Earth's rotation

No complaints about my post. I wasn't the butt of the joke. Seems plenty of people across the web are still puzzled by the glass thread. You guys never gave a definitive and convincing argument. Obviously. I guess neutrals weren't buying "The glass company are liars" as a proper answer.

I thought you'd be particularly irritated as you were so vocal about how wrong I was. +1 for FET in the end.  But anyway, this thread is about earth's rotation - well actually lack of, so lets steer it back on course.

No complaints about my post. I wasn't the butt of the joke. Seems plenty of people across the web are still puzzled by the glass thread. You guys never gave a definitive and convincing argument. Obviously. I guess neutrals weren't buying "The glass company are liars" as a proper answer.

I thought you'd be particularly irritated as you were so vocal about how wrong I was. +1 for FET in the end.  But anyway, this thread is about earth's rotation - well actually lack of, so lets steer it back on course.

It is a sad day when you have to defend yourself with "no, I was not the butt of the joke". You know you are the butt when everyone else is laughing, except you.

No, wait, it is a happy day, for some.

Who said that?     And what does that have to do with the picture which clearly shows the stars diverging from eachother at the equator?

It's a perspective "thing". Assuming the paths in front of the camera belong to "rising" stars, if you had a picture of the sky "behind" the camera with the same lens, they would appear to converge again. When we look with the naked eye, we wouldn't perceive those paths as diverging (maybe concentric, but that's still sort of parallel), if they were just plotted in the sky.
In fact, no photo can really replace the image an eye can see.

Quote from: Ski on September 04, 2012, 06:51:25 PM

Barrel distortion from a wide-angle lens would flatten any curvature in this photo:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg

It would not create curvature in the direction(s) seen here.

No matter how badly doctored the initial images are, I don't know how you can tell the direction of rotation. Secondly have have been diverted from the celestial gears discussion which has been my focus. My explanations have blown any thought of celestial gears away. Reading this Tom, Thork, Rushy?

Yes the wide angle flattens out but it's still curved and the stars still do what they do so........

If the earth were truly flat, most of us would see most of the same stars every night regardless of north/ south "hemisplane" it's just the angle of perception will differ. We all know this doesn't happen so........the earth must be a sphere.

I'm still waiting on a response from the 3 amigos. The silence is deafening. So Tom and Rushy, how did you go downloading the free ISS and SATTRACKER apps?

Quote from: Battery72 on September 04, 2012, 08:07:40 PM

No matter how badly doctored the initial images are, I don't know how you can tell the direction of rotation.

I'm still waiting on a response from the 3 amigos. The silence is deafening.

I don't know about the others, but Tom and I lost interest in responding to you after the examples in bold made it obvious to me that you and ThinkingMan were more interested in talking over me or addressing strawmen than actually listening.

The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.

No complaints about my post. I wasn't the butt of the joke. Seems plenty of people across the web are still puzzled by the glass thread. You guys never gave a definitive and convincing argument. Obviously. I guess neutrals weren't buying "The glass company are liars" as a proper answer.

I thought you'd be particularly irritated as you were so vocal about how wrong I was. +1 for FET in the end.  But anyway, this thread is about earth's rotation - well actually lack of, so lets steer it back on course.

The glass thread was what nudged me to the agnostic side.

Quote from: Battery72 on September 12, 2012, 01:44:24 AM

Quote from: Battery72 on September 04, 2012, 08:07:40 PM

No matter how badly doctored the initial images are, I don't know how you can tell the direction of rotation.

I'm still waiting on a response from the 3 amigos. The silence is deafening.

I don't know about the others, but Tom and I lost interest in responding to you after the examples in bold made it obvious to me that you and ThinkingMan were more interested in talking over me or addressing strawmen than actually listening.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 05, 2012, 07:48:32 AM

The stubborn denial on these forums is the reason why many FE'ers have left. There are better things to do than talk to a brick wall.

Not true on my part. I just posted something and wanted to see what the answer would be, but since that answer is not coming I assume there is no answer. The earth is a sphere. All FE theories have been crushed over and over, a few times in this thread alone.

Not true on my part. I just posted something and wanted to see what the answer would be, but since that answer is not coming I assume there is no answer. The earth is a sphere. All FE theories have been crushed over and over, a few times in this thread alone.

Do you mean this thread where numerous pictures of star trails rotating away from each other were presented to the RE'ers and dismissed as fakes?

Do you mean this thread where numerous pictures of star trails rotating away from each other were presented to the RE'ers and dismissed as fakes?

Incorrect.

That is just not the case.  The pictures are not "fake."  The pictures simply don't show what you claim them to show.  The pictures in no way show the stars rotating away from each other.  The pictures are exactly what you would expect to see on a rotating, round Earth.

