ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th May 2017, 05:44 PM   #121
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,254
thewholesoul, how does a stationary Earth explain the retrograde motion of Mars?

How does it explain the fact that sometimes it can take as little as four minutes for a signal moving at light speed to make it to Mars and back, but other times it can take nearly fifty minutes?

How does it explain the fact that hurricanes rotate counter-clockwise north of the equator but typhoons rotate clockwise south of it?

How does it explain the fact winter occurs in the November-March timeframe in North America but in Australia it's in the May-September timeframe?
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 05:50 PM   #122
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,991
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hey Horatous. I'm having a problem with this. I don't get how matter in constant motion is not a force.
F=ma

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
What about the centrifugal force of the earth spin, it is this force which causes the atmosphere to also spin, right?
Nope. That would ultimately be friction.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Imagine a fish in a whirlpool spinning eastwards at a constant velocity, I get how if the fish is floating with the spin it doesn't notice the any motion. But it must feel something going against the spin. Thats what I don't get.
Have you seen laboratory experiments verifying this?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I understand why we don't feel a constant motion. Only acceleration. But we wouldn't feel motion either in a stationary atmosphere.
And now you are disagreeing with yourself. You are claiming that you don't understand why we don't feel it and that you do understand why we don't feel it.

Make up your mind.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
But that's what they said? Speed boost means they go faster and travel further, they also claim to use less fuel. These are objective differences that they claim.occur when they launch eastwards. Why can't they achieve a speed boost going westwards? Would launching westward slow them.down I wonder?
Westward launch does require more fuel for a given payload.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
The words "speed boost" mean they move faster. We have two objects in motion. The rocket and the atmosphere. If it's not the motion of the atmosphere giving them.extra speed, then what is?
Once again, the rotation of the earth.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
You claim they don't gain any extra speed, I believe their words conflict with that.
Try rereading what was actually said.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Why do they use less fuel going eastwards? Are you going to claim they don't?
Nope.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I agree, it's a nice theory
Add "scientific theory" to the list of things you do not apparently understand.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
But if a river is moving at a constant velocity I can detect and measure that velocity. If a wind is blowing at a constant velocity I can still detect and measure that velocity.
If you, the river were comoving at 1000 mph, your results would be the same. It you can drive a car you can verify this for yourself.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Matter in motion is detectable. When it's not in motion it is stationary. The atmosphere is in motion but you are saying we can't detect it?
Nope. Try reading what was actually said.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If you move against a constant uniform motion wouldn't you feel a force?
Not necessarily. See Einstein. See the car example, in your model that would be immediately fatal. See the air travel example in your model that would be immediately fatal.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Above you said it wasn't a force, now you say it is? But you make a good point here.
F=ma again, I'm afraid.

Imagine yourself driving in a highway at 60 mph. A car ahead of you is also traveling at 60 mph. In your model you will catch up to that other car at a rate of 60 mph. That may seem trivially false but that is what you are effectively claiming.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 05:56 PM   #123
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,074
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
There's no escaping this,mad house unfortunately. We just have to make it a better place.

How fast would the sun have to be whipping around us in order to create the appearance of day and night?

It would be a trip of 2Pi(8 light minutes) or 16Pi light minutes every 24 hours. That makes it (2Pi/3) light minutes. That works out to about 2.094395102 light minutes per hour. That's 23,400,000 miles an hour.

Now which is more believable? That the sun is revolving around the earth at 23,400,000 miles an hour or that the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 06:37 PM   #124
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
It was measured. In numerous ways.
Hey Hans. Okay now we are getting to the meat of the matter. Who, when, how and with what instrument was the 1000mph physical motion of the atmosphere measured at the equator?

We can measure physical motion, we can't measure metaphysical motion.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Why would you expect that? The only friction the air meets is against the surface of the Earth. What can prevent it from spinning at the same speed?
Past empirical observations. For example, if you spin any object in a bucket of water the energy from the spinning solid decreases as you move further away from the solid hence the liquid moves gradually slower the further away from the spinning solid you go. The same applies for air.

I would concede that the air or liquid in immediate contact will reach almost identical speed, but never more.

I agree the only friction the air meets is with the earths surface, assuming the earth is spinning. I guess the lack of cohesion between air and solids would prevent it reaching the identical speed. But where is the friction you speak of at the surface? Wouldn't we expect to see more turbulence at the mountainous regions?

