Whirlpools (lol)

If the rotation of the stars is caused by multiple aetheric whirlpools as Vauxhall claims, why are there no gaps between the circular whirlpools and how do the stars maintain a constant angular distance?

i cannot speak for vauxhall, but my model has the whirlpools vertically above one another, and it was inspired by what i saw of vauxhall. with a constant rate, which is to be expected with the aetheric whirlpools, the distances will remain constant as there is nothing to alter them.

Jrowe provides a very good explanation.

Regardless, is there a reason you made a new thread for this instead of simply posting this in the already existing thread about the aetheric wind theory (which you actually made)?

Jrowe provides a very good explanation.

Regardless, is there a reason you made a new thread for this instead of simply posting this in the already existing thread about the aetheric wind theory (which you actually made)?

That was for discussion, and you declined to address those issues in it, choosing instead to post defamatory crap about Isaac Newton. This thread is not for debate, it is for answers, and I expect that to be adhered to, or I shall unlock Pongo's cage and tempt him in here by dangling some rotten meat.

i cannot speak for vauxhall, but my model has the whirlpools vertically above one another, and it was inspired by what i saw of vauxhall. with a constant rate, which is to be expected with the aetheric whirlpools, the distances will remain constant as there is nothing to alter them.

And how does this explain the constant angular distance? If anything it increases the problem by adding vertical perspective.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 01:34:12 PM

i cannot speak for vauxhall, but my model has the whirlpools vertically above one another, and it was inspired by what i saw of vauxhall. with a constant rate, which is to be expected with the aetheric whirlpools, the distances will remain constant as there is nothing to alter them.

And how does this explain the constant angular distance? If anything it increases the problem by adding vertical perspective.

vertical perspective means little both at distance, and with the refraction of aether. it explains angular distance because there is nothing to change the distance, the aether's force remains the same.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 06, 2015, 01:41:03 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 01:34:12 PM

i cannot speak for vauxhall, but my model has the whirlpools vertically above one another, and it was inspired by what i saw of vauxhall. with a constant rate, which is to be expected with the aetheric whirlpools, the distances will remain constant as there is nothing to alter them.

And how does this explain the constant angular distance? If anything it increases the problem by adding vertical perspective.

vertical perspective means little both at distance, and with the refraction of aether. it explains angular distance because there is nothing to change the distance, the aether's force remains the same.

What figures do you have for distance? How far are the stars in this model?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 01:34:12 PM

i cannot speak for vauxhall, but my model has the whirlpools vertically above one another, and it was inspired by what i saw of vauxhall. with a constant rate, which is to be expected with the aetheric whirlpools, the distances will remain constant as there is nothing to alter them.

And how does this explain the constant angular distance? If anything it increases the problem by adding vertical perspective.

Besides answering all the questions posed to me in the previous thread, you should know by now that Q&A is for questions and answers. Yet you are clearly debating with Jrowe on his answers. This is a breach of forum rules.

Opening Pongo's cage would be a bad idea for you and a good one for me.


Anyways, I dont want to get into a "yes I did", " no you didn't" loop with you. Angular distance is explained by the whirlpools. I'm inclined to agree with Jrowe's explanation, as it makes the most sense.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 06, 2015, 01:41:03 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 01:34:12 PM

i cannot speak for vauxhall, but my model has the whirlpools vertically above one another, and it was inspired by what i saw of vauxhall. with a constant rate, which is to be expected with the aetheric whirlpools, the distances will remain constant as there is nothing to alter them.

And how does this explain the constant angular distance? If anything it increases the problem by adding vertical perspective.

Besides answering all the questions posed to me in the previous thread, you should know by now that Q&A is for questions and answers. Yet you are clearly debating with Jrowe on his answers. This is a breach of forum rules.

Opening Pongo's cage would be a bad idea for you and a good one for me.


Anyways, I dont want to get into a "yes I did", " no you didn't" loop with you. Angular distance is explained by the whirlpools. I'm inclined to agree with Jrowe's explanation, as it makes the most sense.

I'm not debating, because I haven't disputed a single thing he's said. Requests for clarification are perfectly acceptable, and I simply wish to gain a better understanding of his theory. His explanation is too brief so far to enable me to understand it.
You however, are flinging crap.