Claiming that the look of an image is a result of the type of photography, the length of the lens, and the angle of view is a far different thing than calling the image "fake." 

Anywhere near the equator if you look north or south the stars would appear to be rotating in a fairly small arc towards the horizon due to the fact that you are looking towards the axis of rotation of the Earth.  If a wide enough lens (I.E. anything even remotely likely to be used to photograph star trails) is used then the field of view when looking east or west will encompass some visibility in the north and south directions as well.  Because the image captured by the camera is such a wide view, the star trails will appear to move in two arcs of rotation, because you can see a bit north and south.  This is a perspective effect due to the field of view of the lens.

If you actually track the path of any of the stars (meaning, not the star trails in long-exposure photography) and compare that to other stars, you can see that the paths do not diverge.  The stars are extensively studied, tracked and charted.  I have often seen people ask for evidence of stars rotating on two seperate, diverging paths, and the only evidence I've ever seen posted is misunderstood pictures of star trails.

Quote from: Battery72 on September 12, 2012, 01:44:24 AM

Quote from: Battery72 on September 04, 2012, 08:07:40 PM

No matter how badly doctored the initial images are, I don't know how you can tell the direction of rotation.

I'm still waiting on a response from the 3 amigos. The silence is deafening.

I don't know about the others, but Tom and I lost interest in responding to you after the examples in bold made it obvious to me that you and ThinkingMan were more interested in talking over me or addressing strawmen than actually listening.

I'm not sure how I talked over you. I listened, I calculated, I even went through and studied other similar pictures and research how these images are taken. The most common technique is a wide angle lens. Just because I was debating your claim in the debate forum does not mean I was not listening.

Another proof of the earth's rotation is eastward angular deviation from free fall. If you were to drop a boulder down the centre of a long enough mine shaft, as the earth rotates, the boulder would move slowly towards the east wall due to the earth's rotation.

Another proof of the earth's rotation is eastward angular deviation from free fall. If you were to drop a boulder down the centre of a long enough mine shaft, as the earth rotates, the boulder would move slowly towards the east wall due to the earth's rotation.

Due to the coriolis effect, I believe it should stray towards the westward wall. I'll do some research.

Quote from: Battery72 on September 13, 2012, 05:33:49 AM

Another proof of the earth's rotation is eastward angular deviation from free fall. If you were to drop a boulder down the centre of a long enough mine shaft, as the earth rotates, the boulder would move slowly towards the east wall due to the earth's rotation.

Due to the coriolis effect, I believe it should stray towards the westward wall. I'll do some research.

You are right. I got it backwards LOL.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 13, 2012, 06:05:14 AM

Quote from: Battery72 on September 13, 2012, 05:33:49 AM

Another proof of the earth's rotation is eastward angular deviation from free fall. If you were to drop a boulder down the centre of a long enough mine shaft, as the earth rotates, the boulder would move slowly towards the east wall due to the earth's rotation.

Due to the coriolis effect, I believe it should stray towards the westward wall. I'll do some research.

You are right. I got it backwards LOL.

Wrong again, horizontal momentum is preserved, while the horizontal speed of the shaft decreases...

Quote from: Battery72 on September 13, 2012, 02:42:22 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 13, 2012, 06:05:14 AM

Quote from: Battery72 on September 13, 2012, 05:33:49 AM

Another proof of the earth's rotation is eastward angular deviation from free fall. If you were to drop a boulder down the centre of a long enough mine shaft, as the earth rotates, the boulder would move slowly towards the east wall due to the earth's rotation.

Due to the coriolis effect, I believe it should stray towards the westward wall. I'll do some research.

You are right. I got it backwards LOL.

Wrong again, horizontal momentum is preserved, while the horizontal speed of the shaft decreases...

You are right as well, I think it's bit of both.
In the Earth's rotating frame of reference, a freely moving body follows an apparent path that deviates from the one it would follow in a fixed frame of reference. Because of this Coriolis effect, falling bodies veer eastward from the vertical plumb line below their point of release, and projectiles veer right in the northern hemisphere (and left in the southern) from the direction in which they are shot. The Coriolis effect has many other manifestations, especially in meteorology, where it is responsible for the differing rotation direction of cyclones in the northern and southern hemispheres. Hooke, following a 1679 suggestion from Newton, tried unsuccessfully to verify the predicted half millimeter eastward deviation of a body dropped from a height of 8.2 meters, but definitive results were only obtained later, in the late 18th and early 19th century, by Giovanni Battista Guglielmini in Bologna, Johann Friedrich Benzenberg in Hamburg and Ferdinand Reich in Freiberg, using taller towers and carefully released weights

I did my research. Eastward was correct. How sadly stupid of me. At least that's easier than relativity.