So, you know you can....

Scepti is also ignoring that there is no force being applied to the axis of spin.  The earth is acting like a big gyroscope.
Very similar to this video

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Inertial Guidance System.wmv

Notice how the axis is always pointing in the same direction no matter how the gyroscope is moved?

Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.
Use your fruit bowl or whatever, in the centre of the table as your sun.
Now, holding the south pole rod with your right hand pointing to your belly button and your left hand holding the top pole, I want you to point the top pole at anything you want, but you must hold it at that point, all the time.

Now go around the table in a side step motion and try and keep that top pole pointing at your chosen spot...say a door and tell me if you can keep that earth, exactly the same , no change, whilst you do this, all the way around.

Naturally you will not do it, unless you start to twist your body.

You see, it's a clever con job and you all fell for it and you have fell for it that much, that you cannot see the real reality of what should happen.

Interesting that you put in the requirement of doing only a side step motion that imparts a rotation to make your "experiment" turn out the way you want it (as evidenced by the fact that you have to twist your body to keep the same orientation).

If you want to approximate the motion of the earth around the sun you would need to alter your step direction from forward>diagonal left>left>diagonal backwards left>backwards>diagonal backwards right>right>diagonal forward right>forward.

In any event, I did your experiment, pointing the south pole at my belly button. I chose the ceiling to be where I pointed the north pole. I walked around the table in the manner you asked and also in the correct manner I described above. In both cases the north pole always pointed toward the ceiling. Wonder why?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 09:56:12 AM

Who mentioned polaris?

I did.  And now I'm going to mention Sigma Octantis (south polar star).  Neither of these would remain in a relatively fixed position over the poles if Earth's tilt rotated to remain fixed on the sun.  (I'd have to search for the threads regarding how a single star would be visible to everyone south of the equator on a disk, but that's a whole different topic)

Quote

Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.

Why would I carry it in my hands?  Common sense would suggest I use a long piece of string at most to carry it, and even that will start to wind up after so far and transfer that energy to the ball, causing it to rotate.

Nice little dodge, there.

I gave you the experiment to do, bodily. It's the exact principle as you round earthers have been harping on about.
You go straight into polaris and what not and that's not what I'm dealing with.

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 15, 2013, 11:50:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 09:56:12 AM

Who mentioned polaris?

I did.  And now I'm going to mention Sigma Octantis (south polar star).  Neither of these would remain in a relatively fixed position over the poles if Earth's tilt rotated to remain fixed on the sun.  (I'd have to search for the threads regarding how a single star would be visible to everyone south of the equator on a disk, but that's a whole different topic)

Quote

Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.

Why would I carry it in my hands?  Common sense would suggest I use a long piece of string at most to carry it, and even that will start to wind up after so far and transfer that energy to the ball, causing it to rotate.

Nice little dodge, there.

I gave you the experiment to do, bodily. It's the exact principle as you round earthers have been harping on about.
You go straight into polaris and what not and that's not what I'm dealing with.

He was pointing out a major flaw in your experiment:

Scepti is also ignoring that there is no force being applied to the axis of spin.  The earth is acting like a big gyroscope.
Very similar to this video

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Inertial Guidance System.wmv

Notice how the axis is always pointing in the same direction no matter how the gyroscope is moved?

What do you mean FORCE  being APPLIED to the axis of the spin?

It's in a vacuum isn't it? by your accounts.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 11:57:26 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 15, 2013, 11:50:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 09:56:12 AM

Who mentioned polaris?

I did.  And now I'm going to mention Sigma Octantis (south polar star).  Neither of these would remain in a relatively fixed position over the poles if Earth's tilt rotated to remain fixed on the sun.  (I'd have to search for the threads regarding how a single star would be visible to everyone south of the equator on a disk, but that's a whole different topic)

Quote

Go and walk around a round table holding an only football with a rod through it just as earth would be to you.

Why would I carry it in my hands?  Common sense would suggest I use a long piece of string at most to carry it, and even that will start to wind up after so far and transfer that energy to the ball, causing it to rotate.

