# Earth's rotation

• 105 Replies
• 14290 Views

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2012, 03:30:18 PM »
Mach explains that inertia is relative to the observed. This is exactly what we see here on earth with the Foucault pendulum. But you were correct that Mach was not challenging accepted Orthodoxy as it relates to the shape of the earth. I did not claim he was.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

#### Cat Earth Theory

• 1614
• I practise the Zetetic Method!
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #31 on: August 17, 2012, 03:39:59 PM »
Using Mach's principle on a flat earth is problematic.  It only works if the two scenarios appear exactly the same.  Either the earth is spinning, or the entire rest of the universe is spinning around the earth.

With a flat earth, though, we have a problem.  The northern and southern hemiplanes (whatever you want to call them) would need to spin in opposite directions.  Making the sky over the hemiplanes spin in opposite directions instead does not appear exactly the same.  Mach's principle makes little sense in this situation.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2012, 03:58:19 PM »
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

#### Cat Earth Theory

• 1614
• I practise the Zetetic Method!
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2012, 04:07:29 PM »
Except that what's observed is not the same as the two hemiplanes rotating in opposite directions and meeting at the equator like two giant gears.  How this would physically work in the real world is mind-boggling.  The two hemiplanes would only meet at a single point, meaning there would only be one constantly changing spot at the equator where it would be possible to cross over.  Unless the two hemiplanes were constantly smushing into each other, but I imagine that would make a lot of noise.

Mach's principle makes sense on a round earth because whether the rest of the universe is rotating around the earth, or the earth is rotating, what's observed appears exactly the same.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

#### Battery72

• 140
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2012, 09:27:16 PM »

?

#### BoatswainsMate

• 675
• You just been Tom Bishop'ed
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2012, 10:42:00 PM »
Well, I dont know about anyone els, but I dont see a flat Earth. It curves. Nice video. I am sure as schnitzel that someone will claim that "it looks flat"

?

#### Cat Earth Theory

• 1614
• I practise the Zetetic Method!
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #36 on: August 18, 2012, 05:40:04 AM »
I'd also like to point out that even if both hemiplanes were rotating in opposite direction, the sky wouldn't look right.  We would see the stars only rotating around the south pole in the southern hemiplane, or around the north pole in the northern hemiplane.  Shots taken from the equator, where you can clearly see that there are two axes of rotation would be impossible.

So yeah, Mach's principle doesn't make much sense since there's no analogous movement of the earth that would create the same appearance as having the sky gears over the poles.

I suppose you could have the southern hemiplane be the bottom half of the disc, though, but you'd think people might notice the sharp, sudden turn at the equator as they moved to the bottom half of the disc.  Unless we somehow rounded the disc, making it, hmm, a sphere perhaps.

I can draw pictures if any of the FEers who have been relying on Mach's principle to explain the coriolis effect aren't getting this.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

#### Moon squirter

• 1405
• Ding dong!
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #37 on: August 18, 2012, 08:34:32 AM »
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.

Can you please provide evidence that the heavens "diverge" at certain places.  I have never seen any record of this in astronomy through the millennia.  This could be of real scientific importance.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

#### KristaGurl

• 141
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #38 on: August 20, 2012, 08:42:28 AM »
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.

This is stupid.  Do you not understand that Mach's principle does not prove at ALL that a pendulum works because the stars are pulling it on a flat earth?  Yes, Mach's principle is correct, but it does not prove that the stars would have that kind of effect on a pendulum.  Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the sun or moon override that power?  I mean, to me... if the stars are as close as FE'ers think, they would be WAY too small to have any kind of effect on a pendulum.  What you guys are doing is called misdirection.  You're trying to get us to focus on the idea of Mach's principle without proving that Mach's principle really has anything at all to do with how a pendulum works.  Again... this is circumstantial evidence.
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2012, 01:21:03 AM »
Aren't you saying that the pendulum's movement is not inertial?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2012, 01:22:05 AM »
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.

Can you please provide evidence that the heavens "diverge" at certain places.  I have never seen any record of this in astronomy through the millennia.  This could be of real scientific importance.

Note the divergent paths of the stars at the equator:
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6754
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2012, 02:12:34 AM »
It is very easy to prove that the Earth is absolutely stationary; that is, it does not rotate around its own axis. Perhaps then the RE will be asking themselves the question: if the Earth is indeed stationary, what is its real shape?

