The South Celestial Pole

  • 154 Replies
  • 11532 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #90 on: August 25, 2016, 12:52:29 AM »
You have been positioning yourself to get into a debate with me for the past couple of weeks (in fact, you made a direct comment about my messages).

Do you understand the facts related to the RE theory, especially those concerning the law of universal gravitation?

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.


The percentage could reach 0.0042%: it would still constitute a DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.


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.


As I have stated earlier, for the Pangeea continent the situation is much worse: 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.


BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.


totes, you are the one who badly needs some focusing.

You were given the Piri Reis map, which has a South Pole.

You were asked to provide an explanation for the fact that the geographical and magnetic north poles do not coincide: you resorted to telling us that the Earth is not perfectly symmetric.

Then I immediately brought to your attention the distribution of the continents paradox, which you failed to even address.

Moreover, I provided the ether drift proofs which means that the INDEX OF REFRACTION of any measurement made with a sextant must be modified to take into account this fact. I even provided a link to a work which does show the influence of the refractive index upon such calculations.

The ball is in your court: you must explain why the geographical and the magnetic North Pole do not coincide, together with the distribution of the continents paradox.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2016, 12:54:51 AM by sandokhan »

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #91 on: August 25, 2016, 01:58:00 AM »
You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

The percentage could reach 0.0042%: it would still constitute a DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.
No!
1) The earth is NOT a solid body, it is plastic and its shape adjust with gravity and centripetal force.
2) Even if was not quite symmetric it would rotate about its centre of mass.

Quote from: sandokhan
Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).
Let's not!

Quote from: sandokhan

"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 northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.
So you insist! No-one else.
Quote from: sandokhan
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.
 
So you insist! Again!

Quote from: sandokhan
As I have stated earlier, for the Pangeea continent the situation is much worse: 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.

BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.

I still in no way accept you "unbalance theory".

For a start, the gravitational field of the sun at the earth is only about 5.9E-03 N/kg. That's only 0.06% of "g" at the earth's surface.
BUT, even that does no matter. What does matter is the difference in the sun's gravitational field on the near side (closest to the sun) and that on the far side (farthest from the sun).
This difference is only about 1.01E-06 N/kg. This is only 0.00001% of "g" at the earth's surface.
Actually, this tidal field (yes the cause ocean tides AND tides in the earth) is about one half that due to the moon.

And yes, this will cause tidal locking! The earth's rotational period slows by about 2.3 milliseconds per century.

Oh, I'm panicking! We'll all be runed.



?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #92 on: August 25, 2016, 02:10:55 AM »
You have been positioning yourself to get into a debate with me for the past couple of weeks (in fact, you made a direct comment about my messages).

Do you understand the facts related to the RE theory, especially those concerning the law of universal gravitation?

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.


The percentage could reach 0.0042%: it would still constitute a DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.


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.


As I have stated earlier, for the Pangeea continent the situation is much worse: 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.


BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.


totes, you are the one who badly needs some focusing.

You were given the Piri Reis map, which has a South Pole.

You were asked to provide an explanation for the fact that the geographical and magnetic north poles do not coincide: you resorted to telling us that the Earth is not perfectly symmetric.

Then I immediately brought to your attention the distribution of the continents paradox, which you failed to even address.

Moreover, I provided the ether drift proofs which means that the INDEX OF REFRACTION of any measurement made with a sextant must be modified to take into account this fact. I even provided a link to a work which does show the influence of the refractive index upon such calculations.

The ball is in your court: you must explain why the geographical and the magnetic North Pole do not coincide, together with the distribution of the continents paradox.

Did you know that earth rotates around it's center of gravity?
Did you know that if you cut something clean through it's center of gravity, both parts would be equally massive?
Did you know that by logical deduction (and by maths, and by the definition of a center of mass), nothing can be more massive on one side of it's center of mass than the other?

Did you also know that by the definition of inertia, that even if gravitation pulls stronger on more massive objects, more massive objects require a greater force to accelerate, and thus the acceleration of free bodies in a vacuum is homogenous at a given distance?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #93 on: August 25, 2016, 03:29:01 AM »
During the debates concerning Lake Ontario, there came a point where the RE suddenly realized that curvature is an impediment to their cherished theory: what they expressly wanted was a round earth with no curvature at the surface.


In much the same way, now the RE want an orbiting Earth WITHOUT any external force being applied to it.

