circumpolar stars

  • 237 Replies
  • 26668 Views
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #90 on: February 19, 2015, 08:15:50 AM »
If you're on the outside of the earth, you're going to see things you won't see from the inside.
Uh... does this statement actually make any logical sense whatsoever?

Quote
The fact you have the earth twirling and whirling so much, around a star that is also whirling on, and you still think you'd see the same constellations with regularity in one hemisphere rather than the other shows your refusal to think for yourself.
The earth is not "twirling" or "whirling".  If you intend to take part in any serious science-based debate, the you need to use terminology that's not more applicable to a 4-year-old's birthday party.  I'm actually surprised that anybody living in the 21st century is not familiar at least with the relative rotations and orbits of the planets and of the sun and its ecliptic.  Did you not study high-school science perhaps?

Maybe this will help...




Quote
It's only the intervention of NASA and their cover-up that prevents it being even clearer.
Two comments:  You're obviously a seriously misguided conspiracy theorist.  You're also unaware that NASA is a relatively "young" organisation—I've been on the planet longer than they have (sadly LOL).

NASA is not the only major space agency in the world by any means; ESA, UKSA, ASRI, CNSA, ISRO,  and ROSCOSMOS are just a few that come to mind.  (I'll let you figure out this alphabet soup!)

Finally, I challenge you to provide any independent, empirical evidence that supports your claim that NASA is "covering anything up".  And by that I don't mean third-party hearsay from your fellow conspiracy theorists, or pointless home-made YouTube videos from whack-jobs wearing tin-foil hats.  I want credible facts and figures.  Go for it.
you see what's closest to you, especially with spotlights. that seems rather obvious. are you going to keep denying that? if you are in the centre of the earth, you see the stars there. if you are to the outside, you see the stars there.

i'll use childish terms for a childish ideas. do you really think you'd get any kind of regularity with all that mad, tilted spinning?

nasa is its current form. people have wanted money since it was invented. if you honestly think they're honest, you're blind,
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #91 on: February 19, 2015, 08:20:49 AM »
You get perfectly regularity. The spin isn't 'mad'. We spin almost exactly 23 hours and 56 minutes around the axis. We revolve around the sun almost exactly 365.25 days every year.

There are tons of simulations of our model, using everything you think is ridiculous, and they all work perfectly. Space Engine is an example, and it's free software.

You are not getting our point. Southern circumpolar stars would be impossible in a flat Earth. In reality, these stars circle around the south celestial pole. If we applied the flat Earth model, you would just see stars moving from east to west.
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #92 on: February 19, 2015, 08:25:06 AM »

you see what's closest to you, especially with spotlights. that seems rather obvious. are you going to keep denying that? if you are in the centre of the earth, you see the stars there. if you are to the outside, you see the stars there.

i'll use childish terms for a childish ideas. do you really think you'd get any kind of regularity with all that mad, tilted spinning?

nasa is its current form. people have wanted money since it was invented. if you honestly think they're honest, you're blind,

The only time you can't see a star is when it is directly obscured by the sun or when its angle of elevation drops to below 0° i.e. it drops below the horizon. When stars are visible the are visible at all angles of elevation and their brightness doesn't vary significantly. If their visibility was determined by their distance then their brightness would vary significantly and there would be no stars visible near the horizon.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #93 on: February 19, 2015, 08:26:40 AM »
You get perfectly regularity. The spin isn't 'mad'. We spin almost exactly 23 hours and 56 minutes around the axis. We revolve around the sun almost exactly 365.25 days every year.

There are tons of simulations of our model, using everything you think is ridiculous, and they all work perfectly. Space Engine is an example, and it's free software.

You are not getting our point. Southern circumpolar stars would be impossible in a flat Earth. In reality, these stars circle around the south celestial pole. If we applied the flat Earth model, you would just see stars moving from east to west.
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #94 on: February 19, 2015, 08:37:57 AM »
You get perfectly regularity. The spin isn't 'mad'. We spin almost exactly 23 hours and 56 minutes around the axis. We revolve around the sun almost exactly 365.25 days every year.

