Given two threads, we now know that the Earth is round

Quote from: Thork on November 01, 2010, 05:21:20 PM

Quote from: zork on November 01, 2010, 05:16:01 PM

Quote from: Thork on November 01, 2010, 05:06:35 PM

Zetetic methods are based on what you can observe yourself. So you can see. Check their experiments in the FAQ. Tom Bishop can tell you all the things you can see for yourself from shape of the sea to the way star distances can be accurately calculated. Its all stuff yu can verify for yourself. Not rely on others for. So enough of the silly unproven Coriolis business please.

Well, you don't understand it, so it is silly. Good to know. And you are quite a hypocrite as I see. Not rely on others for.. don't make ma laugh. Your all life depends on the others. So, drop your Zetetic stuff when you don't behave according to it. As for the Tom, there isn't any experiments or measurements which can be replicated by others like he does them. You try to do them at first and than come back and talk.

Zork, I can trust a milkman to bring me milk. I can trust a shop to stock food. But the whole point of FES is that you cannot trust the governments to deliver correct science. They have an ulterior motive. Would you trust BP with your beach? Some things deserve to be questioned. Others don't. Earth's shape, well what better thing to want to know for myself?

Attack the science, not the sources. What is your reason for not trusting the government as a source?

Zork, I can trust a milkman to bring me milk. I can trust a shop to stock food. But the whole point of FES is that you cannot trust the governments to deliver correct science. They have an ulterior motive. Would you trust BP with your beach? Some things deserve to be questioned. Others don't. Earth's shape, well what better thing to want to know for myself?

Quote from: Thork on November 01, 2010, 05:21:20 PM

Zork, I can trust a milkman to bring me milk. I can trust a shop to stock food. But the whole point of FES is that you cannot trust the governments to deliver correct science. They have an ulterior motive. Would you trust BP with your beach? Some things deserve to be questioned. Others don't. Earth's shape, well what better thing to want to know for myself?

 And you continue your display of ... whatever you call it. Trust government to deliver correct science to you? You know how stupid you sound? Government won't do science. Scientists do. And quite a many of them are on the payroll of the private companies. Milkman and the shop have exactly in the same way the ulterior motive as your government. You just don't know it and trust them blindly. You really are gullible and hypocrite. I rather want to know from where my milk comes(and you know, it won't come from the milkman. you can maybe trust that he delivers it to your doorstep but he doesn't produce it, so, I wonder from where it comes from...) than what shape the earth is because my life depends more on the milk than from the shape of the earth. You really must put your priorities on place.

When people are paid like the scientists you run the risk of people saying what the people paying them want them to say.  In terms of the milk, I would much prefer that milkman bringing my dairy products to the door but it is not available anymore in my area.  They represent one dairy in most cases and you can tour the facility to see if you like their processes.  You do not know where your milk comes from unless you physically sit next to the milker watching your batch going in the bucket and then following that batch all the way through the pasteurization process and brought the store shelf.  Not an option.  Bring back the milkman if you want to really trust your products.

Zork, I can trust a milkman to bring me milk. I can trust a shop to stock food. But the whole point of FES is that you cannot trust the governments to deliver correct science. They have an ulterior motive. Would you trust BP with your beach? Some things deserve to be questioned. Others don't. Earth's shape, well what better thing to want to know for myself?

Because they are trying to convince the people of earth that it is round. My next post is going to be a 'lurk moar' one if you follow this line of debate.

Quote from: BiJane on November 01, 2010, 05:28:10 PM

Quote from: Thork on November 01, 2010, 05:21:20 PM

Quote from: zork on November 01, 2010, 05:16:01 PM

Quote from: Thork on November 01, 2010, 05:06:35 PM

Zetetic methods are based on what you can observe yourself. So you can see. Check their experiments in the FAQ. Tom Bishop can tell you all the things you can see for yourself from shape of the sea to the way star distances can be accurately calculated. Its all stuff yu can verify for yourself. Not rely on others for. So enough of the silly unproven Coriolis business please.

