What Exactly is the Celestial Gears Model?

This was question was prompted by an "explanation" put forward by Jane:

Or it's just affected by the same force that makes the stars move. With the celestial gears model for example, and the basic fact that distances between stars don't vary, that much wouldn't be at odds with what is already observed. Whether what is already observed is justifiable is a whole other matter, but even so we would expect it to stay lined up, at least approximately.

Exactly what is "celestial gears model" and what are these "celestial gears"?

There is no mention of "gears" in the "FAQ" and this is all I could find in the "Wiki":

The Coriolis Effect
Water Currents
The rotation of small scale liquids in opposing hemispheres was debunked by Snopes.

As for water currents on a large scale; they're simply gradually put into motion by the winds. Water currents in the Northern Hemisphere will tend to rotate in one direction while currents in the Southern Hemisphere will tend to turn in another direction.

Wind Currents
The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears.

The Wiki only seems to discuss the Ice-Wall model, where as far as I could see, there is no possibility of there being "Northern and Southern Celestial Systems".

The "heavens" seem to be described as simply rotating about the Polaris, over the North Pole.

One of the earliest threads is: Celestial "Gears" « on: November 20, 2007, 02:28:43 AM » and that is followed by this "explanation":

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The dynamics of a multiple stellar system demand that every body of a swirling star system move in tandem with each member body as if the entire system were a solid disk. The underlying cause for the rotation is due to vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of mass - an imaginary point completely compliant with the Newtonian system. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement, where the stars move around around a shared gravitational influence.

Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through a shared gravometric influence. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another. The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The stars in the night sky trace almost perfect circles around the hub of the earth because by necessity the mechanics of a multiple system rely intimately on the movements and vectors of every member body. Circular movement is the most perfect, stable movement. If one celestial body is out of place or moves in a different fashion than the other bodies of the group the entire system becomes inherently imbalanced. Eddies, or stars that move out of tandem, will either leave the system entirely or are compelled by the stellar system to move back into its locked pace and apogee. This is why there are no elliptical orbits, and why an entire cluster moves at a set uniform speed.

Galaxies also actually rotate at a set uniform speed and apogee throughout its disk. Galaxies move as if they were a solid disk. Describing the movements of galaxies have been a challenge to astronomers, requiring the dynamics of multiple star systems we know today.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Therefore, since galaxies rotate in the same fashion as the stellar systems over our heads, we see that there is a pretense for the multiple systems I've described.

To me that seems to say nothing concrete about what is so simple to observe:
    Looking north in the Northern Hemisphere the stars seem to rotate anti-clockwise about the North Celestial Pole, near Polaris, and
    looking south in the Southern Hemisphere the stars seem to rotate clockwise about the South Celestial Pole, near the tiny barely visibly Sigma Octantis.

And in a later thread Tom Bishop posts:

Quote

I could ask one of the scientists at the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base to repeat it, if you like.

First off, the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base is an American Military Base funded by the Department of Defense, the same guys who maintain our fleet of GPS satellites.

Secondly, it's not inconceivable that the sun might "switch gears" once it moves past the equator into the realm of the Southern Gear, circling around Sigma Octantis in the winter.

This would give the Northern Hemisphere its short winter days and the Southern Hemisphere its long winter days.

But that could only apply to a Bipolar Model such as Tom's.

So without having to read voluminous posts mainly ridiculing "Celestial Gears" can anybody answer:
exactly what is this "celestial gears model" that seems to be raised so often as the explanation of the "Southern Star Rotation?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921460#msg1921460
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921461#msg1921461

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921460#msg1921460
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921461#msg1921461

They include nothing but more unsupported hypotheses and were essentially in the claims made by Tom Bishop.

In addition the UA claims to be justified by Einstein's Equivalence Principle but that is equivalent to (Gravitational Mass) = (Inertial Mass).

But here you say, "This model is connected to celestial gravitation. Here, the stars also exert a gravitational force."
So according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle, that UA is claimed to depend on,
  if "stars also exert a gravitational force" on each other and on earth-bound objects the earth and earth-bound objects should exert "a gravitational force" on each other.

They can't have it both ways.

Flat-Earthers never seem to follow through on the consequences of their own claims.

They include nothing but more unsupported hypotheses and were essentially in the claims made by Tom Bishop.

