A question for the FE'rs

I have been enjoying the debates in the forums, and I haven't been able to find the answer to this question. 

Why does the sky rotate in different directions if the earth is flat?

I know you like proof so here are some time-lapse videos above and below the equator.

Stars hovering above the earth rotate clockwise inside the red circle, and counter-clockwise outside of the red circle.

by that logic the sky would be split and rotating in different directions at the equator, which they do not.

how do you explain that

Stars hovering above the earth rotate clockwise inside the red circle, and counter-clockwise outside of the red circle.

This is incorrect and misleading.
Do a search for "Celestial Gears" and posts by Tom Bishop.

That- as far as I  know- is the current explanation for the stars.

This is what was listed, the picture does not show which direction the stars are moving.


http://www.danheller.com/images/FAQ/Tech/Stars/img7.html#img10

Quote
d) If the sets of stars were separate and rotating on opposing axis why do the stars appear motionless in relation to each other from every point on earth?

The stars aren't motionless. The stars are constantly in motion. In the North the stars spin in one direction, in the South the stars spin in an opposite direction. On the equator you will see stars moving in completely opposite directions. See the previous link.


this video was made at the canary islands and will show the sky above the equator and no split in the sky

Round earth. Explains why different stars are seen during different times of year AND why I can see a different angle of the sky at 4am than someone else can at the same time but in a different part of the round planet.


Flat earth. Explains neither of those things.


BONUS FACT!
There are no modern day Flat-Earth Astronomers.
Or astrophysicists.

...

This is incorrect and misleading.
Do a search for "Celestial Gears" and posts by Tom Bishop.

That- as far as I  know- is the current explanation for the stars.

This is actually a theory of my own that I've been developing since FET fails to account for so many celestial phenomenon.

by that logic the sky would be split and rotating in different directions at the equator, which they do not.

how do you explain that

There is a powerful magnetic field that is present along the red line I showed.  Inside the circle the magnetic field bends the light of the stars to look like what you would call the northern hemisphere, and outside the red circle the magnetic field bends the light of the stars to look like what you would call the southern hemisphere.  The magnetic barrier is so strong that someone outside the circle cannot see stars inside the circle, and vice versa.  On the equator you are inside the magnetic field so you can see stars from both the inside and outside of the circle, and they are not rotating in different directions due to the illusion of the magnetic field.

Quote from: Unknown on June 03, 2012, 04:38:15 PM

...

This is incorrect and misleading.
Do a search for "Celestial Gears" and posts by Tom Bishop.

That- as far as I  know- is the current explanation for the stars.

This is actually a theory of my own that I've been developing since FET fails to account for so many celestial phenomenon.

Quote from: ThePenguin on June 03, 2012, 04:29:51 PM

by that logic the sky would be split and rotating in different directions at the equator, which they do not.

how do you explain that

There is a powerful magnetic field that is present along the red line I showed.  Inside the circle the magnetic field bends the light of the stars to look like what you would call the northern hemisphere, and outside the red circle the magnetic field bends the light of the stars to look like what you would call the southern hemisphere.  The magnetic barrier is so strong that someone outside the circle cannot see stars inside the circle, and vice versa.  On the equator you are inside the magnetic field so you can see stars from both the inside and outside of the circle, and they are not rotating in different directions due to the illusion of the magnetic field.

Please stop trolling.

Celestial gearing is the answer to this. This is fully explained by Aristotle in his book called 'Metaphysics' and expanded upon by St Thomas Aquinas in his book Quinque Viae which is ruined somewhat, by his trying to thrust his agenda (God) onto the reader.

Lollipop for anyone who can read Quinque Viae (the five proofs of God) and get to the end. First of 5 proofs below.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

He's kind of wordy huh?

In Aristotle's Metaphysics he describes the stars as a sphere of fixed stars.  Anyone can verify this by looking up at the night sky and seeing that the stars do not move in relation to each other.  He then postulates that the sun moon and other planets are other spheres moving around inside this outer sphere of fixed stars to explain their paths around the earth.

from Metaphysics by Aristotle Book XII
"Eudoxus supposed that the motion of the sun or of the moon involves, in either case, three spheres, of which the first is the sphere of the fixed stars, and the second moves in the circle which runs along the middle of the zodiac, and the third in the circle which is inclined across the breadth of the zodiac; but the circle in which the moon moves is inclined at a greater angle than that in which the sun moves. And the motion of the planets involves, in each case, four spheres, and of these also the first and second are the same as the first two mentioned above (for the sphere of the fixed stars is that which moves all the other spheres, and that which is placed beneath this and has its movement in the circle which bisects the zodiac is common to all), but the poles of the third sphere of each planet are in the circle which bisects the zodiac, and the motion of the fourth sphere is in the circle which is inclined at an angle to the equator of the third sphere; and the poles of the third sphere are different for each of the other planets, but those of Venus and Mercury are the same.