Well, you don't understand it, so it is silly. Good to know. And you are quite a hypocrite as I see. Not rely on others for.. don't make ma laugh. Your all life depends on the others. So, drop your Zetetic stuff when you don't behave according to it. As for the Tom, there isn't any experiments or measurements which can be replicated by others like he does them. You try to do them at first and than come back and talk.

Zork, I can trust a milkman to bring me milk. I can trust a shop to stock food. But the whole point of FES is that you cannot trust the governments to deliver correct science. They have an ulterior motive. Would you trust BP with your beach? Some things deserve to be questioned. Others don't. Earth's shape, well what better thing to want to know for myself?

Attack the science, not the sources. What is your reason for not trusting the government as a source?

Because they are trying to convince the people of earth that it is round. My next post is going to be a 'lurk moar' one if you follow this line of debate.

I don't see any evidence that the Coriolis force exists in the thread ClockTower posted. I guess that's his argument done and dusted.

Quote from: markjo on November 01, 2010, 12:53:09 PM

No double standard here, Wilmore.  Properties of the Coriolis Effect are well documented.  Aether and bendy light are not.  Unless you can cite a source that defines those properties, there is no way to either substantiate or refute any claims based on those theories.  I call that bad science. As a Zetetic, you should appreciate that.

I would argue that the essential properties of the Coriolis effect are no better documented than those of Aetheric Eddification. I genuinely doubt anyone here can demonstrate otherwise.


Oh, and just in case anyone's tempted, posting tonnes of quotes/links telling me about the Coriolis effect will not amount to such a demonstration. Make sure you read the above sentences carefully.

Unless you have a reason to disbelieve the government (something other than 'the Earth is not round because I think it's flat) then that is an extraordinarily poor line of reasoning.

Quote from: BiJane on November 01, 2010, 05:28:10 PM

Quote from: Thork on November 01, 2010, 05:21:20 PM

Quote from: zork on November 01, 2010, 05:16:01 PM

Quote from: Thork on November 01, 2010, 05:06:35 PM

Zetetic methods are based on what you can observe yourself. So you can see. Check their experiments in the FAQ. Tom Bishop can tell you all the things you can see for yourself from shape of the sea to the way star distances can be accurately calculated. Its all stuff yu can verify for yourself. Not rely on others for. So enough of the silly unproven Coriolis business please.

Well, you don't understand it, so it is silly. Good to know. And you are quite a hypocrite as I see. Not rely on others for.. don't make ma laugh. Your all life depends on the others. So, drop your Zetetic stuff when you don't behave according to it. As for the Tom, there isn't any experiments or measurements which can be replicated by others like he does them. You try to do them at first and than come back and talk.

Zork, I can trust a milkman to bring me milk. I can trust a shop to stock food. But the whole point of FES is that you cannot trust the governments to deliver correct science. They have an ulterior motive. Would you trust BP with your beach? Some things deserve to be questioned. Others don't. Earth's shape, well what better thing to want to know for myself?

Attack the science, not the sources. What is your reason for not trusting the government as a source?

Because they are trying to convince the people of earth that it is round. My next post is going to be a 'lurk moar' one if you follow this line of debate.

Because the Earth is round, so a Flat Earth map is impossible.

Actually, this site fails in two main points, and all the explanations, theories and pseudoscience are hollow to my eyes because of those:

- Not a map
- The Conspiracy is able to shut up every scientist, cartographer, astronaut, student, book publisher, etc etc etc, but this site still exist! And they are always "showing the truth" in an unflawed way (in FE'ers opinion). And everyone, from everywhere, can register!

That means: If the earth was flat someone would have been funded or taken the work to map it successfully & The conspiracy do not exist, and without the conspiracy, the pics and vids and books are reliable.

I would argue that the essential properties of the Coriolis effect are no better documented than those of Aetheric Eddification. I genuinely doubt anyone here can demonstrate otherwise.