There are tons of simulations of our model, using everything you think is ridiculous, and they all work perfectly. Space Engine is an example, and it's free software.

You are not getting our point. Southern circumpolar stars would be impossible in a flat Earth. In reality, these stars circle around the south celestial pole. If we applied the flat Earth model, you would just see stars moving from east to west.
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?
The software is a three dimensional model of the Universe. There is no trickery involved.

The stars don't circle around the outer edge of the Earth- that's the thing. That's not what we see in reality. We see stars moving about in a circle near the southern celestial pole. Your model does not account for this.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 08:53:51 AM by Jet Fission »
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #95 on: February 19, 2015, 08:38:09 AM »
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

What chaos? The Copernican/Newtonian model of the Solar system is so regulated and predictable it led to the concept of the clockwork universe. It actually gave scientists a false sense of certainty about the universe, a certainty that wasn't shattered until the 20th century.

In what ways are stars like spotlights?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #96 on: February 19, 2015, 09:32:34 AM »
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

I note that you conveniently avoided addressing my earlier challenge...

Quote
I challenge you to provide any independent, empirical evidence that supports your claim that NASA is "covering anything up".  And by that I don't mean third-party hearsay from your fellow conspiracy theorists, or pointless home-made YouTube videos from whack-jobs wearing tin-foil hats.  I want credible facts and figures.

Are you now effectively admitting that you have not one shred of empirical evidence to support your absurd claim that NASA is a fraudulent organisation?

Unless you can provide at the very least some "evidence" that you claim is viable, then I think we can all write off your NASA conspiracy claims as just that and nothing more.  Sorry.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #97 on: February 19, 2015, 10:07:45 AM »
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

What chaos? The Copernican/Newtonian model of the Solar system is so regulated and predictable it led to the concept of the clockwork universe. It actually gave scientists a false sense of certainty about the universe, a certainty that wasn't shattered until the 20th century.

In what ways are stars like spotlights?
the fact it's that predictable when everything comes from wild spinning is the point. you cannot pretend it is likely for the round earth model to work like clockwork.

Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works. if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #98 on: February 19, 2015, 11:15:34 AM »
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

What chaos? The Copernican/Newtonian model of the Solar system is so regulated and predictable it led to the concept of the clockwork universe. It actually gave scientists a false sense of certainty about the universe, a certainty that wasn't shattered until the 20th century.

In what ways are stars like spotlights?
the fact it's that predictable when everything comes from wild spinning is the point.

Wild? A rather stately (and steady) one rotation in 24 hours is wild? You're trying to be funny, right?

Quote
you cannot pretend it is likely for the round earth model to work like clockwork.

No need to pretend. It's like a clock accurate to one part in tens of millions. Why do you think the Earth's rotation would be varying?

Quote
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works.

In the case of the Moon, it's the side illuminated by the Sun.

Quote
if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

The flat earth perspective is very difficult to understand because so many things don't work. This is another example. Are you suggesting that stars get brighter and dimmer as they traverse the sky because their phase changes like the Moon's does through the month? Do you have any evidence to support this? After innumerable nights under the stars, I can't say I've ever noticed anything like this. Have you ever gone outside and looked at the stars for more than a few minutes at a time?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #99 on: February 19, 2015, 01:13:26 PM »
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works. if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

Oh deary me... what are we gonna do?

Now poor old JRoweSkeptic thinks that the moon is a star, or that stars are the same is the moon!  Hard to tell.

Anybody care to enlighten him... I've just cracked a rib.    ;D

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #100 on: February 19, 2015, 07:43:51 PM »
Jrowescepti- here is a vary large hole in your moon theory. You think the moon has one bright side, and one dark side, correct?

