The South Celestial Pole

  • 154 Replies
  • 28784 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #60 on: August 23, 2016, 07:06:14 PM »
Why is it the arguments from globularists either take the form of, "See, I cannot reproduce the effect, therefore it is false!" (in this particular instance), or, "There is no way to reproduce such an effect, but take our word for it anyway!" (as in the case of convex water sticking to the surface of a sphere because of a boogey force).

You are the one always claiming "See, I cannot reproduce the effect, therefore it is false!" with regard to gravity! And I have explained numerous times why that is simply not feasible!

So can you come up with any feasible explanation for
everyone in the Southern Hemisphere seeing the same sort of star-trails about the Southern Celestial Pole as
everyone in the Northern Hemisphere seeing star-trails about the Northern Celestial Pole.

Get used to it, it's a fact!

Also, Polaris, close to the North Pole is almost directly overhead anyone at the North Pole and in the same way
Sigma Octantis is almost directly overhead anyone at the South pole, and the Southern Cross rotates about 30° away from that point in the sky.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #61 on: August 23, 2016, 09:15:13 PM »
This is only true if you assume the earth is perfectly symmetric about it's axis of rotation.

This is wonderful news.

Are you saying that the Earth IS NOT perfectly symmetric about its axis of rotation?

Wow, nothing gets past you, huh? Yes. The earth is definitely not perfectly symmetric about its axis of rotation. How is this not obvious? The continents certainly aren't symmetric. There is no reason to think anything below the continents is symmetric either.

Quote
I can hardly wait to bring into our discussion the distribution of the continents paradox.

I'm all aquiver with anticipation...

Quote
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66355.msg1771077#msg1771077

http://mathscinotes.com/2015/10/refraction-error-correction-in-sextant-measurements/

If Sirius orbits above the FE at some tens of kilometers in altitude, then the distortion shown by the full panoramic view of the star trails is real: I have proven to you that Sirius cannot orbit the Earth in the heliocentrical setting, thus proving that the star trails behave way differently than you assumed to be the case.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61373.msg1602567#msg1602567

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61424.msg1604304#msg1604304

http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/students/pangea/pangea_files/image003.jpg

- 1 link about Jupiter and the refractive index of aether. Nothing specific though.
- 1 link about refraction of stars in through the atmosphere. Yes, this is common knowledge.
- An assertion that Sirius isn't where I think it is. (Which I don't admit to be correct... I just don't care because it is irrelevant.)
- An assertion that star trails behave way differently than I assume. (Which is blatantly false, if you are asserting that they diverge like your photos imply.)
- 1 picture of Pangea???
- 2 links asserting that the unbalanced distribution of mass on the surface of earth defies the laws of gravity. I have no idea how you jump to this conclusion, nor do I understand how it has anything to do with your explanation of the South Celestial Pole in your model.

Siriusly, this is ridiculous. Why can't you just describe how your model works with the South Celestial Pole? Stop dodging the question, and just give a straightforward answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #62 on: August 23, 2016, 11:04:19 PM »
The earth is definitely not perfectly symmetric about its axis of rotation. How is this not obvious? The continents certainly aren't symmetric. There is no reason to think anything below the continents is symmetric either.

Then, you have a huge problem.

The position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.

And, according to the official theory we do have an applied external force:



You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

This is what modern science is assuming about the shape of the Earth (if it did not, it is all over for the heliocentrical theory):





Each and every layer (official theory) - crust, mantle, outer/inner core - forms a perfect ellipsoid (again, if it did not, we would have a direct defiance/violation of the law of attractive gravitation).

Upon that sphere, we have the fifth and last layer, the lithosphere.

And here is where the problems begin for the RE.


Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).


"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."


The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.


It is the unequal mass distribution of the hemispheres upon a perfect oblate spheroid which defies the law of attractive gravity.

Since the northern hemisphere has more mass than its southern counterpart, we have a clear and definite DEFIANCE of the law of attractive gravity.


For the Pangeea hypothesis the situation is even more disastrous for the RE theory.



If we take into account the shape and size of the supercontinent Pangea, such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth. It would have gradually stopped the Earth from rotating around its own axis, and Pangea would have faced the Sun 24 hours a day. The rotating layers of iron/nickel would have come to a dead stop in some weeks.



http://mathscinotes.com/2015/10/refraction-error-correction-in-sextant-measurements/



The measurement taken by a sextant will totally be based on the CORRECT index of refraction.