Quote:
Has this uniform constant eastwardly motion you claim exists, has it been actually measured with physical instruments?
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
It has been measured.
Okay who when how and with what instrument? When I look at the global atmospheric charts I don't see any uniformity, air currents are flowing in all different directions, with the spin and against the spin.


Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Does the vacuum provide friction against the upper atmosphere?
The atmosphere is sandwiched to speak between a solid moving object and a infinite vacuum. No friction on the vacuum side. There can't be.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
When you move through the air, the surrounding air provides friction against the air in contact with you so it can only partly follow you.The atmosphere meets no resistance from the surrounding vacuum, so it largely follows the surface of the Earth
Agreed. And the air further away travels slower.

Quote:
Assuming you are right and there physically exists a constant eastwards rotation of the atmosphere then why do we not feel it when we travel westwards? We should.
]
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Why should we?
For the same reason a fish going against a river will meet resistance.

To give an analogy. Imagine we are all on boats in a donut shaped swimming pool. In the centre there is a rotating cylinder which causes the waters around the cylinder to rotate at 10mph in the same direction. Boats travelling with the rotation will move faster and further, (like what NASA claims to do to achieve escape velocity) but boats moving against the constant unidirectional force WILL necessarily and without exception move slower. There must be friction. Can you point out the flaw in my analogy?


Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
No, there is no flaw. If you walk at 3mph east, you are really walking at 1003*) mph, but you don't notice, because the landscape and air moves with you. If you walk west you are really going backwards at 9997 mph, but again you don't notice because the surroundings move with you. Same with the people in the boats in your analogy: As long as they only look at the water and other boats, they won't notice the movement, but if they try to jump off to the shore, they will notice.
But we can physically measure with instruments that boat a going with the flow travels faster and further, whereas boat b travels slower and a verifiable shorter distance. Although nasa rockets lauch eastwards receive a speed boost from the earths eastwardly rotation. Transatlantic flight do not, they use the same fuel and take the same time to fly the same distance as if the atmosphere was stationary, not physically rotating.

Peace to all and long live Palestine!

Last edited by thewholesoul; 29th May 2017 at 06:39 PM.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 06:48 PM   #125
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,003
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
"supposedly" the sun is nuclear. so you're not certain.

have you seen an experiment demonstrating how the force of gravity contains nuclear explosions? i havent, have you?
I have. Every nuclear weapon test. You get a mushroom cloud that projects upward into the sky and then stops at some altitude. It is contained by the force of gravity and prevented from continuing into space.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 06:51 PM   #126
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,304
you can measure the speed with one of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_mount

thanks
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 07:03 PM   #127
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,560
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Nah, we feel it all the time, but our brains have evolved to ignore it. It's like a strong smell that you get so used to that you don't smell it any more. Otherwise, the constant blast of supersonic moving air would be so distracting we couldn't concentrate on anything else, like finding food or reproducing. (This problem and adaptation go way back in evolutionary time, of course. "We" in the previous sentences includes pretty much all surface-dwelling multicellular species.)

In fact we're so accustomed to living in a 750mph (in the mid latitudes where I live) east wind that when weather phenomena cause it to be a little less, like 740mph, we actually feel it (and the weather forecasters report it) as a 10 mph wind from the west!
I LOL'd because I thought this was tongue-in-cheek.

Is it?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 07:05 PM   #128
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,097
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

For the same reason a fish going against a river will meet resistance.

A fish swimming against the current feels no more resistance than a fish swimming with the current. The resistance only changes with the fish's speed relative to the water around it.
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 07:56 PM   #129
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
A fish swimming against the current feels no more resistance than a fish swimming with the current. The resistance only changes with the fish's speed relative to the water around it.
It's futile anyhow.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 08:06 PM   #130
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,074
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
A fish swimming against the current feels no more resistance than a fish swimming with the current. The resistance only changes with the fish's speed relative to the water around it.

Have you ever measured a fish's feelings? I can't believe that atheists think that "science" can tell them how fish feel.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 08:17 PM   #131
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,097
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Have you ever measured a fish's feelings? I can't believe that atheists think that "science" can tell them how fish feel.
I suppose I could do eastern meditative chants to determine the resistance the fish feels.....Ohm...Ohm.
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 08:22 PM   #132
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,364
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Have you ever measured a fish's feelings? I can't believe that atheists think that "science" can tell them how fish feel.
That's easy, Fish feelings are based on a scale.
__________________
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------
Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 08:35 PM   #133
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
The difference between the movement of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth is constantly measured at innumerable points all over the planet. The speed of rotation of the planet is calculated from measurement.
Well, what were the results? Was the 1000mph atmospheric motion recorded?