Nice little dodge, there.

I gave you the experiment to do, bodily. It's the exact principle as you round earthers have been harping on about.
You go straight into polaris and what not and that's not what I'm dealing with.

He was pointing out a major flaw in your experiment:

There is no major flaw in my experiment. I've been over it, time and time again, just to make sure there wasn't.

Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation.  In RE, the earth is spinning in space.  As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change.  In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.

Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation.  In RE, the earth is spinning in space.  As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change.  In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.

It's because he's only sidestepping. By the time he's halfway around the table his feet are pointed in the opposite direction. He has been told repeatedly that the earth does not have this axial rotation.

Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation.  In RE, the earth is spinning in space.  As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change.  In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.

I'm not physically changing anything, It's following a pattern that it SHOULD be following. It's your model that appears to have the physical alteration of the polar axis and you know it, or if you don't then you should.

Quote from: BJ1234 on November 15, 2013, 11:54:08 AM

Scepti is also ignoring that there is no force being applied to the axis of spin.  The earth is acting like a big gyroscope.
Very similar to this video

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Inertial Guidance System.wmv

Notice how the axis is always pointing in the same direction no matter how the gyroscope is moved?

What do you mean FORCE  being APPLIED to the axis of the spin?

It's in a vacuum isn't it? by your accounts.

No.  Not that it's relevant, but outer space is a near vacuum, not a perfect vacuum.

Quote from: BJ1234 on November 15, 2013, 12:04:39 PM

Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation.  In RE, the earth is spinning in space.  As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change.  In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.

It's because he's only sidestepping. By the time he's halfway around the table his feet are pointed in the opposite direction. He has been told repeatedly that the earth does not have this axial rotation.

That's exactly what you are claiming it does have. The animated diagram shows it to be the case and the experiment shows it to be nonsense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:01:58 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on November 15, 2013, 11:54:08 AM

Scepti is also ignoring that there is no force being applied to the axis of spin.  The earth is acting like a big gyroscope.
Very similar to this video

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Inertial Guidance System.wmv

Notice how the axis is always pointing in the same direction no matter how the gyroscope is moved?

What do you mean FORCE  being APPLIED to the axis of the spin?

It's in a vacuum isn't it? by your accounts.

No.  Not that it's relevant, but outer space is a near vacuum, not a perfect vacuum.

You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.

What's going on here?
What's the matter with people?
Why can't people see this horse crap for what it is?

There is no major flaw in my experiment. I've been over it, time and time again, just to make sure there wasn't.

So what's to stop me from starting with the table to my left side, walking forward, diagonal, sidestepping left when 90 degrees around it, diagonal backwards, backwards at 180 degrees, diagonal, sidestepping right, diagonal right and forward, and finally forward at my original starting point?  Thus, having kept the ball's axis fixed on the door.

You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.

What are you talking about?  There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:02:47 PM

There is no major flaw in my experiment. I've been over it, time and time again, just to make sure there wasn't.

So what's to stop me from starting with the table to my left side, walking forward, diagonal, sidestepping left when 90 degrees around it, diagonal backwards, backwards at 180 degrees, diagonal, sidestepping right, diagonal right and forward, and finally forward at my original starting point?  Thus, having kept the ball's axis fixed on the door.

How about drawing me a little diagram of it and I'll show you why it's wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:18:59 PM

You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.

What are you talking about?  There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.

Ermm! isn't that friction supposedly coming from earth, itself?

You know...the ATMOSPHERE spinning with the earth and the ISS falling around it and hitting weak atmospheric drag and has to be re-boosted?

If it is, then it has no relevance whatsoever when dealing with the so called earth whizzing around the so called sun IN SPACE, does it.

Quote from: Whiskey on November 15, 2013, 12:12:19 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on November 15, 2013, 12:04:39 PM

Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation.  In RE, the earth is spinning in space.  As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change.  In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.

It's because he's only sidestepping. By the time he's halfway around the table his feet are pointed in the opposite direction. He has been told repeatedly that the earth does not have this axial rotation.