I present what the models contain, not the evidence given in favour of them. That just invites debate.

In addition the UA claims to be justified by Einstein's Equivalence Principle but that is equivalent to (Gravitational Mass) = (Inertial Mass).

But here you say, "This model is connected to celestial gravitation. Here, the stars also exert a gravitational force."
So according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle, that UA is claimed to depend on,
  if "stars also exert a gravitational force" on each other and on earth-bound objects the earth and earth-bound objects should exert "a gravitational force" on each other.

They can't have it both ways.

for example, only some kinds of matter may exert a gravitational attraction, or matter may only exert gravitational attraction in specific circumstances. For most models, the Earth does not.
The Cavendish experiment is not always accepted as reliable, but when it is applying the conclusion to mass in general rather than just the specific element tested is not viewed as any more reasonable than assuming, for example, every metal is magnetic.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 13, 2019, 04:26:13 PM

They include nothing but more unsupported hypotheses and were essentially in the claims made by Tom Bishop.

I present what the models contain, not the evidence given in favour of them. That just invites debate.

Quote

In addition the UA claims to be justified by Einstein's Equivalence Principle but that is equivalent to (Gravitational Mass) = (Inertial Mass).

But here you say, "This model is connected to celestial gravitation. Here, the stars also exert a gravitational force."
So according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle, that UA is claimed to depend on,
  if "stars also exert a gravitational force" on each other and on earth-bound objects the earth and earth-bound objects should exert "a gravitational force" on each other.

They can't have it both ways.

Quote from: Jane on June 21, 2017, 03:53:54 PM

for example, only some kinds of matter may exert a gravitational attraction, or matter may only exert gravitational attraction in specific circumstances. For most models, the Earth does not.

Except that "only some kinds of matter may exert a gravitational attraction" is indirect contradiction the the Equivalence Principle.
If matter has mass and is subject to inertial forces (the ultimate measure of masses) then the Equivalence Principle states that it is also subject to gravitational attraction.

And matter on earth is subject to inertial forces.

Either flat earthers accept Einstein's Equivalence or they don't.

Quote from: Jane

The Cavendish experiment is not always accepted as reliable, but when it is applying the conclusion to mass in general rather than just the specific element tested is not viewed as any more reasonable than assuming, for example, every metal is magnetic.

Except that, again, "Mass in general" is subject inertial forces therefore "Mass in general" is subject gravitational forces.
That is what UA relies on and since Newton's time scientists have been trying to find exceptions.

And there is not one "Cavendish experiment" but over 300 standards laboratory quality "Cavendish type experiments" using many types of materials.
Then the thousands of qualitative ones run just as demonstrations in principle - including at least one right now.
And even if many are only qualitative they do demonstrate that mass "appears to attract" mass.

But I realise that you cannot answer for flat-earthers and
flat earthers claim any "personally unverifiable evidence" that "contradicts"  FET must be assumed fabricated.

Now I'd like to see some flat earth debate on "celestial gears" that is the topic not "celestial gravitation".

Celestial Gears is a Bi-Polar explanation. I was not thinking about the Monopole model at the time when I wrote that bit in the Wiki. We were interested in the Bi-Polar model as possibly the official FE model because we had come across the later Zetetic works after Rowbotham which promoted a two-pole model. Anyway, we didn't really know at the time that we would end up with multiple models and it should have been made clear that those explanations applied to the Bi-Polar model.

The best Monopole explanation for the Southern Stars is probably this one provided by P-Brane.



If the same stars could be observed at the same time from Australia and South America, it might disprove that explanation. However, those locations are many hours apart and one location may be day when the other is in night.

Celestial Gears is a Bi-Polar explanation. I was not thinking about the Monopole model at the time when I wrote that bit in the Wiki. We were interested in the Bi-Polar model as possibly the official FE model because we had come across the later Zetetic works after Rowbotham which promoted a two-pole model. Anyway, we didn't really know at the time that we would end up with multiple models and it should have been made clear that those explanations applied to the Bi-Polar model.

The best Monopole explanation for the Southern Stars is probably this one provided by P-Brane.



If the same stars could be observed at the same time from Australia and South America, it might disprove that explanation. However, those locations are many hours apart and one location may be day when the other is in night.