Since within the context of the correct FE theory, the one I have been proposing here for the past nine years, means that we have a very dense aether/ether field (barrier/shield) which separates our atmosphere from the aether rotational gravitational field which causes the rotation of the celestial bodies, which drastically changes the way the refractive index should be calculated.


Let us get back to the Sirius-Earth distance paradox.

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

It proves immediately that Sirius is orbiting much closer to the surface of the Earth.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #63 on: August 23, 2016, 11:53:13 PM »
The earth is definitely not perfectly symmetric about its axis of rotation. How is this not obvious? The continents certainly aren't symmetric. There is no reason to think anything below the continents is symmetric either.

Then, you have a huge problem.


Well, no we don't have any problem!

The asymmetry of the continents does not cause any great unbalance. They are just rafts floating on a "sea" of magna.
The earth is not a rigid solid ball! It is fluid enough to adjust any unbalance

There is no great asymmetry of mass distribution. The lithosphere is made up of Oceanic and Continental Crust "floating" on a more dense magma.

Quote from: differencebetween.net
Oceanic Crust
The oceanic crust is that part of the Earth’s crust that covers the ocean basins. It consists of dark-colored rocks made up of basalt. This rock is made up of silicon, oxygen, and magnesium.
The density of the oceanic crust is about 3.0 g/cm3. The continental crust has a lower density. This difference in the average densities allows many natural phenomenon to occur on and below the surface of the Earth. The oceanic crust scarcely floats on the mantle.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The thickness of both the crusts also varies. For the oceanic crust, the thickness is around 3 to 6 miles which is about 5 to 10 kilometers. The oceanic crust is thinner than the continental crust.

Quote
Continental Crust
The continental crust accounts for 40% of the surface of the Earth. It is made up of granite rock which is light in color. This rock is rich in constituents like silicon, aluminum, and oxygen.
The density of the continental crust is much less as compared to the oceanic crust. It has an approximate value of 2.6 g/cm3. Due to this difference in densities in magma between the oceanic crust and the continental crust, the continents stay in their places, and both crusts are able to float on the magma. The continental crust floats much more freely on the magma.
The continental crust is much thicker when compared to the oceanic crust. It has a thickness ranging from 20 mi., which is about 35 km., on the plains, to as much as 40 mi., which is about 70 km., on the highest mountains.
see more in Difference Between Oceanic and Continental Crust

And of course, all this neatly explains how the continents can drift around (Australia is heading North at about 5.6 cm/year) without unbalancing anything.

On top of all this the centripetal acceleration is only about 0.3% of "g", so it's small bickies anyway!

So, a neat self-levelling system is built in. Isn't nature smart!

Yes yes, I know you'll say I'm an idiot and know nothing compared to the world renowned Sandokhan! Well, so be it.


Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #64 on: August 24, 2016, 12:29:48 AM »
The earth is definitely not perfectly symmetric about its axis of rotation. How is this not obvious? The continents certainly aren't symmetric. There is no reason to think anything below the continents is symmetric either.

Then, you have a huge problem.

The position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.

Yes.

Quote
And, according to the official theory we do have an applied external force:



Yes.

Quote
You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

What??? Why on earth do you think this is true? Citation please?

Quote
This is what modern science is assuming about the shape of the Earth (if it did not, it is all over for the heliocentrical theory):

...

Each and every layer (official theory) - crust, mantle, outer/inner core - forms a perfect ellipsoid (again, if it did not, we would have a direct defiance/violation of the law of attractive gravitation).

No, science does NOT assume every layer forms a perfect ellipsoid. Again, why on earth would this be a violation of gravity? I don't see a connection at all.

Quote
...

The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

On the surface, sure. Why do you think this isn't canceled out below ground? The crust is a very thin portion of the entire earth.

Quote
The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

Yes, you already stated this. But you still haven't given a reason why.

Quote
It is the unequal mass distribution of the hemispheres upon a perfect oblate spheroid which defies the law of attractive gravity.

Please stop saying the same thing over and over again. Repetition doesn't make it true.

Quote
Since the northern hemisphere has more mass than its southern counterpart, we have a clear and definite DEFIANCE of the law of attractive gravity.

... see above comment.

Quote
...