How the 1000mph number was calculated, was achieved by dividing the earths circumference (25,000km) by the time it takes the sun to complete a day (24 hrs). But this method assumes the earth is rotating, not the sun. From this calculation it was then assumed the atmosphere travels at identical speed. The physical motion of thevatmosphere was never actually measured with an instrument, to my knowledge.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Then you are wrong. Your beliefs and expectations have let you down.
Imagine a jet flying at the speed of sound, the air in immediate contact with its surface, does it also travel at the speed of sound? If not, then I'm right and you are wrong.


Quote:
has this uniform constant eastwardly motion you claim exists, has it been actually measured with physical instruments?
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Yes, it's been measured and demonstrated in numerous ways.
Did these measurements record a 1000mph velocity at the equator? What instrument did they use?

Quote:
Assuming there physically exists a constant eastwards rotation of the entire atmosphere then why do we not feel it when we travel westwards? We should.
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
We do feel wind resistance, whichever direction we move in
But do you feel MORE air resistance when you are moving with the constant unidirectional air current as opposed to moving against it? We feel more going against it, don't we?

Now if we feel constant unidirectional micro movements of the atmosphere, why cant we feel macro unidirectional movement of the atmosphere? A fish feels local changes of turbulence AND the general current.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
A small object, your hand, moving through the air, does not instantly entrain the entire atmosphere to move along with it. This is as anyone ought to expect
I notice that too! But the example was provided to show that air moves independent to solids not WITH solids. When a jet flies through the Air, the air does not travel WITH the jet. Air does not magically stick to spinning / moving objects, it gets pushed away! So why doesn't our atmosphere get pushed away? The causal explanation is gravity, but as I mentioned many times in another thread, this causal explanation has never been physical demonstrated in a repeatable lab experiment.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
The atmosphere, after several billion years in contact with the surface of the planet, is moving at the same rate as that surface.
It's a nice theory.

Is the lower atmosphere closer to the spinning earth moving faster than the higher atmosphere further from the spinning earth? This is what one would expect, if the earth was in fact spinning. But we dont observe this in reality, we observe faster air currents higher up and farther from earths allegedly spinning surface.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Even if you choose to reject the idea that the earth really is a rotating globe, these simple concepts should not tax the intelligence of even a small child.
As a voluntaryist I oppose all forms of taxation!

Quote:
But they do gain acceleration from earths rotation?
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
No, they gain velocity.
What's the difference between gaining acceleration and gaining velocity. A speed boost means you go faster. From x speed to a faster speed. Is that not an acceleration and is that not sysnonous with a gain in velocity?

How does earths rotation cause this gain in speed? It must be a physical cause. What is the mechanism? I would assume it's the physical motion of the material atmosphere. What else could it be?

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
That's what the rocket motor provides.
No, the NASA document cited in the OP claims its earth's rotation, not the rocket motor, that provides,/produces the "speed boost".are you saying NASA are lying?

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
If rockets were to be blown into orbit by the wind, they would have sails.
I agree about the smell. It is very hard to believe these simple ideas genuinely bamboozle you. What 'force' do you imagine opposes your walking westward?
I blow into your face, you feel a little force right?

You feel a sea breeze on your face.

The force of a strong wind

A hurricane creates air currents up to 300mph

A nuclear blast 500mph

now try to imagine all the molecules of the atmosphere moving in unison at a whopping 1000mph in your face!

What's preventing you feeling this force? Have our brains evolved to ignore it as one sceptic in here suggested? Does moving with it or turning your back to it make it go away? I believe we don't feel it because it's not physically there. The atmosphere is stationary, not spinning.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Yes I can. You appear to be considering the speed of the boats relative to someone standing at the side of the pool, instead of someone standing on the rotating cylinder in the middle.