Of course it would really help if the official faq would be replaced completely with the data I have amassed here; ISS/Atlantis do really orbit, as do the satellites, the sun rises and sets, the real sun-earth distance, the heavenly body which actually causes the solar eclipses, the northern/southern stellar circumpolar constellations/regular stellar paths and the REAL FE map, and much more.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143#p34382

The most complete, up-to-date demonstration of the fact that the trajectories of the clouds are absolutely incompatible with an Earth that would rotate around its own axis; it includes the data from the freelists archive on the angular momentum, boundary layer and much more.

http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

Restoring Forces Paradox by Dr. Neville Jones, one of the most superb arguments for the fact that the Earth is actually stationary.

From Cosmos without Gravitation:

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”

This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

The atmospheric pressure does not obey an attractive gravitational law:

SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.

Foucault's Pendulum explained:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374

Geocentric Coriolis force:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747

G.B. Airy experiment, stellar parallax/aberration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580

"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

Ring Laser Gyroscopes and the Telluric Currents/Ether:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899

I was the first to explain that there are three kinds of stellar orbits.

Here is the photograph to prove it:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0903/5hOHPsanterne900.jpg

See the following links for complete explanations:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p34143
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33509
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33520

?

#### EmperorZhark

• 2229
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2012, 03:22:31 AM »
Of course, its utter bullshit.

Some of it is very disturbing, such as the site http://www.realityreviewed.com/ which says on the opening page:

"There is a very real and serious danger that the Zionist/Nazi regimes of Britain, the United States and so-called 'Israel' are going to commit another false flag atrocity in London, with a view to pinning the blame upon Iran/Syria and/or Venezuela and thus starting World War III. Under the dark shadow of what will be a short and very bloody war, Canaan (i.e., Palestine, or so-called 'Israel') will be deliberately destroyed by the Zionist regimes, again spouting the lie that "Iran did it." Thus 6 million Jews, that superstitious, magic number, will finally be a valid victim count from a real holocaust. This real holocaust of the Jews will usher in the return of the Devil itself, the god of the Zionists (see the article on 'Vati-Canus' on this site). England will then become 'Zion' and London will be the 'New Jerusalem'."

The rest of the site is a collection of Conspirationism, twisted taws of physics and lies.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

#### ThinkingMan

• 1830
• Oh, Really?
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #43 on: August 30, 2012, 05:32:08 AM »
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.

Can you please provide evidence that the heavens "diverge" at certain places.  I have never seen any record of this in astronomy through the millennia.  This could be of real scientific importance.

Note the divergent paths of the stars at the equator:

That doesn't look like divergent paths to me. It looks like they appear to move in a straight line.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

#### hoppy

• Flat Earth Believer
• 11680
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2012, 06:05:25 AM »
I just watched the OP video again. It says near the beginning of video that the pemdulum is mounted on bearing that don't turn with the earth. How can that be unless they are using a motor to turn the bearing against the "earth's rotation".  What kind of bearing would not turn with the earth and the bldg?

#### ThinkingMan

• 1830
• Oh, Really?
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #45 on: August 30, 2012, 06:20:33 AM »
I just watched the OP video again. It says near the beginning of video that the pemdulum is mounted on bearing that don't turn with the earth. How can that be unless they are using a motor to turn the bearing against the "earth's rotation".  What kind of bearing would not turn with the earth and the bldg?

A ball bearing like you'd find on a hard drive, skate board, car, bike, motorcycle, yo yo, almost any lawn/yard/farm/industrial machine. They moved quite freely, and you'll notice that if you dangle the object from the bearing, and turn your hand, the object will not turn with it. I didn't look up to see what type of bearing it uses, but this one seems to make the most sense to me.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

#### trig

• 2240
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2012, 09:30:47 AM »
Note the divergent paths of the stars at the equator:

This photograph, as well as many other similar ones, are not made by simply opening the shutter and waiting a few hours. Until a few years ago every single photo of this kind you could find showed the stars moving exactly as expected: drawing concentric circles.

The photographer here did not even try to conceal the fact that he did much more than placing a camera on a tripod and opening the shutter. Notice how the buildings do not appear vertical?

I do not know the exact details of this technique, but it is not designed to show exact paths of stars, it is designed to be art. It is, in reality, a digital composition from multiple shots, and I have shown the explanations of the photographers of similar photos in this forum.

Now, get us a photo with the photographer's explanation of the technique, or take a photo yourself.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17732
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2012, 10:19:00 AM »
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2012, 10:22:59 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### The Knowledge

• 2391
• FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2012, 05:09:41 PM »
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.

There is no divergence. The angular distance between each star remains constant. Ichimaru Gin can confirm this with his Celestron computer controlled star tracking telescope, which could not function if stellar divergence occurred.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

#### trig

• 2240
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2012, 05:24:03 PM »
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.
This is, as everything Tom Bishop says, just the poorly analyzed imagination of an intellectually lazy person with a pet theory.