The questions posed here do not address the main point: the northern hemisphere is HEAVIER THAN its southern counterpart.

Therefore, applying the law of universal gravitation, the Earth should be facing the Sun with its North Pole.

A clear defiance of the supposed law of universal attraction.


Here is the Pangeea continent:



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.



Let me explain the situation we have here in plain words.


We have a perfect ellipsoid (the Earth): it must be perfect, because otherwise we are right back to the same argument, an imbalance in the mass of one hemisphere would constitute again a clear defiance of Newton's laws of mechanics.


Upon this perfect ellipsoid we then have AN UNEQUAL LOAD: the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere.

Therefore, taking into account the accepted laws of physics, the Earth should be facing the Sun with its North Pole.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #94 on: August 25, 2016, 03:36:11 AM »
Did you also know that by the definition of inertia, that even if gravitation pulls stronger on more massive objects, more massive objects require a greater force to accelerate, and thus the acceleration of free bodies in a vacuum is homogenous at a given distance?

You must be joking, right?

NO ONE can explain at this point in time HOW an object could pull another body (through vacuum, or otherwise).

In fact, we have the graviton flux paradox to deal with in the situation described by you.


For a better visualization, use Sun - Jupiter - Io:

"OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate that this interchange of gravitational particles again will seem to result in violations of conservation of energy. We will do this by demonstrating that, if matter is indeed influenced by gravitational particles, then, even under normal orbital conditions, gravity should decrease, due to a gravitational shadowing effect. This shadowing effect would violate conservation of energy.

Thought Experiment: IMAGINE THAT GRAVITONS BEHAVE LIKE PHOTONS

(for descriptive purposes only)

To better visualize how this partial gravitational influence might be encountered, let us describe gravity and gravitational interaction in terms of light, so that:

If gravitons exist, violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy will almost certainly occur.

Brilliance of light = gravitational attraction = (emission of gravitons)

Decreasing Transparency = Increasing Density and Mass

In this thought experiment, we will specify one sun, one earth and one moon. Each will be partially luminous, to simulate their 'output' of gravitons, and each will also be partially opaque, to indicate their 'capturing-of' or their 'reception-of' gravitons. We would then have the following description of the system.

In this imaginary system, the moon orbits the earth, and the earth-moon pair orbits the sun. Since glow will simulate gravity emitted, we could describe this sun as glowing brighter that this earth, and this earth as glowing brighter than the moon.

In addition, the moon would be more transparent than the earth, and the earth would be less transparent than the sun. This would simulate the increasing 'interception' of gravity, with an increase of both the density and mass from the moon, to the earth then to the sun in our imaginary example.

In this example, the light from the sun would 'attract' the earth and the moon (simulating the pull of gravity). The earth would glow less brilliantly than the sun, but still brighter than the moon. The moon would be attracted to both the earth and the sun, but would orbit the earth. The earth moon pair would then orbit the sun together.

In this example, the moon would spend more time in the earth's shadow, and the earth's shadow would be comparatively darker than the moon's shadow. Since the moon would be attracted to the sun only by the light from the sun, and the light emitted by the earth with the sun shining through the less transparent earth would be less than the light emitted by the sun directly, the moon would gain some amount of orbital distance from the sun every time the moon 'hid' in the earth's shadow.

This gain of gravitational energy, simulated in this example with light and transparency, {for visual purposes only}, would violate conservation of energy. If gravitons exist, they must self-condradictingly pass through nearer masses unaffected, so as not to decrease gravity for masses at a further distance, while still interacting with those closer masses at the same time.

Otherwise, we are left with the choice that masses at a distance will randomly gain some gravitational potential energy depending on whether randomly distributed nearer masses create a gravitational 'shadow' effect. We are once again led to the conclusion that gravitons, if they exist, must create violations of conservation of energy. This is hardly a reliable theoretical endorsement of gravitons, when conservation of energy must fall by the wayside in order to allow gravitons to exist. A much more logical conclusion is again, gravitons do not exist, and cannot exist. Some other method of explaining gravitational interactions must be needed."


A clear demonstration that attractive gravity cannot function at all using the posited graviton hypothesis.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #95 on: August 25, 2016, 03:43:52 AM »
So what if the northern hemisphere is more massive? The northern half of the globe is still exactly equally massive. Otherwise, the definition of the center of mass would be broken.