At the June solstice both the eastern side of Australia and the western side of South America are in darkness as in:


But I don't have time to see what stars would be visible.
The best would be Alpha and Beta Centauri and the Southern Cross but they are about 30° from the South Celestial Pole.
They would be visible all night for the southernmost parts of Australia and South America but not from here at about 27°S.

More when I get home.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921460#msg1921460
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921461#msg1921461

Linking to a bunch of nonsense in a section off limits to debate is a rather dishonest tactic.
It allows you to continue to link to refuted nonsense without putting in any effort to discuss it.

Celestial gravitation would destroy the idea of celestial gears.
Sure you could have a single ring system with the stars circling the gravitational centre, but when you put in 2 systems that have stationary centre points, gravity would cause them to collapse.

It is also extremely dishonest to claim that gravity acts upon mass in general is no more reasonable than all metals being magnetic.
Every setup tested which is capable of detecting the small forces expected show the expected gravitational attraction. There are plenty of tests which show that some metals are non-magnetic.
If there had only been a single test you would have a case.
The other key issue is gravity is a fundamental force thought to act on mass. Magnetism is not a fundamental force thought to act on metals and the magnetism of metals is a result of specific arrangements of their components, primarily the electrons, where magnetism acts on all non-stationary electrons (as well as the nucleons).

As for the gears, why should the gears rotating above produce the Coriolis effect?

That just invites debate.

Wow, debating in the debate section. Someone stop the presses, this is a big event.

If the same stars could be observed at the same time from Australia and South America, it might disprove that explanation. However, those locations are many hours apart and one location may be day when the other is in night.

Why so far apart?
Surely observations of the same stars from much closer locations like Perth and Sydney should be enough?

Even just long observations at each point to see what happens should be enough.
We observe the south celestial pole remaining due south, 180 degrees from the north celestial pole, at any time it is visible. This would be impossible on a FE.

As for that video, the rotation is nothing like the crepuscular and anticrepuscular rays.
These rays are merely the result of perspective where you see the basically parallel rays of light from the sun appear to converge towards the sun when looking at the sun and converge towards a point away from the sun when looking away.
There is no reason to assume they are from the sun's light initially diverging then all of a sudden starting to converge. If that was the case, people further away from the sun would be able to see crepuscular rays with a kink where the light goes from diverging to converging; likewise people closer to the sun would see anti-crepuscular rays initially diverging before kinking and converging.
Instead both sets of rays are always observed to appear to be converging towards a point far away. This shows they are merely the result of perspective on parallel lines, where parallel lines appear to converge on a point in the distance.

We aren't seeing roughly parallel rays of light, we are seeing individual sources of light (i.e. stars)

Applying this to a rotation makes no sense at all. Using this phenomenon which clearly shows the FE explanation of the sun is completely false, as is their common argument for the sun being close, especially while completely ignoring those facts is dishonest to the extreme.

The reason why the celestial poles are opposite from each other is explained in the video, as are the answers to other questions poised.

Of interest, I notice that when looking at the southern star trails that the outside trails are brighter and thicker, compared to the less vibrant inner stars. It's like we are looking down a tube.

The reason why the celestial poles are opposite from each other is explained in the video, as are the answers to other questions poised.

No, it is merely asserted in a manner which makes absolutely no sense.
For the FE model, the crepuscular rays are not a result of perspective. They are a result of the sun being near and thus sun rays actually diverging.
This provides no explanation for anti-crepuscular rays.

The only possible explanation for anti-creuscular rays in this context is as I said, the light physically bends and starts converging opposite the sun.
I have also now realised that there are even more issues.
This would only work for one specific location.

If you move closer to the sun you will observe the anti-crepuscular rays to first diverge before starting to converge.
If you move further from the sun you will observe the crepuscular rays to first diverge before starting to converge.
If you move to the side you will observe the rays to diverge from the sun and then converge towards another point, which is not simply in the direction opposite the sun.

The crepuscular and anti-crepuscular rays only make sense in the context of a very distant sun producing effectively parallel beams of light with perspective then producing the apparent convergence/divergence of the rays.

None of that is addressed in the video. Instead it just takes the anti-crepuscular rays as given and working perfectly fine for a FE, even though the refute the common FE model with a close sun.

Likewise there is no justification or explanation for why the stars should be anything like these rays.