That's exactly what you are claiming it does have. The animated diagram shows it to be the case and the experiment shows it to be nonsense.

No I'm claiming that it doesn't change it's orientation. I even provided an illustration they use in second grade that shows the Earth orbiting the sun and the little picture of the Earth never changes. Its' north pole always points up and to the left as it orbits the sun.

But if you would, could you please respond to my post above:

In any event, I did your experiment, pointing the south pole at my belly button. I chose the ceiling to be where I pointed the north pole. I walked around the table in the manner you asked and also in the correct manner I described above. In both cases the north pole always pointed toward the ceiling. Wonder why?

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 15, 2013, 12:23:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:02:47 PM

There is no major flaw in my experiment. I've been over it, time and time again, just to make sure there wasn't.

So what's to stop me from starting with the table to my left side, walking forward, diagonal, sidestepping left when 90 degrees around it, diagonal backwards, backwards at 180 degrees, diagonal, sidestepping right, diagonal right and forward, and finally forward at my original starting point?  Thus, having kept the ball's axis fixed on the door.

How about drawing me a little diagram of it and I'll show you why it's wrong.

Why do you need a diagram?  I'm moving around the table and keeping the axis/rod aligned with the door.  Can't you just explain why it's wrong?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:15:53 PM

Quote from: Whiskey on November 15, 2013, 12:12:19 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on November 15, 2013, 12:04:39 PM

Yes and in your experiment, your axis has a force being applied to it so that the axis changes orientation.  In RE, the earth is spinning in space.  As it moves, there is no force being applied to the axis. Therefore the orientation does not change.  In your "experiment", you are physically changing the direction the axis is pointing because you are holding onto it.

It's because he's only sidestepping. By the time he's halfway around the table his feet are pointed in the opposite direction. He has been told repeatedly that the earth does not have this axial rotation.

That's exactly what you are claiming it does have. The animated diagram shows it to be the case and the experiment shows it to be nonsense.

No I'm claiming that it doesn't change it's orientation. I even provided an illustration they use in second grade that shows the Earth orbiting the sun and the little picture of the Earth never changes. Its' north pole always points up and to the left as it orbits the sun.

But if you would, could you please respond to my post above:

Quote

In any event, I did your experiment, pointing the south pole at my belly button. I chose the ceiling to be where I pointed the north pole. I walked around the table in the manner you asked and also in the correct manner I described above. In both cases the north pole always pointed toward the ceiling. Wonder why?

Would you like to do the experiment again, because your little ceiling con job cuts no ice.
Pick the corner of the wall where it meets the ceiling and do it again.

Quote from: markjo on November 15, 2013, 12:24:42 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:18:59 PM

You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.

What are you talking about?  There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.

Ermm! isn't that friction supposedly coming from earth, itself?

You know...the ATMOSPHERE spinning with the earth and the ISS falling around it and hitting weak atmospheric drag and has to be re-boosted?

If it is, then it has no relevance whatsoever when dealing with the so called earth whizzing around the so called sun IN SPACE, does it.

Scepti, let's go through this.  The friction is not coming from the Earth, it is coming from the Earth's atmosphere.  The Earth and atmosphere have roughly the same rate of revolution, about one revolution a day.  They both exist in a near vacuum, with the atmosphere decaying the further from Earth you get.  The ISS is well within what would be considered the atmosphere, although a very thin part of it, and has a much greater rate of revolution than the atmosphere.

To elaborate on how the ISS is both in space and the atmosphere enough to be affected by it, space in this sense isn't necessarily defined as different from extremely rarefied atmosphere.  It is defined as the near vacuum that cosmic bodies exist in.  Atmosphere is defined as the gas surrounding a celestial body that is held there by gravity.  The two aren't mutually exclusive, the definitions intersect.  The ISS is in both, although for all intents in purpose it is closer to space than the atmosphere as we generally think of it.