And I bet YOU can't explain and prove how light can travel through a vacuum, or otherwise. It's a redundant statement, and has no connection to my statement.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #96 on: August 25, 2016, 03:47:45 AM »
An object with a higher mass is pulled more towards the earth than an object with a lower mass. But an object with a higher mass has a higher rate of innertia. Higher innertia cancels out the higher pull.

That explains why objects of different density fall at the same speed.

A mass has a center of mass. This center of mass does not have to be in the middle of the mass. It also does not require a simmetrical object.

Take a broom. Try to balance it on your finger horizontally (with the brush to the left and the stick to the right, for clarity)  The moment it is balanced you found its center of mass.

You can now even rotate the broom while it balances on your finger. It will only rotate like that when it is in balance and therfor rotate with its center of mass at the center of rotation.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2016, 03:49:26 AM by Omega »
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #97 on: August 25, 2016, 03:52:17 AM »
Actually, this tidal field (yes the cause ocean tides AND tides in the earth) is about one half that due to the moon.

You are quite a forgetful person: both the barometer pressure paradox and the acceleration of the rate of precession paradox DEFY the moon's supposed tidal locking mechanism.


Evar, one of these days you must decide which statement you want to keep (since both cannot be true at the same time):

1. So what if the northern hemisphere is more massive?

2. The northern half of the globe is still exactly equally massive.


If the northern hemisphere is more massive, and it is, then according to the accepted laws of newtonian mechanics, the Earth should be facing the Sun with its North Pole while revolving around it.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2016, 04:06:33 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #98 on: August 25, 2016, 03:57:44 AM »
As for the speed of light through vacuum, listen to Newton:

In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:


[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”


I. Newton, letters quoted in detail in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/


Forty two years later, in 1717-1718, at the age of 75, Newton inserted what are called the "middle Queries" into the Opticks treatise.


Newton, Opticks, Query 21 (after discussing the aetherial medium for the propagation of light, he described his thoughts on the mechanism for gravity):

Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them?  And in passing from them to great distances, does it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?

In the official chronology of history, the middle queries were added in the last edition of Opticks, when Newton was 75 years old.


But wait, it gets even better.


Newton, Opticks, Query 19:

Doth not the Refraction of Light proceed from the different density of this athereal Medium in different places, the Light receding always from the denser parts of the Medium? And is not the density thereof greater in free and open Spaces void of Air and other grosser Bodies, than within the Pores of Water, Glass, Crystal, Gems, and other compact Bodies?


Light DOES NOT travel through vacuum: the medium it uses to propagate is called AETHER.

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #99 on: August 25, 2016, 03:59:41 AM »
Aether has been disproved. There is no aether.
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #100 on: August 25, 2016, 04:04:52 AM »
An object with a higher mass is pulled more towards the earth than an object with a lower mass.

Brilliant!

You have no knowledge of the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox, do you?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1724215#msg1724215


As for the proofs concerning aether/ether familiarize yourself with the papers published by Dr. Yuri Galaev:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791



?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #101 on: August 25, 2016, 04:11:36 AM »
Evar, one of these days you must decide which statement you want to keep (since both cannot be true at the same time):

1. So what if the northern hemisphere is more massive?

2. The northern half of the globe is still exactly equally massive.
Both can very obviously be right at the same time. Your statement is an outright lie (or ignorance).

If the northern hemisphere is more massive, and it is, then according the accepted laws of newtonian mechanics, the Earth should be facing the Sun with its North Pole while revolving around it.
Why? Because the sun is acting with a greater force on it? Then you need to learn what inertia means. Actually, ignore the formula you are using, I've got a better one:
a = G(m/r2)

Where a is the acceleration towards a parent body, G is gravitational constant, m is the mass of the parent body, and r is the distance from the center of mass of the parent body. As you can see, the mass of the earth does not matter, the acceleration is completely dependent on the mass of the parent body and the distance to it (in this case, the sun). So the northern hemisphere accelerates towards the sun at the same rate that the southern does. The acceleration is balanced, and therefore the whole earth is accelerated at the same rate towards the sun.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #102 on: August 25, 2016, 04:24:02 AM »
No, they cannot.

In statement #1, you are saying that the northern hemisphere is more massive (and it is).

In statement #2, you are saying that the SAME northern hemisphere is "exacty equally massive".


Actually, ignore the formula you are using.