Of interest, I notice that when looking at the southern star trails that the outside trails are brighter and thicker, compared to the less vibrant inner stars. It's like we are looking down a tube.

I notice that they are brighter when higher in the sky as they have to pass through less air.
However I also notice that some are naturally less bright than others and some naturally appear thicker than others throughout.

Except that "only some kinds of matter may exert a gravitational attraction" is indirect contradiction the the Equivalence Principle.
If matter has mass and is subject to inertial forces (the ultimate measure of masses) then the Equivalence Principle states that it is also subject to gravitational attraction.

The equivalence principle is about the relationship between force an acceleration. It does not claim that all masses exert a gravitational force, and even if it did that claim wouldn't follow so it can be safely rejected. You've got to know that's a dumb argument, seriously.

Linking to a bunch of nonsense in a section off limits to debate is a rather dishonest tactic.
It allows you to continue to link to refuted nonsense without putting in any effort to discuss it.

No, it just means I don't have to repeat myself endlessly. No one's stopping you debating it in the debate section. Of course that requires you to actually read it and engage with it rather than doing your usual ignore it and argue against what you think should happen rather than think in terms of what is after all a different model, so don't you worry your pretty little head.

Wow, debating in the debate section. Someone stop the presses, this is a big event.

...It's not in the debate section. Idiot. Plus, like I've said time and time again, I'm not a FEer. I'm hardly in any position to argue for the evidence, I just argue for what the models actually state and let people argue against that rather than perpetually make themselves look ignorant with straw men. So why would I invite debate on something I can't debate?
I don't feel the need to shove my voice in every little place.

Celestial Gears is a Bi-Polar explanation. I was not thinking about the Monopole model at the time when I wrote that bit in the Wiki. We were interested in the Bi-Polar model as possibly the official FE model because we had come across the later Zetetic works after Rowbotham which promoted a two-pole model. Anyway, we didn't really know at the time that we would end up with multiple models and it should have been made clear that those explanations applied to the Bi-Polar model.

The best Monopole explanation for the Southern Stars is probably this one provided by P-Brane.


If the same stars could be observed at the same time from Australia and South America, it might disprove that explanation. However, those locations are many hours apart and one location may be day when the other is in night.

It would seem that p-brane is claiming that the star trails in the Southern hemisphere are simply some some of reflection of those in the Northern Hemisphere.

Now look at actual photographs of star trails with the Northern Hemisphere on the left and the Southern Hemisphere on the right:
Note that, while it is not very bright, the Northern star trails has Polaris almost exactly in the centre but
the Southern star trails have no visible star in the centre. Sigma Octantis is almost in the centre but not visible.

And if a photo of the Northern stars is compared with the Southern stars the constellations are quite different,
In the south, we have the very bright stars Alpha and Beta Centauri and the Southern Cross (Crux) and
in the north are Ursa Major and Ursa Minor, etc.

Now look at p-brane's star trails, again with the Northern Hemisphere on the left and the Southern Hemisphere on the right:
Note that his Southern stars seem to be a simple reflection of the Northern stars.

Any explanation like p-brane's would have to make the stars in one hemisphere simple a type of reflection of those in the other hemisphere.

But in reality, the stars in the two hemispheres are quite different.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 13, 2019, 08:17:09 PM

Except that "only some kinds of matter may exert a gravitational attraction" is indirect contradiction the the Equivalence Principle.
If matter has mass and is subject to inertial forces (the ultimate measure of masses) then the Equivalence Principle states that it is also subject to gravitational attraction.

The equivalence principle is about the relationship between force an acceleration. It does not claim that all masses exert a gravitational force, and even if it did that claim wouldn't follow so it can be safely rejected. You've got to know that's a dumb argument, seriously.

Totally incorrect! Are you serious in claiming that the "equivalence principle is about the relationship between force an acceleration" that's Newton!

Do we have to go through this over and over again?
Whatever you might claim all masses are subject to inertial forces, otherwise they would not have mass.
And Einstein's Equivalence Principle is all about the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass - that is the very basis of GR!

Maybe "does not claim that all masses exert a gravitational force" but it does claim that if any masses exert a gravitational force then all masses must exert a gravitational force.

So I do NOT have "a dumb argument" and if you wish to debate this further, bring it on but NOT in this thread!

