Gyroscope?

If I fire up a gyroscope (a proper one, not a Toys'r'us model), on lets say the equator ,it shows the earth's rotation according to the RET. The gyroscope turning (or rather, standing still), in relation to the earth it is on, shows that the direction of motion of the earth is changing. This is easily explained by the RET as the gyroscope is on a spinning globe.
If I were to use the same gyroscope on the northpole it would not do this (not noticably). Again this fits in the RET that the earth is a globe spinning around an axis.

Now if I were to do this on the FE according to the FET my gyroscope should be doing nothing, anywhere, so long as I don't touch it. The FE is, afterall a disc that is doing nothing but going up. This is however in contradiction to what my gyroscope is doing.

How does the FET explain this?

EDIT:

One could also prove the curvature of the earth with this concept, One takes a gyroscope and you fit it to a ship (the gyroscope has to be able to spin freely in every direction). Now you take the ship, put it on a large body of water, and head straight north (making sure there are no land obstacles you would have to go around). The gyroscope would now not only tilt on its west-east alignment according to the rotation of the earth, it would also tilt on its north-south alignment according to the curvature of the earth.

How does the FET explain this?

By making up a new law of physics or otherwise undetectable phenomenon to explain it. That's their usual tactic.

Quote from: Raver on June 15, 2010, 09:18:48 AM

How does the FET explain this?

By making up a new law of physics or otherwise undetectable phenomenon to explain it. That's their usual tactic.

That would put me in the state of a frowny face.

--->     :|

It doesn't matter what you come up with. The mere possibility that something could be faked, lied about, inaccurate or covered up is apparently proof enough for FE'ers that it is or has been.

Forget that nobody has ever seen the ice wall, the antimoon, provided no solid evidence of a worldwide conspiracy, or despite 129 years passing since the publishing of "Earth not a Globe" and the FE'ers haven't been able to get their shit together to even agree on a map...

Sorry, double-post.

actually, triple post. there is a remove post button.

Is this not getting a response (from FE'er) because of the unconvenience? Or because there is no answer? Also, if you find a way to tell me my gyroscope is in on the "conspiracy", I would like you to tell me how so. If not then give me a different explanation as to why my gyroscope is behaving in a manner that fits a rotating globe.

Quote from: Ranger 3 on June 15, 2010, 06:36:14 PM

Sorry, double-post.

actually, triple post. there is a remove post button.

Heh...How 'bout that!

The ammount of serious replies from FE'ers (zero), compared to the ammount of garbage replies that don't add to anything (more than zero) is appaling. Only one person can describe this situation:

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`

I believe in Bishop's model it is explained through celestial gears.  I've also heard before it explained through the heavens rotating.  In my model it is the effect of the gravitational pull of the submoon in combination with the rotating gravitational pull of the heavens.

I believe in Bishop's model it is explained through celestial gears.  I've also heard before it explained through the heavens rotating.  In my model it is the effect of the gravitational pull of the submoon in combination with the rotating gravitational pull of the heavens.

Why would gravitational pull, pull my gyroscope out of its rotating plane? I can go along with gravity "pulling" on my gyroscope by other celestial bodies, but it shouldn't affect the plane it is rotating in, it should only "move" the gyroscope as a whole.

EDIT: can somebody post a link too where Bishop explains these "celestial gears". All I find with the search function is the term being used to explain observations, without the term itself being explained.

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2010, 08:51:06 AM

I believe in Bishop's model it is explained through celestial gears.  I've also heard before it explained through the heavens rotating.  In my model it is the effect of the gravitational pull of the submoon in combination with the rotating gravitational pull of the heavens.

Why would gravitational pull, pull my gyroscope out of its rotating plane? I can go along with gravity "pulling" on my gyroscope by other celestial bodies, but it shouldn't affect the plane it is rotating in, it should only "move" the gyroscope as a whole.

I have to admit I haven't read your op in full.  I'm pretty damn tired right now, pulling a bunch of all nighters.  About to log, but I'll read it and answer you when I return with a clearer head.

I believe in Bishop's model it is explained through celestial gears.  I've also heard before it explained through the heavens rotating.  In my model it is the effect of the gravitational pull of the submoon in combination with the rotating gravitational pull of the heavens.

Do you have any evidence that this "submoon" exists? Or that gravitational pull can rotate?

Quote from: Raver on June 16, 2010, 08:57:30 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2010, 08:51:06 AM

I believe in Bishop's model it is explained through celestial gears.  I've also heard before it explained through the heavens rotating.  In my model it is the effect of the gravitational pull of the submoon in combination with the rotating gravitational pull of the heavens.

Why would gravitational pull, pull my gyroscope out of its rotating plane? I can go along with gravity "pulling" on my gyroscope by other celestial bodies, but it shouldn't affect the plane it is rotating in, it should only "move" the gyroscope as a whole.

I have to admit I haven't read your op in full.  I'm pretty damn tired right now, pulling a bunch of all nighters.  About to log, but I'll read it and answer you when I return with a clearer head.

That is only fair.

I believe in Bishop's model it is explained through celestial gears.  I've also heard before it explained through the heavens rotating.  In my model it is the effect of the gravitational pull of the submoon in combination with the rotating gravitational pull of the heavens.

Unfortunately celestial gears have been disproved by looking up into the sky and not seeing stars changing distance from each other. Unfortunately your submoon explanation is provably wrong because you also need the submoon to make the tides happen, and the gyroscopic effect is independent of tidal state. You and Bishop can both fail harder. If that wasn't enough to destroy your explanation (which it is) then you'd be required to explain why some parts of the sky have a greater gravitational attraction than others.

Still waiting for a reply from a FE'er. (besides John, as he has already stated that he will reply at a later time/date) With a reply I also mean something more than "No, you are wrong because you have not accounted for the[fill in generic made up theory]". Also, please no beating around the bushes, off topic remarks, or any other form of detracting from the gyroscope topic.

I'm hearing a lot of 'gravitational pull'.  Would someone mind brushing me up on what that means in FET, and why the Earth has none?

In the FET the earth does not have gravity because is is "special". I really wish I could find an answer to how high you have to go to be affected by the UA.

In the FET the earth does not have gravity because is is "special". I really wish I could find an answer to how high you have to go to be affected by the UA.

That's all I seem to get out of it, too.  Personally, I believe this "special" excuse is just a testament to the human ego and has no place in science.  There's no reason why we should defy physics.