Are you, a devoted RE, telling everybody here to actually IGNORE the law of universal gravitation?

Refresh your knowledge on the subject, please.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation

Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance that separates their centers.

Since the gravitational force is directly proportional to the mass of both interacting objects, more massive objects will attract each other with a greater gravitational force. So as the mass of either object increases, the force of gravitational attraction between them also increases. If the mass of one of the objects is doubled, then the force of gravity between them is doubled.



We are nearing the point where the RE suddenly realize that attractive gravitation becomes AN IMPEDIMENT to their cherished hypothesis: here we have a direct call to actually IGNORE the law of attractive gravitation.

But we cannot ignore it.

According to this law, since the northern hemisphere is more massive than its southern counterpart, it should face the Sun directly.

By the way Evar, you have failed to address the graviton flux paradox which directly defies your statements.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #103 on: August 25, 2016, 04:52:45 AM »
No, they cannot.

In statement #1, you are saying that the northern hemisphere is more massive (and it is).

In statement #2, you are saying that the SAME northern hemisphere is "exacty equally massive".
Oh, I see what your problem is. You don't read properly.

The northern hemisphere is more massive, yes.
But, the northern half of the globe is just as massive as the southern half.

Actually, ignore the formula you are using.

Are you, a devoted RE, telling everybody here to actually IGNORE the law of universal gravitation?

Refresh your knowledge on the subject, please.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation

Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance that separates their centers.

Since the gravitational force is directly proportional to the mass of both interacting objects, more massive objects will attract each other with a greater gravitational force. So as the mass of either object increases, the force of gravitational attraction between them also increases. If the mass of one of the objects is doubled, then the force of gravity between them is doubled.



We are nearing the point where the RE suddenly realize that attractive gravitation becomes AN IMPEDIMENT to their cherished hypothesis: here we have a direct call to actually IGNORE the law of attractive gravitation.

But we cannot ignore it.

According to this law, since the northern hemisphere is more massive than its southern counterpart, it should face the Sun directly.

By the way Evar, you have failed to address the graviton flux paradox which directly defies your statements.

No, I never told anybody to ignore the law of universal gravitation. I told you to ignore that specific form of the law, as it is misleading in the context of this situation.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #104 on: August 25, 2016, 05:08:01 AM »
You have been positioning yourself to get into a debate with me for the past couple of weeks (in fact, you made a direct comment about my messages).

Wow. You are extremely full of yourself. You are the one who commented in MY thread, remember?

Quote
Then I immediately brought to your attention the distribution of the continents paradox, which you failed to even address.

Actually I did address it. I am not going to continue to address it, because you are just trying to dodge the original topic of this thread.

Quote
The ball is in your court: you must explain why the geographical and the magnetic North Pole do not coincide, together with the distribution of the continents paradox.

Look closely at the title of this thread. Now look at the topic you are harping on. Are they the same topic? No? For the... sixth... time, put it in the appropriate thread, and I will discuss it with you. Please stop spamming the thread with off topic posts.

Quote
You were given the Piri Reis map, which has a South Pole.

Yes, and I already stated a rather obvious flaw in your map, which you ignored:

On your Piri Reis map, draw a line from the center of the NCP to South America. Now draw a line from South America to the center of the SCP. Do these lines make a 180 degree angle? No, they don't. Therefore, your map contradicts observed reality.

*

SpJunk

  • 577
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #105 on: August 25, 2016, 05:08:27 AM »
...
Do you understand the facts related to the RE theory, especially those concerning the law of universal gravitation?

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:
...

Actually, I do understand that a bit better than you would like.

Measured variations by ground configuration influence g for about 0.03% .

Variations in gravitational acceleration is within plus or minus 0.3 Gal at most, on average much less than that.
(Gal is 1 cm/s2, 300 mGal can change g from 9.78 to 9.777 or to 9.783 )

Learn about it HERE.
Map is presented with subtraction of supposed field of equal "ideal spheroid".
« Last Edit: August 25, 2016, 05:12:25 AM 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.

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #106 on: August 25, 2016, 05:32:54 AM »
An object with a higher mass is pulled more towards the earth than an object with a lower mass.

Brilliant!

Why do you leave out the second sentence?

Quote

As for the proofs concerning aether/ether familiarize yourself with the papers published by Dr. Yuri Galaev:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

I will forgo the impossible task of convincing you that one pseudoscientist does not prove anything. If you'd be susceptible to that argument, Rowbotham would not be your God.

