere thought... from what evidence did you draw its existence?

Well Roundy's theory is that these particles are themselves undetectable, and one can only observe the effect they create on our planet, namely the Coriolis Effect. Those two elements do at times come uncomfortably close to contradiction, which has now become the main focal point of this rather enlightening discussion.

I see no contradiction.

How do coriolons know where the equator is?

They don't "know" anything, being tiny insentient particles.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #106 on: March 14, 2010, 01:52:13 PM »
I admitted it was close to contradiction, in that no conventional instruments can detect this phenomenon, yet it can still affect the movement of atmospheric fluids, which is in itself a conventional action.

Close to contradiction, as in I'm still being open-minded on the subject.

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?

That one still has yet to be addressed.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 01:56:46 PM by Xibar »

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: how about this?
« Reply #107 on: March 14, 2010, 02:01:38 PM »
The equator is not an arbitrary dividing line in FET.  It is the line above which the sun's path runs on the summer solstice, and as explained previously in this thread, it is from the path of the sun that coriolons originate.  The direction from which they leave the Coriolon Belt determines the direction in which they influence matter on Earth.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #108 on: March 14, 2010, 02:10:31 PM »
The equator is not an arbitrary dividing line in FET.  It is the line above which the sun's path runs on the summer solstice, and as explained previously in this thread, it is from the path of the sun that coriolons originate.  The direction from which they leave the Coriolon Belt determines the direction in which they influence matter on Earth.

According to the FE maps I've seen so far, the Equator shares its function with RE in that it is the MEAN FOCAL POINT of the Sun as it moves north and south of it throughout the year. However, if these particles come from an invisible "orbital tail" from the Sun, this tail would also shift throughout the year, bringing us back to one of my original questions: why isn't Coriolis changed during seasonal shift?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: how about this?
« Reply #109 on: March 14, 2010, 02:21:58 PM »
How do coriolons know where the equator is?

They don't "know" anything, being tiny insentient particles.
You obviously didn't get was I was getting at. How do coriolons spin in opposite directions on either side of the equator if they are not concious?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: how about this?
« Reply #110 on: March 14, 2010, 02:22:45 PM »
How do coriolons know where the equator is?

They don't "know" anything, being tiny insentient particles.
You obviously didn't get was I was getting at. How do coriolons spin in opposite directions on either side of the equator if they are not concious?

There's about a million better solutions than claiming they are sentient.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: how about this?
« Reply #111 on: March 14, 2010, 02:25:21 PM »
How do coriolons know where the equator is?

They don't "know" anything, being tiny insentient particles.
You obviously didn't get was I was getting at. How do coriolons spin in opposite directions on either side of the equator if they are not concious?

There's about a million better solutions than claiming they are sentient.
I'm not claiming they're sentient. I'm claiming they don't exist.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: how about this?
« Reply #112 on: March 14, 2010, 02:36:06 PM »
How do coriolons know where the equator is?

They don't "know" anything, being tiny insentient particles.
You obviously didn't get was I was getting at. How do coriolons spin in opposite directions on either side of the equator if they are not concious?

There's about a million better solutions than claiming they are sentient.
I'm not claiming they're sentient. I'm claiming they don't exist.

Well then instead of trying to change his argument to one that you can defeat you should argue against what he says.

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #113 on: March 14, 2010, 02:41:00 PM »
There's about a million better solutions than claiming they are sentient.

I'm listening.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: how about this?
« Reply #114 on: March 14, 2010, 02:43:09 PM »
Well then instead of trying to change his argument to one that you can defeat you should argue against what he says.
I can't. The sheer idea of particles that cause the Coriolis effect is so stupid and outrageous that I'm kind of grasping at anything I can to disprove it.

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #115 on: March 14, 2010, 02:55:00 PM »
I can't. The sheer idea of particles that cause the Coriolis effect is so stupid and outrageous that I'm kind of grasping at anything I can to disprove it.
[/quote]

Doesn't make it any less fun to talk about.

Re: how about this?
« Reply #116 on: March 15, 2010, 04:13:48 PM »
How do coriolons "know" that something is in motion? The entire earth is in motion (in both theories).

Nice contradiction. While it is fun to make up theories, try harder to not make ones you know can't be possible.

*

Xibar

  • 79
Re: how about this?
« Reply #117 on: March 15, 2010, 05:52:35 PM »
How do coriolons "know" that something is in motion? The entire earth is in motion (in both theories).

Nice contradiction. While it is fun to make up theories, try harder to not make ones you know can't be possible.

Although Roundy never actually claimed sentience associated with his theory, the exact mechanism that drives the "coriolons" has never really be addressed. I was actually looking forward to finding out how they function differently in distinct parts of the world without the physical benefit of separate hemispheres.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: how about this?
« Reply #118 on: March 15, 2010, 06:05:09 PM »
How do coriolons "know" that something is in motion? The entire earth is in motion (in both theories).

Nice contradiction. While it is fun to make up theories, try harder to not make ones you know can't be possible.

How does gravity "know" things have mass? Interacting differently in different circumstances does not constitute knowledge or sentience.

Re: how about this?
« Reply #119 on: March 15, 2010, 09:11:04 PM »
How do coriolons "know" that something is in motion? The entire earth is in motion (in both theories).

Nice contradiction. While it is fun to make up theories, try harder to not make ones you know can't be possible.

How does gravity "know" things have mass? Interacting differently in different circumstances does not constitute knowledge or sentience.

But what constitutes kinetic motion? Mass and kinetic motion are very different. Don't try to get smart here and throw around metaphors and similes that don't work.


What is the difference between baseball going .999999C and a pendulum going .9999998C to coriolons?