Oh, and just in case anyone's tempted, posting tonnes of quotes/links telling me about the Coriolis effect will not amount to such a demonstration. Make sure you read the above sentences carefully.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 02, 2010, 08:01:12 AM

Quote

I would argue that the essential properties of the Coriolis effect are no better documented than those of Aetheric Eddification. I genuinely doubt anyone here can demonstrate otherwise.


Oh, and just in case anyone's tempted, posting tonnes of quotes/links telling me about the Coriolis effect will not amount to such a demonstration. Make sure you read the above sentences carefully.

Please reference: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/foucault.html for one.

I don't see any description of the essential properties of the 'Coriolis effect' on that page. I see a description of hypothetical observations and an equally hypothetical explanation.

I don't see any description of the essential properties of the 'Coriolis effect' on that page.

Quote from: BiJane on November 02, 2010, 07:46:50 AM

Unless you have a reason to disbelieve the government (something other than 'the Earth is not round because I think it's flat) then that is an extraordinarily poor line of reasoning.

To be more precise even the Governments don't know about the Conspiracy and about the true shape of the Earth. They are victims as all other people. It's The Conspiracy which feeds the false information and stays even above the all Governments. I guess all the world is united under The Conspiracy rulings.

Quote from: zork on November 02, 2010, 08:28:59 AM

Quote from: BiJane on November 02, 2010, 07:46:50 AM

Unless you have a reason to disbelieve the government (something other than 'the Earth is not round because I think it's flat) then that is an extraordinarily poor line of reasoning.

To be more precise even the Governments don't know about the Conspiracy and about the true shape of the Earth. They are victims as all other people. It's The Conspiracy which feeds the false information and stays even above the all Governments. I guess all the world is united under The Conspiracy rulings.

Have you got any evidence for the Conspiracy?

Quote from: BiJane on November 02, 2010, 09:47:14 AM

Quote from: zork on November 02, 2010, 08:28:59 AM

Quote from: BiJane on November 02, 2010, 07:46:50 AM

Unless you have a reason to disbelieve the government (something other than 'the Earth is not round because I think it's flat) then that is an extraordinarily poor line of reasoning.

To be more precise even the Governments don't know about the Conspiracy and about the true shape of the Earth. They are victims as all other people. It's The Conspiracy which feeds the false information and stays even above the all Governments. I guess all the world is united under The Conspiracy rulings.

Have you got any evidence for the Conspiracy?

If there would be any except the hiding of the true shape of the Earth then it would not be The Conspiracy anymore. I.E. if The Conspiracy is revealed then it would not be The Conspiracy anymore

The observations are not hypothetical. Indeed they are 'hands-on'. How does the description fail to describe the essential properties of the 'Coriolis Effect'?

Suppose someone put a pendulum above the South Pole and sets it swinging in a simple arc

Please show us the description of the essential properties of the Aetheric Eddification.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 02, 2010, 09:18:09 AM

The observations are not hypothetical. Indeed they are 'hands-on'. How does the description fail to describe the essential properties of the 'Coriolis Effect'?

How on Earth are the examples given in that link 'hands on'?

Quote

Suppose someone put a pendulum above the South Pole and sets it swinging in a simple arc

www.rif.org

Quote from: ClockTower on November 02, 2010, 09:18:09 AM

Please show us the description of the essential properties of the Aetheric Eddification.

Hey, you guys are the ones claiming to have described the essential properties of your theory. Back-up your big-talk.

Our Foucault pendulum

at the School of Physics of The University of New South Wales is a "hands-on" version. There is no electromagnetic drive but, once started it will swing for several hours. Visitors are invited to start it swinging in a plane that is accurately defined by a fixed vertical wire and a vertical line on the wall. It is easy to see when the cable of the pendulum is swinging in this plane. The user then sets an indicator to show the time when it started. After a few minutes the plane of the pendulum precesses half a degree which is easy to see by alligning one eye in the defined vertical plane.

Hey, you guys are the ones claiming to have described the essential properties of your theory. Back-up your big-talk.