However, it is easily provable that the area of the moon that appears to glow changes, disproving the notion of of one dark and one light side
http://www.pampaskies.com/gallery3/var/albums/Moon/crescent-moon.JPG?m=1344027855
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/01/08/08jan_bigmoon2009_resources/Ron-Hodges1.jpg
Edit : fixed
« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 08:33:41 PM by kman »
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #101 on: February 19, 2015, 08:03:17 PM »
Jrowescepti- here is a vary large hole in your moon theory. You think the moon has one bright side, and one dark side, correct?

However, it is easily provable that the area of the moon that appears to glow changes, disproving the notion of of one dark and one light side.

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/01/08/08jan_bigmoon2009_resources/Ron-Hodges1.jpg
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/01/08/08jan_bigmoon2009_resources/Ron-Hodges1.jpg
Here's probably a better example, you posted the same image twice:
http://www.pixheaven.net/geant/0505-0604_12full_moon.jpg
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #102 on: February 20, 2015, 01:09:19 AM »
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works. if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

The stars that aren't circumpolar can be observed rising and setting like the sun. At the equator there are stars that can be observed following a 180° arc from horizon to horizon. This isn't just at one point on the equator before you suggest the star is changing where it is shining. The same stars can be observed rising and setting at all points on the equator.

Explain again how stars are like spot lights.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #103 on: February 20, 2015, 04:53:25 AM »
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works. if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

Oh deary me... what are we gonna do?

Now poor old JRoweSkeptic thinks that the moon is a star, or that stars are the same is the moon!  Hard to tell.

Anybody care to enlighten him... I've just cracked a rib.    ;D
think for yourself. rock is not as bright as your magical moon. it has to be like a star or the sun.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #104 on: February 20, 2015, 04:57:45 AM »
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

What chaos? The Copernican/Newtonian model of the Solar system is so regulated and predictable it led to the concept of the clockwork universe. It actually gave scientists a false sense of certainty about the universe, a certainty that wasn't shattered until the 20th century.

In what ways are stars like spotlights?
the fact it's that predictable when everything comes from wild spinning is the point.

Wild? A rather stately (and steady) one rotation in 24 hours is wild? You're trying to be funny, right?

Quote
you cannot pretend it is likely for the round earth model to work like clockwork.

No need to pretend. It's like a clock accurate to one part in tens of millions. Why do you think the Earth's rotation would be varying?

Quote
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works.

In the case of the Moon, it's the side illuminated by the Sun.

Quote
if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

The flat earth perspective is very difficult to understand because so many things don't work. This is another example. Are you suggesting that stars get brighter and dimmer as they traverse the sky because their phase changes like the Moon's does through the month? Do you have any evidence to support this? After innumerable nights under the stars, I can't say I've ever noticed anything like this. Have you ever gone outside and looked at the stars for more than a few minutes at a time?
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41924
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #105 on: February 20, 2015, 06:44:18 AM »
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us.
What currents are you referring to?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #106 on: February 20, 2015, 07:56:35 AM »
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

What? What's the order of the aether when it's at home? Caught up in what currents? What are you drivelling on about now?

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #107 on: February 20, 2015, 09:18:17 AM »
software can be faked. and the fact you think regularity is to be expected from the chaos of round earth theories is laughable.
the stars circle around the outer edge of the earth. stars are more like spotlights, remember?

What chaos? The Copernican/Newtonian model of the Solar system is so regulated and predictable it led to the concept of the clockwork universe. It actually gave scientists a false sense of certainty about the universe, a certainty that wasn't shattered until the 20th century.

In what ways are stars like spotlights?
the fact it's that predictable when everything comes from wild spinning is the point.

Wild? A rather stately (and steady) one rotation in 24 hours is wild? You're trying to be funny, right?

Quote
you cannot pretend it is likely for the round earth model to work like clockwork.

No need to pretend. It's like a clock accurate to one part in tens of millions. Why do you think the Earth's rotation would be varying?

Quote
Stars are like spotlights because light only comes from one side. this is how the moon works.