Scepti, your "experiment" sucks. It does not even begin to represent reality, or the physics of the system it is supposed to represent. Try this instead, it will be more accurate:

- get a model train set, with enough track to make a circle, and one flatbed car
- get a small gyroscope that you can mount on the flatbed on gimbals so that it is free to move in all axes
- set the gyroscope spinning, but on a slight tilt, to represent the earth's tilt (23.5°)
- start the model train running around it's circular track
- observe the gyroscope and tell me what it does

If you actually do this experiment, you might just find out something very interesting!

Quote from: markjo on November 15, 2013, 12:24:42 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:18:59 PM

You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.

What are you talking about?  There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.

Ermm! isn't that friction supposedly coming from earth, itself?

You know...the ATMOSPHERE spinning with the earth and the ISS falling around it and hitting weak atmospheric drag and has to be re-boosted?

If it is, then it has no relevance whatsoever when dealing with the so called earth whizzing around the so called sun IN SPACE, does it.

You're the one who brought up the ISS, not me.  RET contends that even interplanetary space is not a perfect vacuum.  Does the term "solar wind" mean anything to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

The solar wind is a stream of charged particles (a plasma) released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in density, temperature, and speed over time and over longitude. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.

The solar wind is supersonic relative to the speed of sound within it, and this creates the heliosphere, an enormous bubble-like shockwave in the interstellar medium that surrounds the Solar System. Other related phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurora (northern and southern lights), and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the Sun.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:28:20 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 15, 2013, 12:23:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:02:47 PM

There is no major flaw in my experiment. I've been over it, time and time again, just to make sure there wasn't.

So what's to stop me from starting with the table to my left side, walking forward, diagonal, sidestepping left when 90 degrees around it, diagonal backwards, backwards at 180 degrees, diagonal, sidestepping right, diagonal right and forward, and finally forward at my original starting point?  Thus, having kept the ball's axis fixed on the door.

How about drawing me a little diagram of it and I'll show you why it's wrong.

Why do you need a diagram?  I'm moving around the table and keeping the axis/rod aligned with the door.  Can't you just explain why it's wrong?

It should be blatantly obvious why it's wrong. You tell me how it would be possible for something to rotate like that around a sun.
Go on a merry go round:
Now put yourself on a slant like the earth tilt would be and go round like that and you will stay like that all the way around. Have your feet pointing outwards and  your head  would face the centre of the merry go round.
If someone decided to turn you like a diagonal spit whilst doing this your head would be in the exact position to that centre, all the way around. It would not deviate.

Would you like to do the experiment again, because your little ceiling con job cuts no ice.
Pick the corner of the wall where it meets the ceiling and do it again.

Nope. I'm doing the experiment exactly as you described. Forcing me to pick a corner isn't "pointing anywhere I like".

And using your own experiment I've proved that a football "earth" can orbit a fruit bowl sun without changing it's orientation whatsoever. You said that "naturally this couldn't be done. How do you explain that?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:31:03 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 15, 2013, 12:24:42 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:18:59 PM

You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.

What are you talking about?  There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.

Ermm! isn't that friction supposedly coming from earth, itself?

You know...the ATMOSPHERE spinning with the earth and the ISS falling around it and hitting weak atmospheric drag and has to be re-boosted?

If it is, then it has no relevance whatsoever when dealing with the so called earth whizzing around the so called sun IN SPACE, does it.

Scepti, let's go through this.  The friction is not coming from the Earth, it is coming from the Earth's atmosphere.  The Earth and atmosphere have roughly the same rate of revolution, about one revolution a day.  They both exist in a near vacuum, with the atmosphere decaying the further from Earth you get.  The ISS is well within what would be considered the atmosphere, although a very thin part of it, and has a much greater rate of revolution than the atmosphere.

To elaborate on how the ISS is both in space and the atmosphere enough to be affected by it, space in this sense isn't necessarily defined as different from extremely rarefied atmosphere.  It is defined as the near vacuum that cosmic bodies exist in.  Atmosphere is defined as the gas surrounding a celestial body that is held there by gravity.  The two aren't mutually exclusive, the definitions intersect.  The ISS is in both, although for all intents in purpose it is closer to space than the atmosphere as we generally think of it.