As you would build the Focault pendulum and start experimenting with it on different hemispheres. Or do some other experiments.
But ...
 http://stud4.tuwien.ac.at/~e0325551/zeugs/WirbelInDerBadewanne.pdf
 http://web.mit.edu/hml/ncfmf.html - Vorticity, Part 1

Quote from: zork on November 02, 2010, 11:10:48 AM

As you would build the Focault pendulum and start experimenting with it on different hemispheres. Or do some other experiments.
But ...
 http://stud4.tuwien.ac.at/~e0325551/zeugs/WirbelInDerBadewanne.pdf
 http://web.mit.edu/hml/ncfmf.html - Vorticity, Part 1

The pendulum is clearly being affected by the heavenly bodies and not the alleged rotation of the earth. We know this as the pendulum is influenced by the eclipse which would not be the case if it were simply the result of a revolving earth.

The pendulum is clearly being affected by the heavenly bodies and not the alleged rotation of the earth. We know this as the pendulum is influenced by the eclipse which would not be the case if it were simply the result of a revolving earth.

Quote from: Ski on November 02, 2010, 01:46:32 PM

Quote from: zork on November 02, 2010, 11:10:48 AM

As you would build the Focault pendulum and start experimenting with it on different hemispheres. Or do some other experiments.
But ...
 http://stud4.tuwien.ac.at/~e0325551/zeugs/WirbelInDerBadewanne.pdf
 http://web.mit.edu/hml/ncfmf.html - Vorticity, Part 1

The pendulum is clearly being affected by the heavenly bodies and not the alleged rotation of the earth. We know this as the pendulum is influenced by the eclipse which would not be the case if it were simply the result of a revolving earth.

That does not follow. You've mess up your logic there. Furthermore:

Please provide scientific verifiable objective evidence that "the pendulum is influenced by the eclipse".

"Finally during the total eclipses of the sun on June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, quite analogous deviations of the plane of oscillation of the paraconical pendulum were observed.

In fact, all these phenomena are quite inexplicable within the framework of the currently accepted theories.

With regard to all these results as well as to their analysis I can make a prediction: if, without interruption, for at least one month, in the same place and at the same time, observations of the movement of the paraconical pendulum are made, together with optical sightings such as those I made, as well as a repetition of the Michelson-Morley (1887) and Miller (1925) experiments, the purpose of which was to display the movement of the earth relatively to the "ether", it will be found that the effects observed by Miller in 1925 correspond to the anomalies in the movement of the paraconical pendulum and the anomalies of the optical sightings which I observed.

All my researches in theoretical and applied physics which, at first sight, appear to be remote from my main activity as an economist, have, in reality, enriched me with valuable experience.

These researches, which constantly presented all kinds of very great difficulties, have led me to reflect on the nature of our knowledge, the nature of experience and theory, the difficulties of experimentation and the interpretation of results, and the scientific method in general."

Quote from: ClockTower on November 02, 2010, 02:03:04 PM

Quote from: Ski on November 02, 2010, 01:46:32 PM

Quote from: zork on November 02, 2010, 11:10:48 AM

As you would build the Focault pendulum and start experimenting with it on different hemispheres. Or do some other experiments.
But ...
 http://stud4.tuwien.ac.at/~e0325551/zeugs/WirbelInDerBadewanne.pdf
 http://web.mit.edu/hml/ncfmf.html - Vorticity, Part 1

The pendulum is clearly being affected by the heavenly bodies and not the alleged rotation of the earth. We know this as the pendulum is influenced by the eclipse which would not be the case if it were simply the result of a revolving earth.

That does not follow. You've mess up your logic there. Furthermore:

Please provide scientific verifiable objective evidence that "the pendulum is influenced by the eclipse".

Quote from: Maurice Allias; Nobel winner

"Finally during the total eclipses of the sun on June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, quite analogous deviations of the plane of oscillation of the paraconical pendulum were observed.

In fact, all these phenomena are quite inexplicable within the framework of the currently accepted theories.