The Michelson-Morley experiment proved there is no such thing as Aether (or ether). If there was in fact Aether, the measured speed of light would change depending on what direction you look. No such effect exists.
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #107 on: August 25, 2016, 06:29:35 AM »
You have been positioning yourself to get into a debate with me for the past couple of weeks (in fact, you made a direct comment about my messages).

This comment was addressed to the user who posted the previous message at that time, not you.

I did not ignore your statement concerning the NCP, on the contrary: the aether field which encompasses the Earth has different indices of refraction, depending upon its density. You had no idea that the measurement using a sextant is flawed, as the link I provided to you amply revealed this very fact (a correct measurement must take into account the index of refraction).

You still owe everyone here an explanation concerning the fact that the geographical and the magnetic north pole do not coincide (a devastating problem for the RE).


omega, do your homework on the MM experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1780340#msg1780340

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)


Dr. Yuri Galaev, Senior research officer of the Institute for Radiophysics & Electronics National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS)

One of the world's foremost experts on radiophysics.

THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL WAVES BAND Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/1-oder/Experient/Galaev/GalaevOptika.pdf

Dr. Galaev remarks:

Orbital component of the ether drift velocity, stipulated by the Earth movement around the Sun with the velocity 30 km/sec, was not detected [during the Dayton Miller experiments].


Dr. Galaev also concludes:

The method action is based on the development regularities of viscous liquid or gas streams in the directing systems. The significant measurement results have been obtained statistically. The development of the ether drift required effects has been shown. The measured value of the ether kinematic viscosity on the value order has coincided with its calculated value.



His experiments just confirmed earlier experiments performed by Dr. Dayton Miller (Princeton).

Full details: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)


"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.


As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein.


spjunk you were so eager to debate with me... you are going to get much more than you bargained for.


http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html (experiment carried out by the team of researchers which worked with Dr. Bruce DePalma)

Gyro Drop Experiment

In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.

Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.

A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.



Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.



?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #108 on: August 25, 2016, 07:08:26 AM »
A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.



Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.

This is a violation of correct use of sources. You are not allowed to cherrypick the information you want and state it as a truth ("Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on") and you also have to take into account the fact that both tests fall within each others mean standard deviations. This is a clear attempt at conning.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #109 on: August 25, 2016, 07:13:16 AM »
You have been positioning yourself to get into a debate with me for the past couple of weeks (in fact, you made a direct comment about my messages).

This comment was addressed to the user who posted the previous message at that time, not you.

My apologies, I was the only one you addressed by name in that comment, I assumed it was directed at me.

Quote
I did not ignore your statement concerning the NCP, on the contrary: the aether field which encompasses the Earth has different indices of refraction, depending upon its density. You had no idea that the measurement using a sextant is flawed, as the link I provided to you amply revealed this very fact (a correct measurement must take into account the index of refraction).

First of all, the question concerned the SCP specifically, not the NCP. Secondly, I was aware of how refraction affects the apparent position of stars. I don't see how it helps your model at all though. I also don't see how aether refraction helps your model. You can't just mumble the word "refraction" and expect that it solves all your problems.

HOW DOES YOUR MODEL EXPLAIN THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUTH CELESTIAL POLE?

Why is it so difficult for you to answer this single question?

Quote
You still owe everyone here an explanation concerning the fact that the geographical and the magnetic north pole do not coincide (a devastating problem for the RE).

No, I don't owe anyone an answer to that question. However, I will happily answer that question if you... wait for it... seventh time's a charm... PUT IT IN THE APPROPRIATE THREAD.

Please stop spamming this thread with off topic crap.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #110 on: August 25, 2016, 08:09:59 AM »
<some stuff about problems with standard theory if earth is unbalanced.>

I am not following your reasoning at all.    The Earth is an enormous gyroscope and as far as I know there is no problem with the earths current rotational axis changing over long periods of time

<some stuff about divergence problems with photos taken of stars rotating>

I am not even sure of what you are looking at in these so called photos that you are saying is incorrect,  HOWEVER the pictures are not real photos because they are a software produced combination of two videos taken at 180 degrees to each other.