With respect. I disagree. There is nobody standing at the side or on the rotating cylinder. What the analogy shows is that when we move against a constant rotational flow we move slower, and when we move with it we move faster. We don't experience this however, either do clouds, birds, or planes. I believe that us because the atmosphere is not physically rotating at all, but is in fact stationary.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Foucault's pendulum directly demonstrates the rotation of the earth
During a solar eclipse the earth does not spin faster or slower or in the opposite direction. But the Foucault pendulum does. This observed behaviour (haven't seen it myself) is known as the Allias effect. It suggests that the pendulum swing is caused by something other than the earths alleged rotation.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
. The corrections required for long range gunnery quantitatively demonstrate the rotation of the earth.
If a helicopter rises vertically and waits there 24 hours, why doesn't the earth rotate beneath it? For the Foucault pendulum and for small bullets, the earth does rotate beneath them. We have a contradiction.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:14 PM   #134
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Why don't I feel the motion of the air in an airplane?

When the airplane is moving at hundreds of miles/hour, the air inside the airplane must also be moving at that speed. So why don't I feel it's motion?

My theory is that airplanes are fake..
We really have to put this false analogy to rest. People, sceptics, listen, the reason we do not feel the motion of air in an airplane, is because the air INSIDE the airoplane is STATIONARY as in NOT MOVING.

It's a false analogy designed to explain away why we don't feel the physical motion of a constant unidirectional whole atmospheric movement you guys believe, say, and calculate to exist...But physical objective reality is independent of thought, words, and numbers.

Peace and light to all souls in here!
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:25 PM   #135
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
...
If a helicopter rises vertically and waits there 24 hours, why doesn't the earth rotate beneath it? For the Foucault pendulum and for small bullets, the earth does rotate beneath them. We have a contradiction.
You are inside a railroad car travelling down the track at 60 mph. You jump straight up inside the car, do you land anywhere except right where you jumped? No, you land right back at the same point, does this prove the train car is not moving? No, the only aspect that is proved is that you and the train car are moving at the same speed/direction.
Whether or not you are able to measure the speed or not.

If you don't know what the difference between velocity and acceleration, then I suggest you learn some basic physics before attempting to comprehend any critiques of your ideas in this thread.

You are willfully ignorant.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:34 PM   #136
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Quote:
To give an analogy. Imagine we are all on boats in a donut shaped swimming pool. In the centre there is a rotating cylinder which causes the waters around the cylinder to rotate constantly at 10mph in the same direction. Boats travelling with the rotation will move faster and further, boats travelling against the rotation move slower and a lesser distance. Can you point out the flaw in my analogy?
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The flaw is that it's a useless analogy.
Boom! Nice opener, good to see you again Dave. How's life?

Well, I respectfully disagree, but lets hear you out...

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
A donut shaped swimming pool will have a perimeter and a bottom,
have you ever seen a donut without a perimeter? And if I take the bottom out the water will spill all over the hypothetical floor. But what's the problem with that anyway? We can't physically replicate a globe model yet, that is, a solid spinning sphere with liquid and air glued on by gravity surrounded by a vacuum. The bottom and perimeter will have to do for now I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
and water will move progressively slower closer to those edges due to well understood viscous drag effects (though, of course, if you don't accept the well-known effects of rotation of the Earth there's no reason you should accept that viscosity exists, I suppose). But suppose the water (representing the atmosphere) is rotating at the same angular velocity (an important distinction here) as the central cylinder; then, where's the problem? Boats left to move freely will move in circles, their position fixed relative to a point on the central cylinder; a force against the motion will cause them to move at a lesser angular velocity, and one with the motion at a greater. In other words, exactly the situation used not only by NASA, but by any other nation that has launched satellites.
The analogy is to show that boats (ANY OBJECT) moving against the rotational current MUST encounter friction and hence move slower less distance and use greater amounts of fuel which are all objectively verifiable effects. The problem for you guys, is that we don't feel any friction, either do planes, when we move westwards against the constant unidirectional atmospheric motion you claim physically exists.

Besides, have you got a better analogy ?

So you agree nasa obtain a speed boost from the earths rotation. Can you explain how earths rotational motion provides the rockets launched east a speed boost? What's the causal mechanism? The physical mechanism.