Principle of Equivalence
Experiments performed in a uniformly accelerating reference frame with acceleration a are indistinguishable from the same experiments performed in a non-accelerating reference frame which is situated in a gravitational field where the acceleration of gravity = g = -a = intensity of gravity field. One way of stating this fundamental principle of general relativity is to say that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass.

Phys.org, How Einstein's equivalence principle extends to the quantum world
UQ physicist, Dr. Magdalena Zych from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems, and the University of Vienna's Professor Caslav Brukner have been working to discover if quantum objects interact with gravity only through curved space-time.

"Einstein's equivalence principle contends that the total inertial and gravitational mass of any objects are equivalent, meaning all bodies fall in the same way when subject to gravity," Dr. Zych said.

"Physicists have been debating whether the principle applies to quantum particles, so to translate it to the quantum world we needed to find out how quantum particles interact with gravity.

Equivalence principle[/b]]Equivalence principle
Equivalence principle, fundamental law of physics that states that gravitational and inertial forces are of a similar nature and often indistinguishable. In the Newtonian form it asserts, in effect, that, within a windowless laboratory freely falling in a uniform gravitational field, experimenters would be unaware that the laboratory is in a state of nonuniform motion. All dynamical experiments yield the same results as obtained in an inertial state of uniform motion unaffected by gravity. This was confirmed to a high degree of precision by an experiment conducted by the Hungarian physicist Roland Eötvös. In Einstein’s version, the principle asserts that in free-fall the effect of gravity is totally abolished in all possible experiments and general relativity reduces to special relativity, as in the inertial state.

Or go and read: Swinburne University, Astronomy: The Equivalence Principle: A Question of Mass

But remember this is that Einstein's Equivalence Principle is ALL about the the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass!

Totally incorrect! Are you serious in claiming that the "equivalence principle is about the relationship between force an acceleration" that's Newton!

Not f=ma, but rather that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a force acting one way and an acceleration acting the other way. At no point does the equivalence principle make any claims about the idea of mass causing gravity. It just doesn't. It's just that gravity was the only force the equivalence could feasibly be applied to, but there's no mention of where gravity originates, let alone any justification for that statement.

Just stop, Rab. You're the one that opted to bring this topic into the thread so you don't get to blame me, I'm just pointing out it's a false statement. If you disagree then by all means, instead of cherry picked, out of context snippets from a myriad of random sources that still don't say what you want them to, how about you take the time to explain how:

the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

Provides evidence or justification for the claim that:

if any masses exert a gravitational force then all masses must exert a gravitational force

There's not even an implication there, let alone evidence. This is just bad.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 14, 2019, 06:36:22 AM

Totally incorrect! Are you serious in claiming that the "equivalence principle is about the relationship between force an acceleration" that's Newton!

Not f=ma, but rather that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a force acting one way and an acceleration acting the other way. At no point does the equivalence principle make any claims about the idea of mass causing gravity. It just doesn't. It's just that gravity was the only force the equivalence could feasibly be applied to, but there's no mention of where gravity originates, let alone any justification for that statement.

I did not claim that "the equivalence principle make any claims about the idea of mass causing gravity".
My only claim was that gravitational mass is identical to the inertial mass and the rest is simple logic.

Now I suggest again that if you want a debate on "celestial gravitation" and/or the "Equivalence Principle" make another thread.
This topic is, "What Exactly is the Celestial Gears Model?"

No, it just means I don't have to repeat myself endlessly.

And that is the issue, all you seem to want to do is repeat yourself endlessly rather than acknowledge and deal with the problems your claims make.
That makes it quite dishonest.

No one's stopping you debating it in the debate section.

At which point you eventually run away and then bring it up again later on.
And notice how you haven't even bothered engaging in this topic? Rather than debate you just put in some links and insult people.

...It's not in the debate section. Idiot.

Really?
So what is "Flat Earth Debate" meant to be for if not debate?
It sure seems like it is in the debate section.
Yes, your preaching isn't in the debate section, which is why it shouldn't be linked to in the debate section.

Plus, like I've said time and time again, I'm not a FEer.

You sure seem to like defending them and pretending they have answers to all the problems.
Are you sure you aren't one, hiding in the closet?