Likewise although it is commonly said stars rotate oppositely in the southern hemisphere that illusion is only created because of the way you stand in the southern hemisphere.  If you are a few degrees either side of the equator what you see depends entirely in which direction you look where you can never see stars moving in opposite directions simultaneously with normally placed eyes.   Likewise the moon and the sun.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #111 on: August 25, 2016, 08:11:23 AM »
Some years ago, a most interesting issue was raised by the RE: the ham radio measurements concerning the Earth - Moon distance. It turned out to be a game stopper, until of course I intervened and settled the matter, using the aether/ether theory to its fullest: the speed of light is variable and not a constant, varying according to the density of the aether.

Much the same way, sextant measurements must take into account the existence of a field of aether consisting of various levels of densities.

The Piri Reis global map has both a North Pole and a South Pole, just as explained.

The index of refraction cannot be the same for our atmosphere and for the space located beyond the dome (aether shield): the queries signed Newton tell us so in plain words.


The fact that the geographical and magnetic poles do not coincide is a subject matter directly related to the topic at hand: you tried your best to explain it but failed notably in doing so.


Evar, take a look at the recorded times using a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second: runs 3 through 7 defy Newtonian mechanics.

The authors of the paper also did everybody a favor by providing the mean + standard deviation; they do not contradict the readings recorded.


Here is the celebrated Spinning Ball Experiment carried out by Dr. Bruce DePalma (MIT, Harvard).

One day, one of the greatest experimental physicists of the 20th century was asked a simple question, by one of his students:

If there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object verses non-rotating object?

After an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

This became one of the most celebrated experiments in modern physics: the spinning ball experiment.


"Conceptually, the experiment could not have been much cheaper, or easier to carry out:

Two 1-inch steel balls (like those found in every pinball machine in America ...) were positioned at the business end of an ordinary power drill; one ball was in a cup attached to the drill's motor shaft, so it spun -- at a very high rate of speed; the other ball was in an identical cup, attached by a bracket to the stationary drill casing, adjusted so that it was level with the first ball.

The experiment consisted of positioning the drill vertically, cups "up," and pressing the drill switch on the motor.

The drill motor (and its associated cup, containing one of the steel balls) rapidly spun up to approximately 27,000 RPM. The cup attached to the side of the drill (with the second steel ball inside it ...) was not rotating ....

When the drill motor had attained its maximum speed, DePalma (or, more often, Ed Delvers, his assistant ...) would shove the drill into the air with a fast, upward motion -- suddenly stopping the drill it in mid-flight. This would, of course, cause both 1-inch pinballs to fly out of their retaining cups in the same upward direction -- the "spinning ball" (hence the name ...) and the non-spinning ball, right beside it.

DePalma, from his years spent working with Dr. Herald Edgerton at MIT -- the famed inventor of "stroboscopic photography" -- was an expert in such stop-motion photography as well. By positioning Delvers against a gridded black background, in a darkened laboratory (below), and then illluminating the two upward-flying steel balls with a powerful strobe light, DePalma was able to take time-exposure photographs with the camera's shutter open, the "pinballs" only illuminated (at 60 times per second) by the strobe's periodic flash ....

The result was a striking "stroboscopic, time-lapse photograph" of the parabolic arc of both steel balls -- flying upward and then downward under Earth's gravitational acceleration (below)."



Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!

An experimental result in direct violation of everything physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!


Dr. Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation.


The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


Dr. Bruce DePalma:

Acceleration of a rotating material object requires greater energy than a corresponding non-rotating one since some energy is supplied to the od field. (od = ether field)

The important fact is the establishment of the od field as the mechanism for a mechanical interaction with the gravitational field, in addition to the mechanical interaction expressed as Newton's Laws of the falling non-spinning mechanical body.

(from Gravity and the Spinning Ball Experiment)


A total defiance of Newton's law of universal gravitation.

FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE BALL, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2016, 08:13:25 AM by sandokhan »

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #112 on: August 25, 2016, 08:17:57 AM »
Some years ago, a most interesting issue was raised by the RE: the ham radio measurements concerning the Earth - Moon distance. It turned out to be a game stopper, until of course I intervened and settled the matter, using the aether/ether theory to its fullest: the speed of light is variable and not a constant, varying according to the density of the aether.

If you are a man of honour rather than like so many here who just cheat, derail and avoid and more or less do anything to avoid defeat, how do you explain:

1. Position finding using a radio receiver and a computer using the signals present all around us by what is known as GPS location finding?