In the case of the Moon, it's the side illuminated by the Sun.

Quote
if you're at the wrong part of the earth, you'll be looking at the 'side' of a star, and won't be able to see it any more than you can a new moon.
try and actually learn the flat earth perspective before you argue against it.

The flat earth perspective is very difficult to understand because so many things don't work. This is another example. Are you suggesting that stars get brighter and dimmer as they traverse the sky because their phase changes like the Moon's does through the month? Do you have any evidence to support this? After innumerable nights under the stars, I can't say I've ever noticed anything like this. Have you ever gone outside and looked at the stars for more than a few minutes at a time?
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.

Isn't this what you said:

it's really quite simple, unlike your round earther model where the earth spins on its axis, while spinning around something else, which is in turn spinning around yet another thing, and yet the stars stay visible in each hemisphere with some predictability. does that really sound right to you?

Yes, that really sounds right. It doesn't sound chaotic, either. It may blow your little mind that several things can happen at once all in an orderly fashion, but that doesn't affect reality at all.

Was there something else?

Quote
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
Some rocks, like, say, white Marble, are much brighter than the Moon when in bright sunlight because their albeido is higher; rocks with albeido similar to the Moon's surface will have similar brightness in bright sunlight. You can measure this yourself if you have a good camera. I dare you to try.

You seem to be confusing checking ideas against reality with "not thinking for yourself"; that's incorrect. Why don't you try it some time. There's no evidence here that you have done anything of the kind.

Quote
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

"Caught up in currents" ??? Sounds chaotic.

If the stars stay facing us why does it matter if they're spotlights?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #108 on: February 20, 2015, 09:29:47 AM »
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

What? What's the order of the aether when it's at home? Caught up in what currents? What are you drivelling on about now?

the aether. the substance which is sometimes bastardized as spacetime in round earther fantasy. Think of it as energy, like fire, not quite any state of matter. it's closer to liquid than anything, but it isn't liquid.
It accelerates all things from the center of the universe. the currents ripple around the earth, and meet at the top, causing motion: the rotation of the sun and moon, and the further rotation of the moon. Clean, ordered, rather than the mad explosion and whirling of round earth beliefs.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #109 on: February 20, 2015, 09:32:29 AM »
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

What? What's the order of the aether when it's at home? Caught up in what currents? What are you drivelling on about now?

the aether. the substance which is sometimes bastardized as spacetime in round earther fantasy. Think of it as energy, like fire, not quite any state of matter. it's closer to liquid than anything, but it isn't liquid.
It accelerates all things from the center of the universe. the currents ripple around the earth, and meet at the top, causing motion: the rotation of the sun and moon, and the further rotation of the moon. Clean, ordered, rather than the mad explosion and whirling of round earth beliefs.

What evidence do you have for the existence for such a thing?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #110 on: February 20, 2015, 09:45:12 AM »
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

What? What's the order of the aether when it's at home? Caught up in what currents? What are you drivelling on about now?

the aether. the substance which is sometimes bastardized as spacetime in round earther fantasy. Think of it as energy, like fire, not quite any state of matter. it's closer to liquid than anything, but it isn't liquid.
It accelerates all things from the center of the universe. the currents ripple around the earth, and meet at the top, causing motion: the rotation of the sun and moon, and the further rotation of the moon. Clean, ordered, rather than the mad explosion and whirling of round earth beliefs.

What evidence do you have for the existence for such a thing?
einstein. spacetime. it is obvious space time needs to have some substance to it if it can be affected by speed, for example. it is also obvious that something must be behind the acceleration of the earth. that substance is aether. i suspect it has other names, but it is the one i favor, and have seen used on these forums.
the question is why are you asking? you're going to reject whatever i say on principle.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #111 on: February 20, 2015, 09:49:33 AM »
no, your supposed rotation is not wild. this is the problem, regularity would not result from round earth chaos. try reading what i've actually said. your mechanism does not have the order of the aether, it's a mad rush.
the moon is not rock. rock is never as bright as the moon. think for yourself.
the moon's phase changed because it is closer to earth, and caught up in the currents near to us. stars are not, they stay facing us like the sun.