If we take into account the shape and size of the supercontinent Pangea, such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth. It would have gradually stopped the Earth from rotating around its own axis, and Pangea would have faced the Sun 24 hours a day. The rotating layers of iron/nickel would have come to a dead stop in some weeks.

Same bad assumptions as earlier. Also, how did you calculate "weeks"? Are you just guessing? Or did you actually do the math?

Quote
...

The measurement taken by a sextant will totally be based on the CORRECT index of refraction.

And this correct index of refraction is...?

Quote
Since within the context of the correct FE theory, the one I have been proposing here for the past nine years, means that we have a very dense aether/ether field (barrier/shield) which separates our atmosphere from the aether rotational gravitational field which causes the rotation of the celestial bodies, which drastically changes the way the refractive index should be calculated.

And the correct way to calculate refractive index is...?

Quote
Let us get back to the Sirius-Earth distance paradox.

Let's not. Like I said, I have not done any research into it. Based on your previous record, I am assuming you are wrong about Sirius as well. However, I will gladly discuss it with you if you put it in the appropriate thread.

I'll try again, but at this point I won't hold out much hope. I apologize for the obnoxious font. It's a last resort to get you to read it.

What does any of this have to do with how your model explains the South Celestial Pole?

Your rant about the "continental paradox" is not relevant. Your rant about Sirius is not relevant. Your rant about aether refraction is not relevant.



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #65 on: August 24, 2016, 01:03:13 AM »
Why do you think this isn't canceled out below ground? The crust is a very thin portion of the entire earth.

This is truly amazing.

HOW would the Earth know the mass distribution of the lithosphere SO AS to correctly balance out this disproportion by providing the necessary upper mantle matter where it is needed?


Certainly you cannot assume such nonsense.


Then we are back to the supposed law of universal attraction.



"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."


The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.


Can you understand these basic facts of science?


The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart: if we apply the "law" allegedly attributed to Newton to this problem, we obtain a very direct answer, the Earth MUST revolve around the Sun with its North Pole facing the Sun 24 hours a day.


These are the very facts, plain and simple, which cannot be disputed.


No scientist, so far, has devoted any amount of time computing the aether/ether refractive index: the subject matter has been eliminated/censored from the official establishment of scientific research.

What we do know is that it exists, and therefore it has a definite influence upon the measurements taken using a sextant.


I am assuming you are wrong about Sirius as well.

There are no mistakes in my argument.

The acceleration of the rate of precession is an accepted fact of science, it is called the Newcomb constant.



"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."


The acceleration of the rate of precession CANNOT be explained by modern science at all.


But something even more amazing occurs.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.


Dr. Jad Buchwald (Caltech):

Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.

".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history."


If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

UNLESS we find ourselves in the FE scenario, where Sirius orbits a mere 50 km above the flat surface of the Earth, and the same aether field affects both Sirius and the Sun at the same time.


Then, the star trails pictures feature stars which are much smaller and orbit much closer to the surface of the Earth, exactly my point.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #66 on: August 24, 2016, 01:29:32 AM »
There is totally no reason that Earth needs to rotate  perfectly without ecentricity.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #67 on: August 24, 2016, 01:35:08 AM »



The stars are moving in circles around the north and the south poles: that is why there will be divergence at the equator, something which cannot occur in the RE scenario.


Other photographs showing the same thing:

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

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

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0712/2007_09_14-orion_vanGorp800.jpg

What is meant by divergence at the equator??

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #68 on: August 24, 2016, 01:38:38 AM »
Sandokhan! Stop! Focus! Answer the question!

What does any of this have to do with how your model explains the South Celestial Pole?

Your "continental paradox" is laughably wrong, but more importantly, it is irrelevant.
Your aether refraction theory is so vague that it is unfalsifiable, but more importantly, it is irrelevant.
Your Sirius rant is fascinating, but again, it is irrelevant.

For the third (fourth? I can't remember...) time, if you want to discuss these rabbit trails, I am happy to, in the appropriate thread.

Do you or do you not have an explanation for the South Celestial Pole?

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #69 on: August 24, 2016, 01:41:38 AM »
What is meant by divergence at the equator??

The star trails don't all appear parallel in photos. This is because a photo is a 2D projection of a 3D environment. Sandokhan can't be bothered to go outside and actually measure the distance between the stars.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #70 on: August 24, 2016, 01:51:20 AM »
What is meant by divergence at the equator??