All the best

Last edited by thewholesoul; 29th May 2017 at 09:40 PM.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:37 PM   #137
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 422
Learn how to quote properly, including several parts and PREVIEW YOUR RESPONSE.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:41 PM   #138
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,401
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If a helicopter rises vertically and waits there 24 hours, why doesn't the earth rotate beneath it? For the Foucault pendulum and for small bullets, the earth does rotate beneath them. We have a contradiction.
If you start at the equator and pilot the helicopter due north, using a computer to aim without instruments and only knowledge of the initial conditions (position, direction) and exact knowledge the wind at each point, with the computer assuming that the earth does not rotate, the path will deviate from due north in a predictable curve. This is identical to the effects on the bullet.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:48 PM   #139
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That doesn't make sense - the disc would wobble as it couldn't be balanced perfectly on the dome of the shell. That is why the disc itself is balanced on the back of 4 elephants who are standing on the turtle.
You're wrong and factually incorrect, the turtle is balancing s on a globe!! I know cos ETs channelled this info, I swear to Gaaawd its true!!#
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:53 PM   #140
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,708
Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer View Post
28 Hrs, Teach the controversy.
Nay, Nay Nay_Sayer, I say Nay THRICE!!!
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:54 PM   #141
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by CompusMentus View Post
Let's cut to the chase:

thewholesoul...Please can you explain your model of the Solar System including a non-spinning Earth

Please also include explanations of everyday observations of the sun (and moon) rising and setting and the stars/planets rotating about the sky.

How do these observations fit into your model?

Compus
Warm regards compus,

A stationary earth model is like the spinning earth model but not moving

The celestial bodies sun moon stars all rotate around

Any more questions?

Last edited by thewholesoul; 29th May 2017 at 09:58 PM.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 10:07 PM   #142
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,097
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Warm regards compus,

A stationary earth model is like the spinning earth model but not moving

The celestial bodies sun moon stars all rotate around

Any more questions?
How about this one again,

Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essent...re-star-trails

I wonder how the stars know what speed and direction to travel in?
What makes the ones near the centre move a small distance and the ones further out move a larger distance so that they all describe the same angle?
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 10:18 PM   #143
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by frenat View Post
And sometimes the effect is not seen at all. Since it ONLY happens during an eclipsed it tells us something else is happening in addition then.
That's right. What else do we observe on Earth when we have solar eclipses ?? Extreme high tides

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-eclipse.html

Maybe, the solar eclipse has an electromagnetic effect on the pendulum. Maybe it's the aether? But it can't be the earth rotation because WE KNOW that the earth doesn't spin faster or slower during a solar eclipse.

Originally Posted by frenat View Post
It is well documented that rotation is responsible for the pendulum.
Correct but many incorrect causal explanations behind natural phenomenon are well documented. Doesn't mean they're true.

Originally Posted by frenat View Post
You don't throw out everything because of something that happens less than .01% of the time and not even every time there is an eclipse.
Good point. But it makes me question or doubt the validity of the causal explanation behind the pendulum motion. Does the Allias effect make you more confident that Foucault pendulum is caused by earths rotation, or do you just ignore it altogether?

Originally Posted by frenat View Post
Or it wasn't published online like many things and your research "skills" completely failed when you couldn't find it with a 3 second google search.
Give me a break. How many posts have I posted. Maybe you should go into a forum with a minority view and defend it against every one. So they have released the results, well then I was wrong. That's,what I read. You got me.


Originally Posted by frenat View Post
It will work with any pendulum. the heavier the ball the lower the center of gravity and the more stable the pendulum will be but it WILL work with any pendulum.
I don't believe you. the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You made a big juicy one there. Can you provide just ONE example of a non Foucault pendulum swinging from earths rotation. Link it so we can all see it in action. Dazzle me with your research skills!!

Best wishes
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 10:23 PM   #144
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
have you seen an experiment demonstrating how the force of gravity contains nuclear explosions? i havent, have you?

Originally Posted by frenat View Post
And again with the strawman argument.
Its was a question not an argument. Note the symbol ? At the end of the sentence. But you are just on attack mode. Why not just throw a few ad homs at me. It's a lot more entertaining that way.

Stay cool, go to school, don't be no fool, sceptics rule!!!
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 10:50 PM   #145
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Winterfrost View Post
Here's an article that shows 12 experiments/observations that demonstrate the earth is spinning. They include Foucault's pendulum and the rocket launch examples already discussed.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/round-spin.htm
Cool. I will address some tomorrow. I'm off to bed.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:20 AM   #146
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,003
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
We really have to put this false analogy to rest. People, sceptics, listen, the reason we do not feel the motion of air in an airplane, is because the air INSIDE the airoplane is STATIONARY as in NOT MOVING.
Wait, what? The air in the airplane isn't moving? How does the air get from Shanghai to Toronto without moving?