What? What's the order of the aether when it's at home? Caught up in what currents? What are you drivelling on about now?

the aether. the substance which is sometimes bastardized as spacetime in round earther fantasy. Think of it as energy, like fire, not quite any state of matter. it's closer to liquid than anything, but it isn't liquid.
It accelerates all things from the center of the universe. the currents ripple around the earth, and meet at the top, causing motion: the rotation of the sun and moon, and the further rotation of the moon. Clean, ordered, rather than the mad explosion and whirling of round earth beliefs.

What evidence do you have for the existence for such a thing?
einstein. spacetime. it is obvious space time needs to have some substance to it if it can be affected by speed, for example. it is also obvious that something must be behind the acceleration of the earth. that substance is aether. i suspect it has other names, but it is the one i favor, and have seen used on these forums.
the question is why are you asking? you're going to reject whatever i say on principle.

So no evidence, just what is "obvious" to you. Much like your idiocy over non-euclidean geometry. Gotcha.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #112 on: February 20, 2015, 09:52:35 AM »
Aether is a real energy that permeates all things. It pushes the Earth and keeps the Sun & Moon discs in rotation. Without aether this Earth would fall apart. That's how we know it exists.

I have a diagram that shows how aether works in tandem with the Earth, but I will spare you since I don't want to take away JRowe's thunder. Because he is on the right track here.
Read the FAQS.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #113 on: February 20, 2015, 09:58:47 AM »
Aether is a real energy that permeates all things. It pushes the Earth and keeps the Sun & Moon discs in rotation. Without aether this Earth would fall apart. That's how we know it exists.

I have a diagram that shows how aether works in tandem with the Earth, but I will spare you since I don't want to take away JRowe's thunder. Because he is on the right track here.

I knew the mention of aether would bring you out.

Evidence por favor senor.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #114 on: February 20, 2015, 10:07:09 AM »
Evidence por favor senor.

I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

Is Einstein's own testimony not good enough for you? If the Earth conformed to YOUR model, we would all be magically stuck to a marble by invisible forces ('gravity') hurling in space. I don't see how your 'gravity' is any better of an explanation than aether. Actually, it sounds like the same damn thing.

1) You can't see gravity (you also cannot see aether)

2) famous scientists and mathemiticians (Both Plato and Aristotle) claim that aether exists (although some of them also seem to think that gravity exists, so it could be that both invisible forces are working together someway).  Sir Isaac Newton even wrote a paper on aether.
Read the FAQS.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #115 on: February 20, 2015, 10:15:09 AM »
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #116 on: February 20, 2015, 10:18:35 AM »
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?
Read the FAQS.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #117 on: February 20, 2015, 10:21:30 AM »
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

You do feel it. When it isn't present you get the sensation of falling.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #118 on: February 20, 2015, 10:26:34 AM »
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

You do feel it. When it isn't present you get the sensation of falling.


You made me look.


But really, 'gravity' is always present on Earth. You have no way of backing this statement up. Please don't respond to questions you don't have the answers to. You might as well have just posted a slew of racial slurs, that would have been about as relevant.
Read the FAQS.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #119 on: February 20, 2015, 11:04:14 AM »
I don't have any direct evidence of aether, just like you do not have direct evidence of gravity.

There may not be an explenation for gravity, but it has plenty of evidence.  Gravity is very important in space travel and Newtonian laws of motion and gravity have been proven time and time again whenever a space craft maneuvers in space.  I know that you think that NASA is faking it, but there is not any evidence to support that claim that I have seen.

Please list the direct evidence for gravity. I know you haven't seen it, and you don't feel it. So where is it? How do you know gravity is a real thing?

I see things fall and I feel a force holding me to the ground.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.