I did not claim that "the equivalence principle make any claims about the idea of mass causing gravity".
My only claim was that gravitational mass is identical to the inertial mass and the rest is simple logic.

Now I suggest again that if you want a debate on "celestial gravitation" and/or the "Equivalence Principle" make another thread.
This topic is, "What Exactly is the Celestial Gears Model?"

You're the one that decided to talk about this. I gave you the links, you opted to make a claim which you are now refusing to justify, and now claim is irrelevant. So why did you choose to bring it up? It's pretty crucial to celestial gravitation, which is after all typically the crux of celestial gears. So, once more, I'm going to ask you a straight question.

how about you take the time to explain how:

Quote

the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

Provides evidence or justification for the claim that:

Quote

if any masses exert a gravitational force then all masses must exert a gravitational force

Really?
So what is "Flat Earth Debate" meant to be for if not debate?
It sure seems like it is in the debate section.
Yes, your preaching isn't in the debate section, which is why it shouldn't be linked to in the debate section.

Preaching? No one's claiming it's true. Just giving it so you can actually try making an informed argument. If you want to go and make a thread in debate or something dedicated to walking through the flaws with every FE idea so you've got a similar resource to link back to, no one's stopping you. Don't throw a tantrum just because I took your favourite toy away and you don't get to claim victory just by demanding someone go over a long, involved idea to someone that is never going to listen. Now you don't get to fall back on exhaustion, you can take the radical step of looking at what FEers actually say. Incredible huh?
This is debate. You can debate it. Get over yourself. I've told you explicitly where and why I post, just because you don't like it isn't going to change it. I know not butting in on topics where you have nothing to contribute is a foreign concept to you, but amazingly other people actually care about it.

Not even worth bothering any more. I've said everything worth saying, and just because all you are capable of doing is ignoring it doesn't make it remotely interesting for anyone else. Jesus christ, the way you go on you'd think RET was genuinely incapable of standing up to anything.
Jack, try piecing together what this actually means. You might find the concept informative. At least maybe it'd stop you outright lying.

I'm not a FEer. I'm hardly in any position to argue for the evidence, I just argue for what the models actually state and let people argue against that rather than perpetually make themselves look ignorant with straw men. So why would I invite debate on something I can't debate?
I don't feel the need to shove my voice in every little place.

Seriously, you're making a far better case for FET than I ever could, what do you think FEers see when they come face to face with one of RET's most vocal posters acting like a child? If you care about logic, use some rather than petty tirades. (Calling it now, you're going to fall back on your "I'm rubber and you're glue," response every single time you get called out. Not like you're just a pretentious teenager at all). If you care about a usable forum, stop being so unutterably tedious and try actually engaging with what people have said rather than deciding what you want to reply with long before they ever make a post.
RET can take FEers expressing their ideas. Expressing their ideas is the best way to respond to them. Clamping down, throwing fits any time there's a convenient resource, openly and knowingly misrepresenting... You're acting like we can't respond to them, and that's just pathetic. Maybe you can't, but you're not the centre of the world, don't pretend to be.

Good riddannce to bad rubbish.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 14, 2019, 02:30:27 PM

I did not claim that "the equivalence principle make any claims about the idea of mass causing gravity".
My only claim was that gravitational mass is identical to the inertial mass and the rest is simple logic.

Now I suggest again that if you want a debate on "celestial gravitation" and/or the "Equivalence Principle" make another thread.
This topic is, "What Exactly is the Celestial Gears Model?"

You're the one that decided to talk about this. I gave you the links,you opted to make a claim which you are now refusing to justify, and now claim is irrelevant.

Exactly what is this claim which I am now refusing to justify? But in any case

• It is irrelevant to what was actually asked in the OP and
  
  
• I have answered you but you keep pretending that you know better than all the physicists around.

So why did you choose to bring it up?

I chose to bring "the Celestial Gears Model" up to find out how it explained the "Southern Star Rotation" about the South Celestial Pole.

It's pretty crucial to celestial gravitation, which is after all typically the crux of celestial gears. So, once more, I'm going to ask you a straight question.

And if you want more on "celestial gravitation" go and make your own thread on that topic because there is much much more to be said on that than can be handled in this thread!
So I am NOT refusing to answer anything.

I asked, Exactly what is "celestial gears model" and what are these "celestial gears"?
An I never mentioned "celestial gravitation" till YOU brought it up.