So if the stars are fixed there can't be any gearing between them.

Oh and the quote from  St Thomas Aquinas from his book Quinque Viae is only trying to prove there is a God because of the motion of the stars and planets.

You have located the wrong part of the Metaphysics. The part that requires examination is the part concerning the prime movers and the clockwork universe. As mentioned Aquinas butchers this and tries to put a "well god must be moving the gears" type spin on it, but its from Aristotle he gets his ideas. Aristotle believes there are 47 or 55 (he had trouble deciding) separate gears on which the heavens move.

Aristotle adopted the geometrical model of Eudoxus of Cnidus, to provide a general explanation of the apparent wandering of the classical planets arising from uniform circular motions of celestial spheres. While the number of spheres in the model itself was subject to change, (47 or 55), Aristotle's account of aether, and of potentiality and actuality, required an individual unmoved mover for each sphere.

He is explaining why planets and stars don't move in a uniform manner, but rather on their own tracks. The aether suggestion is also the origin of Wilmore's work on universal acceleration to the best of my knowledge. FET ties together very neatly for those who study it in depth.

Then maybe you can find it for me.

Here is a translations of his books

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html


These books are mostly philosophic in nature, not concerned with the how, but the why.  They state (in my previous post) that the stars are a fixed sphere.  The gearing that everyone is talking about is the interaction between the spheres of the planets and the outer sphere of the stars.

So if the stars are a fixed sphere that rotates around the earth (or the earth rotates inside the sphere either way works) then the only explanation of the sky rotating in different directions is the earth is round.


The prime mover argument is summarized as such.

Some things are moved.
Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.

Here is a translations of his books

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html

I'm aware. I have read metaphysics in its entirety.

These books are mostly philosophic in nature, not concerned with the how, but the why.

These books are Zetetic in nature. Aristotle bases his theories on observation, not the flawed scientific method.

They state (in my previous post) that the stars are a fixed sphere.  The gearing that everyone is talking about is the interaction between the spheres of the planets and the outer sphere of the stars.

Actually they are on more than one 'sphere'. You'll appreciate there are less than 47 planets.

So if the stars are a fixed sphere that rotates around the earth (or the earth rotates inside the sphere either way works) then the only explanation of the sky rotating in different directions is the earth is round.

The universe is three dimensional. Obviously. Why does it follow that the earth has to be round? That's just a total nonsense.

The prime mover argument is summarized as such.

Some things are moved.
Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.

Forget Aquinas. He's full of God and you seem to be focusing on that element too much. The movers themselves are the gears. The motion of the heavens as described by Aristotle.

The movers are also know as Merkabah. Literally wheel shaped angels.
Left in this picture. Two interlocking wheels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah

Forget the god part for a second, its the wheels or gears that drive the universe. The angels are just man trying to understand and explain how. These wheels pop up everywhere in FET. Check out the flamarion woodcut below. A man lifts the curtain of the sky at the edge of the earth to see the very workings of the heavens. And right there you see a Merkabah. A wheeled angel, driving the heavens (top left).

Ok we will go the observation method.

I observe that the stars rotate in the sky in relation to the earth and not each other.

throughout history we have identified constellations in the night sky and can chart them in relation to each other for the entire night sky

in the northern hemisphere the stars will rotate in one direction in the southern the other.  and near the equator they pass from east to west.

Now for why.

Quote

Quote from: ThePenguin on Today at 08:33:39 AM
So if the stars are a fixed sphere that rotates around the earth (or the earth rotates inside the sphere either way works) then the only explanation of the sky rotating in different directions is the earth is round.

The universe is three dimensional. Obviously. Why does it follow that the earth has to be round? That's just a total nonsense.

any spinning object will appear to spin in different directions based on what side you look at.

take a bicycle wheel, it's rolling down a hill. on one side it's going counter clockwise and on the other it's going clockwise same with a ball.

If I'm on one side of the wheel I will only see fixed objects turning in one direction.

now if I'm on a sphere the fixed objects will rotate in one direction then I travel to the other side, the fixed objects will rotate in the opposite direction .

Or gears drive the heavens in opposite directions.

Or gears drive the heavens in opposite directions.

you have a still image that doesn't show direction, only the path
To that i refer you to my original links, heck I'll link them again



 
nowhere in these videos do you see the heavens being driven in opposite directions.