The star trails don't all appear parallel in photos. This is because a photo is a 2D projection of a 3D environment. Sandokhan can't be bothered to go outside and actually measure the distance between the stars.

These pictures are also not representative of reality because they are taken with multiple cameras and are then joined together with software.

Part of the confusion here comes from the apparent difference in the direction of rotation which is only seen as a difference in rotation because of the way you either turn your head or you direct the camera.  If you have two cameras facing away from each other then one direction of rotation becomes two directions which can be joined together with software

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #71 on: August 24, 2016, 01:58:25 AM »
What is meant by divergence at the equator??

The star trails don't all appear parallel in photos. This is because a photo is a 2D projection of a 3D environment. Sandokhan can't be bothered to go outside and actually measure the distance between the stars.

These pictures are also not representative of reality because they are taken with multiple cameras and are then joined together with software.

I'm not sure why using multiple cameras makes a difference.

Quote
Part of the confusion here comes from the apparent difference in the direction of rotation which is only seen as a difference in rotation because of the way you either turn your head or you direct the camera.  If you have two cameras facing away from each other then one direction of rotation becomes two directions which can be joined together with software

It doesn't matter whether you use a camera or not. Anyone looking north sees one direction of rotation. Anyone looking south sees the opposite. It's a simple property of anything rotating. Whether it is rotating clockwise or counterclockwise depends on which direction along the axis of rotation you are looking. The camera/software isn't really relevant.

Edit: I think I misread your comment. I think we agree. Nevermind.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #72 on: August 24, 2016, 02:00:58 AM »
What is meant by divergence at the equator??

The star trails don't all appear parallel in photos. This is because a photo is a 2D projection of a 3D environment. Sandokhan can't be bothered to go outside and actually measure the distance between the stars.

These pictures are also not representative of reality because they are taken with multiple cameras and are then joined together with software.

I'm not sure why using multiple cameras makes a difference.

Quote
Part of the confusion here comes from the apparent difference in the direction of rotation which is only seen as a difference in rotation because of the way you either turn your head or you direct the camera.  If you have two cameras facing away from each other then one direction of rotation becomes two directions which can be joined together with software

It doesn't matter whether you use a camera or not. Anyone looking north sees one direction of rotation. Anyone looking south sees the opposite. It's a simple property of anything rotating. Whether it is rotating clockwise or counterclockwise depends on which direction along the axis of rotation you are looking. The camera/software isn't really relevant.

Edit: I think I misread your comment. I think we agree. Nevermind.

If you join two pictures taken 180 degrees apart then you can expect distortion.   What you are looking at with those pictures is not real.  It is art.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #73 on: August 24, 2016, 02:14:00 AM »

This is truly amazing.

"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

Can't you get a simple message?
The northern hemisphere DOES NOT have a greater mass than its southern counterpart.
The Continental Crust has a lower density than the Oceanic Crust and all are floating on a denser magma.

End of story!
Can you understand these basic facts of science?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #74 on: August 24, 2016, 02:26:18 AM »
rabinoz has spent the past fifteen minutes diligently researching this topic and all of a sudden came across the subject of isostasy.


There is no such thing as isostasy.


Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance. The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.


In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted. Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.

The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force; one or two did, but this is generally attributed to experimental error. Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition. His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Cremieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth's surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.


On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.


You got anymore bright ideas?

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #75 on: August 24, 2016, 02:29:44 AM »
rabinoz has spent the past fifteen minutes diligently researching this topic and all of a sudden came across the subject of isostasy.

There is no such thing as isostasy.

Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational puuuueeeeeeblahblahblah....

Sandokhan! Stop! Focus! Answer the question!

What does any of this have to do with how your model explains the South Celestial Pole?

Your "continental paradox" is laughably wrong, but more importantly, it is irrelevant.
Your aether refraction theory is so vague that it is unfalsifiable, but more importantly, it is irrelevant.
Your Sirius rant is fascinating, but again, it is irrelevant.

For the third fourth (fourth fifth? I can't remember...) time, if you want to discuss these rabbit trails, I am happy to, in the appropriate thread.

Do you or do you not have an explanation for the South Celestial Pole?

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #76 on: August 24, 2016, 02:35:08 AM »


Do you or do you not have an explanation for the South Celestial Pole?

Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #77 on: August 24, 2016, 02:43:50 AM »
Physicist Maurice Allais commented:

The economist you mean.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #78 on: August 24, 2016, 03:26:12 AM »
rabinoz has spent the past fifteen minutes diligently researching this topic and all of a sudden came across the subject of isostasy.

There is no such thing as isostasy.

You got anymore bright ideas?

Well hardly, since my first post on that was a couple of hours ago and it's something that anyone with a bit of knowledge in that area knows. I did look up a reference to it to be able to get a quote and some density values.

Then you claim "Experiments by Victor Cremieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth's surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory."

Really? Are you sure you mean "one tenth greater"?
So "g" at ocean's surface is about 1.1 x 9.8 N/kg or 10.78 N/kg?
Go run away and stop wasting our time!

Look, you don't believe the Earth's a globe anyway, so spend you time explaining all the numerous observations that no flat earth model can explain!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #79 on: August 24, 2016, 03:27:47 AM »
It is nigh time for you to learn some facts of the history of physics.

Dr. Maurice Allais was one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century; in fact he obtained his doctor-engineer degree in 1949 from the University of Paris.

After his groundbreaking experiments performed in 1954 and 1959 he was practically shunned by each and every other physicist from continental Europe, as if by command.

So, he turned his attention to economics, having published some extraordinary papers on the subject; he received his Nobel Prize in this field of study.


totes, here is your chance to learn something new (again).

A superb study of the seminal paper published by Roland Eotvos on gravitational anomalies almost 100 years ago:

http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html

His discoveries remain completely unexplained by modern science.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #80 on: August 24, 2016, 03:35:38 AM »
It is nigh time for you to learn some facts of the history of physics.

Dr. Maurice Allais was one of the greatest physicisssssssssssszzzzzzzz....

Sandokhan! Stop! Focus! Answer the question!

What does any of this have to do with how your model explains the South Celestial Pole?

Your "continental paradox" is laughably wrong, but more importantly, it is irrelevant.
Your aether refraction theory is so vague that it is unfalsifiable, but more importantly, it is irrelevant.
Your Sirius rant is fascinating, but again, it is irrelevant.
I'm sure Dr. Maurice was a super cool dude, but again, it is irrelevant.
Gravitational anomalies are neat, but again, they are irrelevant.

For the third fourth fifth (fourth fifth sixth? I can't remember...) time, if you want to discuss these rabbit trails, I am happy to, in the appropriate thread.

Do you or do you not have an explanation for the South Celestial Pole?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #81 on: August 24, 2016, 03:43:49 AM »
Victor Crémieu, ‘Recherches sur la gravitation’, Comptes Rendus de l’académie des Sciences, Dec 1906, pp. 887-889; Victor Crémieu, ‘Le problème de la gravitation’, Rev. Gen. Sc. Pur. et Appl., v. 18, 1907, pp. 7-13.

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3095m/f653.item.zoom

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k30977/f887.item.zoom


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #82 on: August 24, 2016, 04:44:35 AM »
Victor Crémieu, ‘Recherches sur la gravitation’, Comptes Rendus de l’académie des Sciences, Dec 1906, pp. 887-889; Victor Crémieu, ‘Le problème de la gravitation’, Rev. Gen. Sc. Pur. et Appl., v. 18, 1907, pp. 7-13.

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3095m/f653.item.zoom

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k30977/f887.item.zoom
Undoubtedly you French is a lot better than mine! So may you could point out and translate the bit that says "Experiments by Victor Cremieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth's surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory."

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #83 on: August 24, 2016, 02:05:28 PM »
Victor Crémieu, ‘Recherches sur la gravitation’, Comptes Rendus de l’académie des Sciences, Dec 1906, pp. 887-889; Victor Crémieu, ‘Le problème de la gravitation’, Rev. Gen. Sc. Pur. et Appl., v. 18, 1907, pp. 7-13.

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3095m/f653.item.zoom

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k30977/f887.item.zoom

Sandokhan! Stop! Focus! Answer the question!

What does any of this have to do with how...screw it, nevermind. Now I know why no one on this forum takes him seriously.

So... any other flat earthers with an explanation for the South Celestial Pole? So far we have a grand total of zero plausible explanations.


Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #84 on: August 24, 2016, 02:41:11 PM »
Why is it the arguments from globularists either take the form of, "See, I cannot reproduce the effect, therefore it is false!" (in this particular instance), or, "There is no way to reproduce such an effect, but take our word for it anyway!" (as in the case of convex water sticking to the surface of a sphere because of a boogey force).

You are the one always claiming "See, I cannot reproduce the effect, therefore it is false!" with regard to gravity! And I have explained numerous times why that is simply not feasible!

So can you come up with any feasible explanation for
everyone in the Southern Hemisphere seeing the same sort of star-trails about the Southern Celestial Pole as
everyone in the Northern Hemisphere seeing star-trails about the Northern Celestial Pole.

Get used to it, it's a fact!

Also, Polaris, close to the North Pole is almost directly overhead anyone at the North Pole and in the same way
Sigma Octantis is almost directly overhead anyone at the South pole, and the Southern Cross rotates about 30° away from that point in the sky.

Wrong again, and I suggest you lay off the booze for your own health...

I posted a perfectly reasonable explanation of how things can appear to circle different directions overhead to different observers based on their position.

You post fake pictures. We will keep the argument about your screwed up view of water in the appropriate thread.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #85 on: August 24, 2016, 02:59:10 PM »
Why is it the arguments from globularists either take the form of, "See, I cannot reproduce the effect, therefore it is false!" (in this particular instance), or, "There is no way to reproduce such an effect, but take our word for it anyway!" (as in the case of convex water sticking to the surface of a sphere because of a boogey force).

You are the one always claiming "See, I cannot reproduce the effect, therefore it is false!" with regard to gravity! And I have explained numerous times why that is simply not feasible!

So can you come up with any feasible explanation for
everyone in the Southern Hemisphere seeing the same sort of star-trails about the Southern Celestial Pole as
everyone in the Northern Hemisphere seeing star-trails about the Northern Celestial Pole.

Get used to it, it's a fact!

Also, Polaris, close to the North Pole is almost directly overhead anyone at the North Pole and in the same way
Sigma Octantis is almost directly overhead anyone at the South pole, and the Southern Cross rotates about 30° away from that point in the sky.

Wrong again, and I suggest you lay off the booze for your own health...

I posted a perfectly reasonable explanation of how things can appear to circle different directions overhead to different observers based on their position.

You post fake pictures. We will keep the argument about your screwed up view of water in the appropriate thread.

Totallackey, if a plane appears to be circling overhead clockwise, it will appear to circle clockwise to everyone else looking at the plane from below, regardless of their position.

This is a basic fact of how rotation works. Look at a ceiling fan. Is it rotating clockwise or counterclockwise? Now move anywhere else in the room. As long as you are looking at it from below, it will always appear to be rotating in the same direction. The only way it will appear to rotate in the opposite direction is to look at it from above.

For the sake of argument, let's assume you are right. Let's ignore the fact that the South Celestial Pole is rotating clockwise. We still have to deal with the fact that the stars circling the SCP are completely different from those circling the NCP.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #86 on: August 24, 2016, 03:12:27 PM »
Why is it the arguments from globularists either take the form of, "See, I cannot reproduce the effect, therefore it is false!" (in this particular instance), or, "There is no way to reproduce such an effect, but take our word for it anyway!" (as in the case of convex water sticking to the surface of a sphere because of a boogey force).

You are the one always claiming "See, I cannot reproduce the effect, therefore it is false!" with regard to gravity! And I have explained numerous times why that is simply not feasible!

So can you come up with any feasible explanation for
everyone in the Southern Hemisphere seeing the same sort of star-trails about the Southern Celestial Pole as
everyone in the Northern Hemisphere seeing star-trails about the Northern Celestial Pole.

Get used to it, it's a fact!

Also, Polaris, close to the North Pole is almost directly overhead anyone at the North Pole and in the same way
Sigma Octantis is almost directly overhead anyone at the South pole, and the Southern Cross rotates about 30° away from that point in the sky.

Wrong again, and I suggest you lay off the booze for your own health...

I posted a perfectly reasonable explanation of how things can appear to circle different directions overhead to different observers based on their position.

You post fake pictures. We will keep the argument about your screwed up view of water in the appropriate thread.

Totallackey, if a plane appears to be circling overhead clockwise, it will appear to circle clockwise to everyone else looking at the plane from below, regardless of their position.
No, it will not. A plane, traveling in a northerly direction to an observer stationed on the ground West of that plane? That plane will be traveling from right to left to that observer. That same plane, to an observer on the ground East of the plane will observe the plane traveling left to the right.