When I'm in an airplane am I moving?

How about the air in a car? Is the car moving?

How about if I take an empty water bottle (which is closed and full of air) and throw it? Is the air inside of it moving while it's in flight? How about before I throw it, is it moving then?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:35 AM   #147
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Imagine a fish in a whirlpool spinning eastwards at a constant velocity, I get how if the fish is floating with the spin it doesn't notice the any motion. But it must feel something going against the spin. Thats what I don't get.

Yes, if it's just floating with the spin, and moving at the same velocity as the water surrounding it, it won't feel any motion. If it swims against the spin it feels motion because it is swimming. It also feels motion if it swims in the direction of the spin.

And this is exactly what we observe. If we stand still we do not appear to be moving relative to the surface of the Earth or the atmosphere that is moving with it. If we move West, against the spin, we sense motion in that direction. If we move East, with the spin, we sense motion in that direction. In all three cases the motion that we sense is our motion relative to the surface if the Earth, and has nothing to do with the spin.

It really shouldn't be hard to grasp.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:44 AM   #148
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,003
I'd really like to know how thewholesoul expects to feel the motion of something that is moving at the same velocity as him.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:46 AM   #149
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,417
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
It really shouldn't be hard to grasp.
It really isn't. But scientific consensus is 'the man', and saying 'lol, you can't prove anything' is an act of rebellion.
You're not explaining it to someone who wants to understand, you're explaining it to someone who wants to feel special for disagreeing.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:57 AM   #150
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
How about this one again,



What makes the ones near the centre move a small distance and the ones further out move a larger distance so that they all describe the same angle?

And what force makes the furthest observable ones circle around us every 24 hours at around 1.8 billion light years per hour?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 01:02 AM   #151
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
We really have to put this false analogy to rest. People, sceptics, listen, the reason we do not feel the motion of air in an airplane, is because the air INSIDE the airoplane is STATIONARY as in NOT MOVING.

But the aeroplane is moving at several hundred miles an hour. If the air inside it was stationary, then people sitting inside it would be faced with winds of several hundred miles per hour. This is not observed.

The air inside the aeroplane is stationary relative to the aeroplane; the atmosphere is stationary relative to the surface of the Earth. That's why we don't feel as if we're moving relative to the air if we're sitting in an aeroplane or standing on the surface of the Earth.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 30th May 2017 at 01:06 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 01:04 AM   #152
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,265
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Cool. I will address some tomorrow. I'm off to bed.
Rest well - this performance art must be tiring.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 01:05 AM   #153
Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,601
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
I sense the 'understanding relativity' wall approaching at breakneck speed.
Called it.
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 02:03 AM   #154
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,991
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
What's the difference between gaining acceleration and gaining velocity. A speed boost means you go faster. From x speed to a faster speed. Is that not an acceleration and is that not sysnonous with a gain in velocity?
Scalars are not the same as vectors.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
How does earths rotation cause this gain in speed? It must be a physical cause. What is the mechanism? I would assume it's the physical motion of the material atmosphere. What else could it be?
You have it bass-ackwards. The extra velocity is already there before the rocket lifts off. Taking off eastwards means you already have that speed and simply add to it to attain orbit. Taking off westward means you have to overcome that velocity before attaining orbit.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
No, the NASA document cited in the OP claims its earth's rotation, not the rocket motor, that provides,/produces the "speed boost".are you saying NASA are lying?
Reading comprehension fail. No, NASA are not lying.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I blow into your face, you feel a little force right?

You feel a sea breeze on your face.

The force of a strong wind

A hurricane creates air currents up to 300mph

A nuclear blast 500mph

now try to imagine all the molecules of the atmosphere moving in unison at a whopping 1000mph in your face!