I fail to see what the problem is. My picture literally shows the paths the stars take. Two separate gears in the sky.

so where is the gear separation?? or are they connected all the way round?

They aren't made of metal. Ethereal forces drive the stars - the movers. Gears is a metaphor. They aren't huge steel plates in the sky. Its not literal. Its a model. Don't ask for a model and then complain when the model isn't exactly as reality says it is. The Bohr model is an illustration but electrons aren't balls whizzing around a nucleus. You can see the movement. Two distinct patterns. Swirling movers/gears whatever you want to call them. The heavens do not move as one. My picture illustrates this. FEt says this is so. RET says the opposite of what your eyes tell you. RET is bunk.

They do move as one my videos show this, since you continue to hide behind your "theory" with your eyes closed i can't seem to convince you otherwise.

BTW the Bohr was postulated using the scientific method

They do move as one my videos show this, since you continue to hide behind your "theory" with your eyes closed i can't seem to convince you otherwise.

If some of the stars bend left and some bend right, they aren't moving as one are they?

BTW the Bohr was postulated using the scientific method

Please get a citation for that please. That is absolute cr*p.

The Bohr model is still widely used in chemistry, though it isn't a valid model. But it works with chemistry.

The Bohr model is still widely used in chemistry, though it isn't a valid model. But it works with chemistry.

Are you going to make a point?

in case you forgot



since we cant see electrons, this is the only way to model there behavor.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on June 04, 2012, 12:07:55 PM

The Bohr model is still widely used in chemistry, though it isn't a valid model. But it works with chemistry.

Are you going to make a point?

Yes. Modern science isn't as monolithic as you pretend it is. It isn't a dogma; its constantly changing and evolving. It tends to accept a new theory when its surpasses the previous one.

since we cant see electrons, this is the only way to model there behavor.

There is only one way to model the behaviour of electrons?

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

Yes. Modern science isn't as monolithic as you pretend it is. It isn't a dogma; its constantly changing and evolving. It tends to accept a new theory when its surpasses the previous one.

It changes its story when the previous one is shown to make no sense. Ok, good to know.

Quote from: ThePenguin on June 04, 2012, 12:16:47 PM

since we cant see electrons, this is the only way to model there behavor.

There is only one way to model the behaviour of electrons?

yes, through hypothesis and experimentation i.e. the scientific method.

Quote from: Thork on June 04, 2012, 12:32:25 PM

Quote from: ThePenguin on June 04, 2012, 12:16:47 PM

since we cant see electrons, this is the only way to model there behavor.

There is only one way to model the behaviour of electrons?

yes, through hypothesis and experimentation i.e. the scientific method.

Experimentation does not tell you that electrons travel in circles like little balls circling a nucleus. You are talking rubbish.

ok then, what does??? how do we even know there are electrons or protons or even neutrons??

how do we know??

Quote from: EmperorZhark on June 04, 2012, 12:20:19 PM

Yes. Modern science isn't as monolithic as you pretend it is. It isn't a dogma; its constantly changing and evolving. It tends to accept a new theory when its surpasses the previous one.

It changes its story when the previous one is shown to make no sense. Ok, good to know.

No it doesn't.
A better theory replaces an incomplete one, roughly. That's why FET will never replace RET.

ok then, what does??? how do we even know there are electrons or protons or even neutrons??

how do we know??

By Zetetic observation. We can observe the effects such as magnetism, electricity, chemical reactions and build a picture from what we have tested.

The method used for finding the value of unknown quantities by direct search, in investigation, or in the solution of problems.

Quote from: Thork on June 04, 2012, 12:32:25 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on June 04, 2012, 12:20:19 PM

Yes. Modern science isn't as monolithic as you pretend it is. It isn't a dogma; its constantly changing and evolving. It tends to accept a new theory when its surpasses the previous one.

It changes its story when the previous one is shown to make no sense. Ok, good to know.

No it doesn't.
A better theory replaces an incomplete one, roughly. That's why FET will never replace RET.

In the 18th century scientists thought the earth was 6000 years old. In 1892, Lord Kelvin re-calculated the age of Earth by using thermal gradients, and arrived at an estimate of 100 million years old. That was scientific fact. Later moar scientists realised he hadn't factored in radioactivity in the earth's core. The figure was then just changed overnight to 4.5 billion years. If they find they ballsed something else up, they'll just change the figure again. Science told people earth was 6000 years old. Science was wrong. Now if tomorrow they discover earth to be flat, they'll just change the story and you'll have to like it like that. You are talking hogwash.