Quote
For the sake of argument, let's assume you are right. Let's ignore the fact that the South Celestial Pole is rotating clockwise. We still have to deal with the fact that the stars circling the SCP are completely different from those circling the NCP.

I want a person to lay down in perfect alignment with the equator and record what he sees directly overhead. According to you, a person will see stars overhead going in separate directions. That is the line of demarcation, correct?

I still do not think this proves anything about the shape of the earth and I do not believe there is anything in the firmament that prohibits stars from moving overhead in sections, one traveling one direction and another traveling a different direction.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #87 on: August 24, 2016, 03:31:00 PM »
Totallackey, if a plane appears to be circling overhead clockwise, it will appear to circle clockwise to everyone else looking at the plane from below, regardless of their position.

No, it will not. A plane, traveling in a northerly direction to an observer stationed on the ground West of that plane? That plane will be traveling from right to left to that observer. That same plane, to an observer on the ground East of the plane will observe the plane traveling left to the right.

This is all true. However, we are talking about a circling plane, not a plane traveling in a straight line. What happens when the plane turns westward, and then eventually southward? Will it appear to be going clockwise or counterclockwise to each person?

Quote
Quote
For the sake of argument, let's assume you are right. Let's ignore the fact that the South Celestial Pole is rotating clockwise. We still have to deal with the fact that the stars circling the SCP are completely different from those circling the NCP.

I want a person to lay down in perfect alignment with the equator and record what he sees directly overhead. According to you, a person will see stars overhead going in separate directions. That is the line of demarcation, correct?

No, they will not go in a separate direction. The stars will travel directly east to west overhead. Looking North, they will make small concentric circles, with the center of the circle on the horizon. Looking South, they will also make small concentric circles, with the center of the circle on the horizon.

Sandokhan provided a nice panoramic. (Yes, there is a little bit of distortion due to it being a panoramic image, but it is very close to what you would see in real life.)

http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html#Picture2

Quote
I still do not think this proves anything about the shape of the earth and I do not believe there is anything in the firmament that prohibits stars from moving overhead in sections, one traveling one direction and another traveling a different direction.

See my original post for the problems created by having them move in "sections". I refer to them as "celestial gears" in my original post.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #88 on: August 24, 2016, 08:59:00 PM »
So can you come up with any feasible explanation for
everyone in the Southern Hemisphere seeing the same sort of star-trails about the Southern Celestial Pole as
everyone in the Northern Hemisphere seeing star-trails about the Northern Celestial Pole.

Get used to it, it's a fact!

Also, Polaris, close to the North Pole is almost directly overhead anyone at the North Pole and in the same way
Sigma Octantis is almost directly overhead anyone at the South pole, and the Southern Cross rotates about 30° away from that point in the sky.

Wrong again, and I suggest you lay off the booze for your own health...

I posted a perfectly reasonable explanation of how things can appear to circle different directions overhead to different observers based on their position.
What you simply cannot face is that people in Australia, South Africa and South America looking due south, all see the same star constellations rotating about the same point.

Like most people that have lost the argument you have to stoop to personal attacks like
"I suggest you lay off the booze for your own health..."
Keep it up! Just proves you're running out of steam.

By the way, have you ever seen the sky in the Southern Hemisphere. Basically it is exactly the same as in the north, except for different stars, and no bright star right close to the pole, and of course when looking south the rotation is clockwise.

And, of course there is no need for any discontinuity at the equator. The difference in rotation direction is simply because to face the (South) Celestial Pole we have face south, to face the (North) Celestial Pole you have face north.

*

SpJunk

  • 577
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #89 on: August 24, 2016, 10:29:34 PM »
...
The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.
...

I didn't quite understood why globe should rotate with northern hemisphere facing the Sun?

Because land on southern hemisphere is 0.042% deeper and covered with some more water?

Did you ever think of average depth of oceans (1.7 miles), compared to Earth's radius (3959 miles)?
And what they have AT THE BOTTOM?

And Pacific ocean is half of the Earth, spreading on both hemispheres.


« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 10:36:37 PM by SpJunk »
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

"Your lack of simplicity is main reason why not many people would bother to try to understand you." - S.M.