2. The suns straight line path all day long at equinox, where on those two days per year everybody on earth experiences an exact East sunrise and an exact west sunset and where to a good approximation all people along the same line of longitude see sunrise and sunset at the same time?

There are more show stoppers but those are good ones to start with.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #113 on: August 25, 2016, 08:35:19 AM »
If you'd be susceptible to that argument, Rowbotham would not be your God.

I do not use ENaG; it is a valuable historical reference (even though it contains several important errors), but I never use it to defend FET.


GPS satellites prove that the Earth does not orbit the Sun: the orbital Sagnac effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #114 on: August 25, 2016, 09:27:32 AM »
Some years ago, a most interesting issue was raised by the RE: the ham radio measurements concerning the Earth - Moon distance. It turned out to be a game stopper, until of course I intervened and settled the matter, using the aether/ether theory to its fullest: the speed of light is variable and not a constant, varying according to the density of the aether.

Much the same way, sextant measurements must take into account the existence of a field of aether consisting of various levels of densities.

The Piri Reis global map has both a North Pole and a South Pole, just as explained.

The index of refraction cannot be the same for our atmosphere and for the space located beyond the dome (aether shield): the queries signed Newton tell us so in plain words.


The fact that the geographical and magnetic poles do not coincide is a subject matter directly related to the topic at hand: you tried your best to explain it but failed notably in doing so.


Evar, take a look at the recorded times using a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second: runs 3 through 7 defy Newtonian mechanics.

The authors of the paper also did everybody a favor by providing the mean + standard deviation; they do not contradict the readings recorded.


Here is the celebrated Spinning Ball Experiment carried out by Dr. Bruce DePalma (MIT, Harvard).

One day, one of the greatest experimental physicists of the 20th century was asked a simple question, by one of his students:

If there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object verses non-rotating object?

After an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

This became one of the most celebrated experiments in modern physics: the spinning ball experiment.


"Conceptually, the experiment could not have been much cheaper, or easier to carry out:

Two 1-inch steel balls (like those found in every pinball machine in America ...) were positioned at the business end of an ordinary power drill; one ball was in a cup attached to the drill's motor shaft, so it spun -- at a very high rate of speed; the other ball was in an identical cup, attached by a bracket to the stationary drill casing, adjusted so that it was level with the first ball.

The experiment consisted of positioning the drill vertically, cups "up," and pressing the drill switch on the motor.

The drill motor (and its associated cup, containing one of the steel balls) rapidly spun up to approximately 27,000 RPM. The cup attached to the side of the drill (with the second steel ball inside it ...) was not rotating ....

When the drill motor had attained its maximum speed, DePalma (or, more often, Ed Delvers, his assistant ...) would shove the drill into the air with a fast, upward motion -- suddenly stopping the drill it in mid-flight. This would, of course, cause both 1-inch pinballs to fly out of their retaining cups in the same upward direction -- the "spinning ball" (hence the name ...) and the non-spinning ball, right beside it.

DePalma, from his years spent working with Dr. Herald Edgerton at MIT -- the famed inventor of "stroboscopic photography" -- was an expert in such stop-motion photography as well. By positioning Delvers against a gridded black background, in a darkened laboratory (below), and then illluminating the two upward-flying steel balls with a powerful strobe light, DePalma was able to take time-exposure photographs with the camera's shutter open, the "pinballs" only illuminated (at 60 times per second) by the strobe's periodic flash ....

The result was a striking "stroboscopic, time-lapse photograph" of the parabolic arc of both steel balls -- flying upward and then downward under Earth's gravitational acceleration (below)."



Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!

An experimental result in direct violation of everything physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!


Dr. Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation.


The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


Dr. Bruce DePalma:

Acceleration of a rotating material object requires greater energy than a corresponding non-rotating one since some energy is supplied to the od field. (od = ether field)

The important fact is the establishment of the od field as the mechanism for a mechanical interaction with the gravitational field, in addition to the mechanical interaction expressed as Newton's Laws of the falling non-spinning mechanical body.

(from Gravity and the Spinning Ball Experiment)


A total defiance of Newton's law of universal gravitation.

FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE BALL, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.
Source?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #115 on: August 25, 2016, 09:40:36 AM »
Some years ago, a most interesting issue was raised by the RE: the ham radio measurements concerning the Earth - Moon distance. It turned out to be a game stopper, until of course I intervened and settled the matter, using the aether/ether theory to its fullest: the speed of light is variable and not a constant, varying according to the density of the aether.