As told earlier, the stars, all of them, make a circle on the sky at the rate of one full circle per day. All those circles are concentric (no divergence). And the only divergence comes from the distortion caused by the atmosphere from some 15 degrees above the horizon down to the horizon. And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above. The maximum divergence is about a half of one degree (too small to see in a photograph taken without camera movement).

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17732
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #50 on: September 03, 2012, 06:21:24 PM »
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?

?

#### The Knowledge

• 2391
• FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #51 on: September 03, 2012, 06:25:49 PM »
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?

No. Fail harder.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #52 on: September 03, 2012, 10:01:30 PM »
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?

For heaven's sake, don't question the clergy of science. You know how it upsets the masses.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

#### Battery72

• 140
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2012, 10:22:56 PM »
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.

Have you been to the the equator recently Tom? Show us some time lapse video.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17732
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #54 on: September 03, 2012, 10:26:27 PM »
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.

Have you been to the the equator recently Tom? Show us some time lapse video.

Do a search for star trails of the celestial equator:

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtkreu/6686990851/#lightbox/

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html

You can clearly see that the stars diverge, in contradiction to what should happen if the earth were round according to Trig and co.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #55 on: September 03, 2012, 10:30:21 PM »
I also find it terribly ironic that the only defense I've seen thus far was that the picture was fake...
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### Moon squirter

• 1405
• Ding dong!
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #56 on: September 03, 2012, 11:17:21 PM »
I also find it terribly ironic that the only defense I've seen thus far was that the picture was fake...

Erm... If I were inside a rotating celestial dome of stars and took a picture of the celestial equator with a wide angle lens, I would expect to see evidence of the stars rotating around both celestial poles on the left and right of the image.

Mapping the inside of a celestial sphere onto a flat image presents the same type of problems as mapping a globe onto a map. If you are inside the sphere, a flat image will present predictable distortions.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

#### trig

• 2240
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2012, 01:32:46 AM »
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?
The distorted composite of several photographs that shows totally distorted buildings is not a proof or disproof of anything.

If anything, it is indirectly proving that you will use any graphic material, with no concern at all for the circumstances, technique or equipment used, to try to save your dead theory. In a photograph that looks a lot like this one the photographer explicitly told that it was a composite of many photos, compiled into one for artistic purposes. And I showed the link to this information in this forum.

Now that another artistic compilation of several photos appears in this forum, showing totally distorted buildings, you should have the decency to show the information about the photographer, the technique and the equipment used. Or are you telling me that a building with 15 degrees off-kilter walls and straight shadows really exists?

?

#### trig

• 2240
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2012, 01:40:32 AM »
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?

For heaven's sake, don't question the clergy of science. You know how it upsets the masses.
For Heaven's sake, do question the clergy of science. And stop these low-content posts in upper fora. Do you have any evidence that the compilation of photographs that was made here, with no concern at all for covering the fact that this is not a straight, simple long exposure, was anything other than an artistic endeavor?

?

#### Battery72

• 140
##### Re: Earth's rotation
« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2012, 02:02:11 AM »
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.

Have you been to the the equator recently Tom? Show us some time lapse video.

Do a search for star trails of the celestial equator:

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/star-trails-of-the-celestial-equator-luis-argerich.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtkreu/6686990851/#lightbox/

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html

You can clearly see that the stars diverge, in contradiction to what should happen if the earth were round according to Trig and co.

Rotation of the Sky at the Equator
The stars move parallel to each other, and the Celestial Equator. Since the Poles are on the Horizon, the Equator rises vertically at the East point, and sets vertically at the West point. All stars rise vertically in the East, and set vertically in the West (see the Equatorial view of the sky in Kenya, below). All the paths of the stars are cut in half by the horizon, so all stars are up half the time, and down half the time, regardless of their position. No star is circumpolar, no matter how close it is to the Celestial Pole.

A panoramic view of stars setting on the western horizon, as seen at the Equator, in Kenya. On the left, stars circle clockwise around the South Celestial Pole, rising on the left (which is east, when facing south) and setting on the right (which is west, when facing south). On the right, stars circle counterclockwise around the North Celestial Pole, rising on the right (which is east, when facing north) and setting on the left (which is west, when facing north). Everywhere, the stars set at right angles to the horizon (the horizontal white line), as they all move parallel to the Celestial Equator, which crosses the Horizon at right angles at the Equator.

« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 02:05:32 AM by Battery72 »