What's preventing you feeling this force? Have our brains evolved to ignore it as one sceptic in here suggested? Does moving with it or turning your back to it make it go away? I believe we don't feel it because it's not physically there. The atmosphere is stationary, not spinning.
Comoving frames of reference prevent that.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
With respect. I disagree. There is nobody standing at the side or on the rotating cylinder. What the analogy shows is that when we move against a constant rotational flow we move slower, and when we move with it we move faster. We don't experience this however, either do clouds, birds, or planes. I believe that us because the atmosphere is not physically rotating at all, but is in fact stationary.
Frame of reference again.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
During a solar eclipse the earth does not spin faster or slower or in the opposite direction. But the Foucault pendulum does. This observed behaviour (haven't seen it myself) is known as the Allias effect. It suggests that the pendulum swing is caused by something other than the earths alleged rotation.
There is no aether.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If a helicopter rises vertically and waits there 24 hours, why doesn't the earth rotate beneath it? For the Foucault pendulum and for small bullets, the earth does rotate beneath them. We have a contradiction.
The helicopter rises vertically and waits for 24 hrs. What force acts on it to accelerate it across the earth's surface once it lifts off?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 02:20 AM   #155
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,238
Okay... so Flat Earthers keep using the "helicopter takes off" or "I fire a cannon ball straight up, why doesn't the world move beneath me".

How does that work when somebody walks up or down the carriage of a train? Are they constantly hurled to the back of a carriage? What if I jump in an elevator? Am I smushed to the ceiling?

Relative Frames Of Reference, are encountered every day without blowing our minds.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 03:13 AM   #156
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,286
I'm going to take one shot at a serious answer to all this, just in case it's a serious question.

Thewholesoul, imagine you're standing on a roundabout that's spinning very fast. To the north of the roundabout is an ice cream van, and you've decided you want an ice cream right now. A six-year-old kid is approaching the ice cream van, and you just know that his mother's going to take about three quarters of an hour searching her handbag for the correct change, so you have to get to that van first. Is there a way you can time when you step off the roundabout to make sure you get there quicker?

Now imagine the roundabout isn't spinning at all. Now does it matter exactly when you step off it?

NASA is doing exactly the same thing with rockets, except they don't get an ice cream.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 03:30 AM   #157
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,632
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
A stationary earth model is like the spinning earth model but not moving

The celestial bodies sun moon stars all rotate around

Any more questions?
Yes.

How do you account for the literally impossible speed at which the stars 'rotate around'?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 04:13 AM   #158
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,723
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I don't believe you. the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You made a big juicy one there. Can you provide just ONE example of a non Foucault pendulum swinging from earths rotation. Link it so we can all see it in action. Dazzle me with your research skills!!
What exactly do you think it is about a lead weight that is important to how a Foucault pendulum works? Do you really think it has to be lead encased in brass?
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 04:21 AM   #159
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Can you provide just ONE example of a non Foucault pendulum swinging from earths rotation. Link it so we can all see it in action. Dazzle me with your research skills!!

There is no such thing as a "non Foucault pendulum".
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 04:35 AM   #160
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,286
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I don't believe you. the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You made a big juicy one there. Can you provide just ONE example of a non Foucault pendulum swinging from earths rotation. Link it so we can all see it in action. Dazzle me with your research skills!!
I think it's worth pointing out in detail exactly why this is a stupid request. The definition of a Foucault pendulum does not, in fact, discuss what materials it must be made of; the definition of a Foucault pendulum, rather, specifies the complete freedom of movement of the plane of oscillation. This is typically achieved, in practical demonstrations, by suspending a heavy weight from a fixed point by a long wire, but other arrangements are in principle possible so long as the plane of oscillation is not fixed. A "non Foucault pendulum," therefore, by any sensible definition (as opposed to the stupid and factually wrong definition, "a pendulum whose bob is not made from lead"), must mean a pendulum whose plane of oscillation is constrained. For example, a typical clock pendulum comprises a weight on a thin rod, pivoted about a fixed axis. Such a pendulum cannot, by design, exhibit rotation of its plane of oscillation; therefore, it is by definition impossible for a pendulum satisfying a reasonable definition of "a non Foucault pendulum" to behave as a Foucault pendulum.

The request you probably meant to make was, "Can you provide just ONE example of a pendulum with a bob made from something other than lead swinging from earths rotation," though there's a further error in the "swinging from earth's rotation" bit because it's not the fact that the pendulum swings that's significant, but the rotation of the plane it swings in. So, in response to that request, a suitable answer would be that Foucault's original demonstration would qualify, because brass-coated lead is not the same as pure lead. A better example, though, would be the Foucault pendulum at the campanile of St. John’s Church of Vilnius University, whose bob is made of gold-plated bronze. UAB Gijona may be happy to give you more information about it, though I suspect this may be influenced by the way in which the question is phrased.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 30th May 2017 at 04:36 AM.
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.