That's fine, but we are talking about space itself, really. As in, earth around the sun. And as earth is supposedly in the vacuum or what you call a near vacuum, it's basically in a frictionless environment by how you lot perceive it.

How in the hell it would act like a gyroscope in that environment, escapes me.

Scepti, your "experiment" sucks. It does not even begin to represent reality, or the physics of the system it is supposed to represent. Try this instead, it will be more accurate:

- get a model train set, with enough track to make a circle, and one flatbed car
- get a small gyroscope that you can mount on the flatbed on gimbals so that it is free to move in all axes
- set the gyroscope spinning, but on a slight tilt, to represent the earth's tilt (23.5°)
- start the model train running around it's circular track
- observe the gyroscope and tell me what it does

If you actually do this experiment, you might just find out something very interesting!

Do you have a train set, because I don't. If you do. How about doing this experiment and posting it up.

In the mean time, would you care to tell me how a gyroscope works in your weightless vacuum?

That's fine, but we are talking about space itself, really. As in, earth around the sun. And as earth is supposedly in the vacuum or what you call a near vacuum, it's basically in a frictionless environment by how you lot perceive it.

How in the hell it would act like a gyroscope in that environment, escapes me.

Do you even understand what a gyroscope is?  The only thing that friction does to a gyroscope is slow it down so gyroscopes, if anything, would work better in a frictionless environment.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:31:03 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 15, 2013, 12:24:42 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:18:59 PM

You're right, it's not relevant, because we are told it's this virtual vacuum, frictionless, basically. Devoid of basically, all matter. You know, the so called ISS whizzes about in it with no effects on the actornauts and now the earth is playing a gyroscope game for some reason, in SPCE as we are told SPACE is.

What are you talking about?  There is enough friction in space where the ISS needs to get a boost periodically to put it back into its proper orbit.

Ermm! isn't that friction supposedly coming from earth, itself?

You know...the ATMOSPHERE spinning with the earth and the ISS falling around it and hitting weak atmospheric drag and has to be re-boosted?

If it is, then it has no relevance whatsoever when dealing with the so called earth whizzing around the so called sun IN SPACE, does it.

You're the one who brought up the ISS, not me.  RET contends that even interplanetary space is not a perfect vacuum.  Does the term "solar wind" mean anything to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

Quote

The solar wind is a stream of charged particles (a plasma) released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in density, temperature, and speed over time and over longitude. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.

The solar wind is supersonic relative to the speed of sound within it, and this creates the heliosphere, an enormous bubble-like shockwave in the interstellar medium that surrounds the Solar System. Other related phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurora (northern and southern lights), and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the Sun.

Damn it, I forgot about SOLAR wind.
And what does this solar wind do to the rotation of earth around the sun?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 12:53:45 PM

Would you like to do the experiment again, because your little ceiling con job cuts no ice.
Pick the corner of the wall where it meets the ceiling and do it again.

Nope. I'm doing the experiment exactly as you described. Forcing me to pick a corner isn't "pointing anywhere I like".

And using your own experiment I've proved that a football "earth" can orbit a fruit bowl sun without changing it's orientation whatsoever. You said that "naturally this couldn't be done. How do you explain that?

So where about on the ceiling did you point your axis pole at? let me guess: around the centre, inside of the tables circumference, right?

What a little con artist, lol.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 01:11:08 PM

That's fine, but we are talking about space itself, really. As in, earth around the sun. And as earth is supposedly in the vacuum or what you call a near vacuum, it's basically in a frictionless environment by how you lot perceive it.

How in the hell it would act like a gyroscope in that environment, escapes me.

Do you even understand what a gyroscope is?  The only thing that friction does to a gyroscope is slow it down so gyroscopes, if anything, would work better in a frictionless environment.

Really? so tell me then, Markjo, tell me how it works in a WEIGHTLESS environment.