Much the same way, sextant measurements must take into account the existence of a field of aether consisting of various levels of densities.

The Piri Reis global map has both a North Pole and a South Pole, just as explained.

I didn't ask if it has a North and South Pole. I asked how your model explains the South Celestial Pole. Specifically, I pointed out that in your model the South Celestial Pole is not always 180 degrees from the NCP.

Yes, you already stated several times that aether refraction must be taken into account. The question is, HOW should it be taken into account, and HOW does it explain the appearance of the South Celestial Pole?

Yes, I know you don't actually have an answer for this. Yes, I realize you are just trying to derail the thread, hoping that nobody will notice your lack of explanation.

Quote
The fact that the geographical and magnetic poles do not coincide is a subject matter directly related to the topic at hand: you tried your best to explain it but failed notably in doing so.

HOW are they related? You haven't made any connection between it and the South Celestial Pole at all.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #116 on: August 25, 2016, 09:49:44 AM »
The claims:

For a person in south america on the equator, the NCP and the SCP would not be on perfectly opposite sides of each other (the angle between them would be less than 180°).

However, as Master_Evar pointed out, the bipolar model suffers from the same problem as the celestial gears model: the SCP and NCP are not 180 degrees apart from each other at many places on your map. This directly contradicts observation.


WHAT observation?

Polaris cannot be seen from Australia, New Zealand, or South America on a spherical earth:

http://www.kabraham.co.uk/images/STARTRAILS.jpg

That is how the theory goes, but it cannot be verified on a spherical earth.


On a flat earth (provable immediately using the Tunguska explosion event, or any other number of direct proofs) you are going to have to deal with the index of refraction of the aether, something which is not taken into account by modern science.


HOW are they related? You haven't made any connection between it and the South Celestial Pole at all.

The geographical and the magnetic south pole DO NOT COINCIDE.

This means the shape of the earth cannot be spherical at all.

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #117 on: August 25, 2016, 09:55:04 AM »

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

The percentage could reach 0.0042%: it would still constitute a DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

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."

Why did you say you were going to "carefully calculate" the effect of the continents and then just quote something with no source and no calculations? Where is that even from?

I'm not a scientist or a mathematician so these are not "careful" calculations, but at least they are calculations (I'm rounding everything off just to make it easier):

Diameter of the Earth: 13,000 km
Surface Area of Earth: 500,000,000 sq km
Volume of Earth: 1,147,000,000 cu km

Average depth of the ocean: 4 km
Average elevation above sea level: 1 km

So if we take all the oceans, all the land above sea level, and all the land down to the bottom of the oceans, that comes out to 5 km. The volume of this area would be roughly 2,000,000 cu km, which would be about 0.002% of the entire volume of the Earth, rounding way up.

The percentage could reach 0.0042%: it would still constitute a DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

But if the total volume of the land and seas combined is only about 0.002% of the total volume of the Earth, there's no way the distribution of that land and sea could have a significant effect on gravity since it could never reach your 0.0042% figure. Unless of course the land and sea in that 2,000,000 cu km area were significantly denser than the rest of the Earth. But that's not the case, the crust is the least dense part of the Earth (http://earthlearningidea.blogspot.com/2009/02/density-of-earth.html), so calculating by mass would only make that percentage even more insignificant, right? So it seems to me that even if ALL the land were on one side or hemisphere (like Pangea), it wouldn't interfere significantly with gravity.

So, by your own logic and figures, if it doesn't reach your .0042% number does that mean it doesn't constitute a defiance of the law of universal gravitation?

Again, these are really rough calculations using high school math. I'm not a scientist so please let me know if I've gotten anything wrong. Thanks!

Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #118 on: August 25, 2016, 10:07:57 AM »
If you'd be susceptible to that argument, Rowbotham would not be your God.

I do not use ENaG; it is a valuable historical reference (even though it contains several important errors), but I never use it to defend FET.


GPS satellites prove that the Earth does not orbit the Sun: the orbital Sagnac effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780

You appear to be incorrectly claiming sagnac errors are not taken into account in GPS calculations.

In simple terms can you clarify the nature of your claim?

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: The South Celestial Pole
« Reply #119 on: August 25, 2016, 10:08:30 AM »
I am still reeling from the statement that if we take away air, there is stil atmospheric pressure.
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.