With regard to all these results as well as to their analysis I can make a prediction: if, without interruption, for at least one month, in the same place and at the same time, observations of the movement of the paraconical pendulum are made, together with optical sightings such as those I made, as well as a repetition of the Michelson-Morley (1887) and Miller (1925) experiments, the purpose of which was to display the movement of the earth relatively to the "ether", it will be found that the effects observed by Miller in 1925 correspond to the anomalies in the movement of the paraconical pendulum and the anomalies of the optical sightings which I observed.

All my researches in theoretical and applied physics which, at first sight, appear to be remote from my main activity as an economist, have, in reality, enriched me with valuable experience.

These researches, which constantly presented all kinds of very great difficulties, have led me to reflect on the nature of our knowledge, the nature of experience and theory, the difficulties of experimentation and the interpretation of results, and the scientific method in general."

Are you saying that Allias's para-conical pendulum was a Foucault Pendulum? If so, please provide proof.

Are you claiming that Allias's observation during the eclipse is verifiable objective evidence? If so, please link to a peer-reviewed article stating such.

You seem to be just making things up fraudulently.

You are more stubborn than all FE people on this forum together.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 02, 2010, 02:03:04 PM

Quote from: Ski on November 02, 2010, 01:46:32 PM

Quote from: zork on November 02, 2010, 11:10:48 AM

As you would build the Focault pendulum and start experimenting with it on different hemispheres. Or do some other experiments.
But ...
 http://stud4.tuwien.ac.at/~e0325551/zeugs/WirbelInDerBadewanne.pdf
 http://web.mit.edu/hml/ncfmf.html - Vorticity, Part 1

The pendulum is clearly being affected by the heavenly bodies and not the alleged rotation of the earth. We know this as the pendulum is influenced by the eclipse which would not be the case if it were simply the result of a revolving earth.

That does not follow. You've mess up your logic there. Furthermore:

Please provide scientific verifiable objective evidence that "the pendulum is influenced by the eclipse".

Quote from: Maurice Allias; Nobel winner

"Finally during the total eclipses of the sun on June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, quite analogous deviations of the plane of oscillation of the paraconical pendulum were observed.

In fact, all these phenomena are quite inexplicable within the framework of the currently accepted theories.

With regard to all these results as well as to their analysis I can make a prediction: if, without interruption, for at least one month, in the same place and at the same time, observations of the movement of the paraconical pendulum are made, together with optical sightings such as those I made, as well as a repetition of the Michelson-Morley (1887) and Miller (1925) experiments, the purpose of which was to display the movement of the earth relatively to the "ether", it will be found that the effects observed by Miller in 1925 correspond to the anomalies in the movement of the paraconical pendulum and the anomalies of the optical sightings which I observed.

All my researches in theoretical and applied physics which, at first sight, appear to be remote from my main activity as an economist, have, in reality, enriched me with valuable experience.

These researches, which constantly presented all kinds of very great difficulties, have led me to reflect on the nature of our knowledge, the nature of experience and theory, the difficulties of experimentation and the interpretation of results, and the scientific method in general."

I kind of see what you meant earlier. But it does not show that pendulum is affected by heavenly bodies when there is no eclipse. It may show to you only and only that it is affected by something during the eclipse.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 02, 2010, 02:46:51 PM

Are you saying that Allias's para-conical pendulum was a Foucault Pendulum? If so, please provide proof.

Experiments with Foucault Pendulums were made as well.   http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast06aug99_1/

Quote

Are you claiming that Allias's observation during the eclipse is verifiable objective evidence? If so, please link to a peer-reviewed article stating such.

The effect is even named and has been studied. I'm sure you're bright enough to figure out how to search on your own, but here is the first one that popped up for me.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408023.pdf

Quote

You seem to be just making things up fraudulently.

Quote from: Hortensius on July 26, 2010, 12:36:06 AM

You are more stubborn than all FE people on this forum together.

But before the cause of the Allais effect can be determined, scientists first need to settle the question about whether a pendulum really does act differently during a solar eclipse.