Can I request a top down visualization of the flat Earth whirlpools?

Can I request a top down visualization of the flat Earth whirlpools?

I would love to see a visualization like that which can explain southern constellations.

Quote from: Jet Fission on March 06, 2015, 03:15:55 PM

Can I request a top down visualization of the flat Earth whirlpools?

I would love to see a visualization like that which can explain southern constellations.

You know, I think we're really onto something with these southern circumpolar stars. I have a feeling that what it takes to explain it as a flat Earther might actually take a little too much ass-pulling for these guys.

A visualization of the whirlpools and their effects on the stars would be great. Because as of now, the way I picture it, is that the stars have two centers of rotation each with their own circular plane. That already imposes problems: obviously the angular distance of the stars will change towards the equator, and the most important- that it still cannot explain how no matter where you are in the southern hemisphere, the southern celestial pole will always be due south. That in itself should be enough to have any reasonable person realize how ridiculous FET is. But then I forget who we are talking to.

If the rotation of the stars is caused by multiple aetheric whirlpools as Vauxhall claims, why are there no gaps between the circular whirlpools and how do the stars maintain a constant angular distance?

A lack of any corroborating evidence proves unequivocally that there are no such entities as "aetheric whirlpools".

Opening Pongo's cage would be a bad idea for you and a good one for me.

Please.  I don't want to read this kind of filth here, this is a family forum.

Won't somebody think of the children?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 06, 2015, 01:31:59 PM

If the rotation of the stars is caused by multiple aetheric whirlpools as Vauxhall claims, why are there no gaps between the circular whirlpools and how do the stars maintain a constant angular distance?

A lack of any corroborating evidence proves unequivocally that there are no such entities as "aetheric whirlpools".

Actually no it doesn't - look up Russell's Teapot.

I note again that JRoweSkeptic has failed to address a few vital questions:

Q1:  What is the specific composition of the "aetheric" whirlpools, and what is their energy source?

Q2:  Where does this energy source originate, and is it infinite, or slowly degrading?

Q3:  Why are there zero references/citations and/or illustrations of these aetheric whirlpools in any scientific texts—or even the Flat Earth Wiki?

Q4:  Do the whirlpools retain their fixed size, direction of rotation, and location relative to each other and/or the earth?

   

ausGeoff and others, please, as much as possible, do not address questions to specific people, especially when that person has not even posted in the thread that you are posting in.  Also, more people would likely answer you if you asked one question at a time.  Nobody wants to answer a whole list of questions.  This is simply netiquette. 

ausGeoff and others, please, as much as possible, do not address questions to specific people, especially when that person has not even posted in the thread that you are posting in.

Uh... say what?  I was addressing the very first comment made in this thread by JRoweSkeptic himself, and not any other thread.

As per:  "but my model has the whirlpools vertically above one another [...] with a constant rate, which is to be expected with the aetheric whirlpools, the distances will remain constant as there is nothing to alter them".

Can you please read the threads in their entirety before making patently false accusations jroa?  (I know I'm one of your favourite whipping boys on these forums, but you're becoming a little too obvious in your haste to rebuke people, rather than attempting to answer a few questions yourself).

And are you apparently now claiming that flat earthers are incapable of addressing four one-liner questions at a time?  Seriously?   

Quote from: jroa on March 09, 2015, 07:33:17 AM

ausGeoff and others, please, as much as possible, do not address questions to specific people, especially when that person has not even posted in the thread that you are posting in.

Uh... say what?  I was addressing the very first comment made in this thread by JRoweSkeptic himself, and not any other thread.

As per:  "but my model has the whirlpools vertically above one another [...] with a constant rate, which is to be expected with the aetheric whirlpools, the distances will remain constant as there is nothing to alter them".

Can you please read the threads in their entirety before making patently false accusations jroa?  (I know I'm one of your favourite whipping boys on these forums, but you're becoming a little too obvious in your haste to rebuke people, rather than attempting to answer a few questions yourself).

And are you apparently now claiming that flat earthers are incapable of addressing four one-liner questions at a time?  Seriously?   

My bad.  Busy morning.  Carry on.