The only mention of gravitation is Tom Bishop's "gravitational influence", "shared gravometric influence", "gravitational capture" and "gravitating body".

But you have chosen to attack "gravitation" which I never raised!

Surely to anyone but one intent on causing trouble that "gravitation" had no connection with what was asked, LOOK:

To me that seems to say nothing concrete about what is so simple to observe:
    Looking north in the Northern Hemisphere the stars seem to rotate anti-clockwise about the North Celestial Pole, near Polaris, and
    looking south in the Southern Hemisphere the stars seem to rotate clockwise about the South Celestial Pole, near the tiny barely visibly Sigma Octantis.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So without having to read voluminous posts mainly ridiculing "Celestial Gears" can anybody answer:
exactly what is this "celestial gears model" that seems to be raised so often as the explanation of the "Southern Star Rotation"?

Now post something relevant to how the ""celestial gears model" that seems to be raised so often as the explanation of the "Southern Star Rotation" or buzz off!

You might find using the site easier if you reply to posts.

You're the one that decided to talk about this. I gave you the links, you opted to make a claim which you are now refusing to justify, and now claim is irrelevant. So why did you choose to bring it up? It's pretty crucial to celestial gravitation, which is after all typically the crux of celestial gears. So, once more, I'm going to ask you a straight question.

Quote from: Jane on March 14, 2019, 06:47:13 AM

how about you take the time to explain how:

Quote

the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

Provides evidence or justification for the claim that:

Quote

if any masses exert a gravitational force then all masses must exert a gravitational force

Quote from: Jane on March 14, 2019, 03:02:04 PM

Good riddannce to bad rubbish.

<<  >>

I read you posts and ignore what I cannot be bothered answering again and again ad nauseum.

Tom Bishop elsewhere did say elsewhere that "the Celestial Gears Model" is really just a Bi-Polar earth explanation and offered another explanation.

I asked how "the Celestial Gears Model" explains the Southern Star rotation and YOU have posted NOTHING relevant.
So I repeat, I yo want to debate "Celestial Gravitation" YOU make a thread on "Celestial Gravitation".

I asked how "the Celestial Gears Model" explains the Southern Star rotation and YOU have posted NOTHING relevant.
So I repeat, I yo want to debate "Celestial Gravitation" YOU make a thread on "Celestial Gravitation".

No, you've just ignored it several times over. Try again.
The aspect of celestial gravitation that you were objecting to is crucial to the whole bloody concept of celestial gears. You don't get to throw out an objection to that and then go on this much of a run around when you are asked to justify it. Just say you made a mistake and move on, this is pathetic.
And I've seen celestial gears applied to the monopole model as it is. I can certainly imagine its origins being in the bipolar, but that's not the only time it's applied.



That's the typical image. I think the purple symbolises the outer star system with it too rotating, though I'd need to track down the thread again and I can't even remember which site it was on so that's not easy.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 14, 2019, 05:41:40 PM

I asked how "the Celestial Gears Model" explains the Southern Star rotation and YOU have posted NOTHING relevant.
So I repeat, I you want to debate "Celestial Gravitation" YOU make a thread on "Celestial Gravitation".

No, you've just ignored it several times over. Try again.
The aspect of celestial gravitation that you were objecting to is crucial to the whole bloody concept of celestial gears. You don't get to throw out an objection to that and then go on this much of a run around when you are asked to justify it. Just say you made a mistake and move on, this is pathetic.
And I've seen celestial gears applied to the monopole model as it is. I can certainly imagine its origins being in the bipolar, but that's not the only time it's applied.



That's the typical image. I think the purple symbolises the outer star system with it too rotating, though I'd need to track down the thread again and I can't even remember which site it was on so that's not easy.

Read what was in the topic!
Nobody is asking for any justification of or even questioning the validity of the "the Celestial Gears Model"! All that is asked for is:

So without having to read voluminous posts mainly ridiculing "Celestial Gears" can anybody answer:
exactly what is this "celestial gears model" that seems to be raised so often as the explanation of the "Southern Star Rotation?

You dragged "celestial gravitation" quite unnecessarily into what was such a simple question that both Tom Bishop (without all the fuss) and you have now answered.
And it would appear that "celestial gears model" is not applicable to the Ice Ring model. That's all I needed to know.

But if you want a debate on Celestial Gravitation or the Equivalence Principle make your own thread.
Now either let it rest or maybe post some other reason why southern South America and Eastern Australia might see the South Celestial Pole due south at exactly the same time!

The question arose from the Ice Wall model's being unable to explain the "Southern Clockwise Star Rotation" being observed looking due south anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere.

PS I accept some of the blame in that I should have put the kibosh on your Celestial Gravitation stuff right at the start.
      That's quite a separate issue to do with the what might be behind the "Celestial Gears model".

Oh my fucking god it is impossible to talk to you isn't it? I literally cannot put this any more clearly, and you still come away with the exact opposite of what I said.

The aspect of celestial gravitation that you were objecting to is crucial to the whole bloody concept of celestial gears.

And I've seen celestial gears applied to the monopole model as it is.

And you were the one that started the discussion of celestial gravitation which, I remind you, is the principle upon which celestial gears is based.

Am I going to need to just put this in size 100 font for you to pay attention to it? Or are you just going to keep living in your own little world where all that matters is what you want to be the case, and you can just keep spamming your inane nonsense pretending like you don't know full well that it's rubbish? You are just disgusting. You know what you're saying is wrong, and as ever it's not going to stop you repeating it time and time again is it?
You made a claim about the equivalence principle as it supposedly relates to celestial gravitation. if that's not relevant to your thread, why did you make it? I pointed out how the celestial gears model is applied to the ice ring monopole model. You outright lied and said it wasn't.
This is pathetic, even by your standards.

Quote from: Jane on March 14, 2019, 05:53:14 PM

The aspect of celestial gravitation that you were objecting to is crucial to the whole bloody concept of celestial gears.

In this thread I am not the slightest bit interested in the "concept of celestial gears", "bloody" or not.
Nowhere was I even questioning the "concept of celestial gears" all I was asking for is how it explains the Southern Star rotation and apparently it doesn't. 
So that's the end of it!

Quote

And I've seen celestial gears applied to the monopole model as it is.

And you were the one that started the discussion of celestial gravitation which, I remind you, is the principle upon which celestial gears is based.

NO, the first link in your previous post was: Re: Jane's FE Compendium « Reply #2 on: June 22, 2017, 09:53:54 AM » Celestial Gravitation.

That is the point where I simply should have ignored you and stated the the thread was not about Celestial Gravitation.
I repeat and will continue to repeat that if YOU want  debate on Celestial Gravitation make a new thread!

How many times do I have to say that I'm not going to say more on Celestial Gravitation here because it is irrelevant to this topic?

THE END!
If you want to carry this on do so in a thread of your own!

Preaching? No one's claiming it's true. Just giving it so you can actually try making an informed argument.

Except you are completely ignoring the problems with it, and aren't updating your sermon when they are pointed out. That sure seems more like preaching.

demanding someone go over a long, involved idea to someone that is never going to listen. Now you don't get to fall back on exhaustion, you can take the radical step of looking at what FEers actually say.

Again, stop with the pathetic insults. I do listen. I do look at what FEers say. It is you that repeatedly ignores what is said so you can continue with your agenda.

This is debate. You can debate it.

Yes, so why did you claim it wasn't?
If you don't want to debate, keep out of the debate forum.

I know not butting in on topics where you have nothing to contribute is a foreign concept to you

Again with the pathetic insults and projection.
Grow up.

every single time you get called out

You aren't calling anyone out here. You are just insulting people because you aren't getting your way.

Good riddannce to bad rubbish.

Bye bye then.
Going to stick to it this time or will you be bringing your bad rubbish back?

How many times do I have to say that I'm not going to say more on Celestial Gravitation here because it is irrelevant to this topic?

Repeating that isn't going to make you right.

In this thread I am not the slightest bit interested in the "concept of celestial gears",

That is palpably clear. Just never make a thread again. The moment you get called out you backtrack and even outright lie, right after being called out.

Exactly what is "celestial gears model" and what are these "celestial gears"?
...
exactly what is this "celestial gears model" that seems to be raised so often as the explanation of the "Southern Star Rotation?

Changed your tune a bit. Just stop Rab.

<< Can't you read!  >>

If you must go on make a thread on Celestial Gravitation or the Equivalence Principle.