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 30th May 2017, 10:23 AM   #201
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,184
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

That's correct because there is more than one explanation. You believe we don't feel any motion of an eastward moving atmosphere because we travel with it. I believe we don't feel any motion because the atmosphere is stationary. I am arguing for the second explanation. I'm not disagreeing with myself.

When you are moving with something (co-moving) you are stationary relative to it and it to you. The "second explanation" is definitively and emphatically the first. So you can only be disagreeing with yourself since you can't disagree with the one explanation without also disagreeing with the other.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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, 10:23 AM   #202
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,024
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Warm regards Bob, how's life treating ya?

The link states "An equatorial mount is a mount for instruments that compensate the rotation of earth"

In other words its not used to measure the earths rotation, but to compensate for it, assuming it is there.

Here is a repeatable experiment using telescopes that was designed to prove the earths rotation but in fact proved the opposite that the earth is not rotating. It is known as Airys failure.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=87M2i61N1cU

Get back to me when you debunk it.

Peace health and prosperity to all sceptics
What about an Alt/Az mount?

And Airy assumed a spherical earth.
__________________
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, 10:29 AM   #203
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It can therefore measure the rotation of the Earth. The rotation of the Earth is measured as the amount of rotation that an equatorial mount has to compensate for.



It proved no such thing; it proved, rather, that there is no such thing as absolute motion, but that motion can only be expressed in relative terms, a concept you have repeatedly shown your inability to grasp.

Dave
That and it failed because they were expecting Aether and that doesn't exist.
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
frenat 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, 10:33 AM   #204
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,184
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If there was a mushroom cloud then the explosion wasn't contained at all
Yes is was, specifically to the limit of the cloud. Did the cloud extend out to space and beyond?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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, 10:36 AM   #205
Pianoro
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,334
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.
Are we supposed to believe that the disc would wobble, but the elephants could keep their footing on the curved shell? Fake news! Sad!
Pianoro 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, 10:40 AM   #206
EvilBiker
Muse
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 982
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Anybody who has swam or rowed a boat up stream in a river KNOWS what you said is untrue. More energy is required to swim or move against a constant unidirectional motion.I can't believe I have to repeat this point in the international skeptics forum!

Next

Relative to the bank of the river, yes, you would have to expend more energy. Relative to the water you are swimming or rowing in, nope.

Frame of reference, bigger picture, etc. All very basic stuff, really.

My initial response to this inane insightful post was "Are you trying to collect patches for your ignorant sash towards your Dodo Scout level." "Hm, let me think about that", but then I realised that I knew the answer already, and so I shared my thoughts briefly, succinctly and on point, with no malice aforethought.

Peas.
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
EvilBiker 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, 10:41 AM   #207
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 38,160
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Is this a real post or a parody post?
To be fair, some people dont understand how the tide works.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person 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, 10:42 AM   #208
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,184
Originally Posted by Pianoro View Post
Are we supposed to believe that the disc would wobble, but the elephants could keep their footing on the curved shell? Fake news! Sad!
That's what the great eagle (or sometimes a fish) is for, they act as a gimbal mechanism to compensate for any lack of balance.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 30th May 2017 at 10:45 AM. Reason: typo
The Man 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, 10:47 AM   #209
Pianoro
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,334
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
That's what the great eagle (or sometimes a fish) is for, they act as a gimbal mechanism to compensate for any lack of balance.
Maybe. Is that a European or African eagle?
Pianoro 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, 10:52 AM   #210
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,184
Originally Posted by Pianoro View Post
Maybe. Is that a European or African eagle?
Either of those would have to grip it by the husk. An American eagle, however, would just carry it on its back or dig in with its powerful talons.

ETA:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 30th May 2017 at 10:55 AM.
The Man 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, 10:56 AM   #211
EvilBiker
Muse
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 982
Originally Posted by Pianoro View Post
Maybe. Is that a European or African eagle?

I think you'd need to compare Siberian eagles to African ones, to be fair. Latitudinal counterbalance must play a factor.

Hang on, what about population size? Wingspan? The amount of swallows they eat? This begs further investigation!

You do realise you've opened up a can of worms here, don't you?

ETA: would an eagle feel the 1000 mph winds???
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.

Last edited by EvilBiker; 30th May 2017 at 10:59 AM.
EvilBiker 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, 11:06 AM   #212
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,184
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post

ETA: would an eagle feel the 1000 mph winds???
I don't think this one was feeling any wind.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo...e_Columbia.jpg

ETA:

Alright, alright! Just some solar wind.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 30th May 2017 at 11:09 AM. Reason: typo
The Man 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, 11:17 AM   #213
EvilBiker
Muse
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 982
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
I don't think this one was feeling any wind.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo...e_Columbia.jpg

ETA:

Alright, alright! Just some solar wind.
That's cheating
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
EvilBiker 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, 11:23 AM   #214
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Warm regards the Man

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
The "air INSIDE the airoplane is STATIONARY" relative to the plane,
Correct

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
which simply means it is co-moving with the plane.
"co-moving" is an ambiguous term, I prefer being carried or transported but the fact is the air inside a plane is stationary and we can prove that with our senses and instrumentstion.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Both that air and the plane are not stationary relative to the ground or the air outside the plane.
You lost me there buddy
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, 11:29 AM   #215
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
But the aeroplane is moving at several hundred miles an hour.
That is a fact

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
If the air inside it was stationary,
No, it IS stationary unless you're flying in a convertible aeroplane with the roof down

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
then people sitting inside it would be faced with winds of several hundred miles per hour.
Stationary air does not produce winds of hundreds of miles per hour, at least not in my experience

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
This is not observed.
The reason we don't feel the velocity of the plane is because we are located INSIDE the plane as opposed to being seated OUTSIDE the plane

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
The air inside the aeroplane is stationary relative to the aeroplane;
Agreed


Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
the atmosphere is stationary relative to the surface of the Earth.
No. You believe the atmosphere is physically in motion, that is, not stationary

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
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.
No, you are confused. The spinning globe model posits two moving objects

1. The solid spinning earth
2. The fluid spinning atmosphere

We are located on the exterior side of the solid earth and within the fluid atmosphere.

If we are in a fluid atmosphere in motion we would get a speed boost when travelling with it and resistance when travelling against it.

Just like NASA claim to do.
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, 11:33 AM   #216
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Quote:
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.
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Wait, what? The air in the airplane isn't moving?
Correct, if you were to use an instrument inside the plane it will measure stationary air. You can also determine stationary with our senses! You should try it sometime.


Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
How does the air get from Shanghai to Toronto without moving?
By being carried inside the plane I guess


Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
When I'm in an airplane am I moving?
Depends if you are sitting down or walking down the aisle to the bathroom

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
How about the air in a car?
Assuming all the windows are rolled up then it's stationary

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Is the car moving?
If the wheels are rolling and in contact with a moderately solid surface area, then yes

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
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?
No the air inside the bottle is stationary, the bottle is in motion

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
How about before I throw it, is it moving then?
Hmm, let me think about this one robotamma, you're asking me if the STATIONARY air inside a closed STATIONARY bottle is physically MOVING...well that would depend on the quantity or quality of hallucinogenic drugs I have consumed now, wouldn't it?

Next
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, 11:36 AM   #217
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,184
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Warm regards the Man
Whatever.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

Correct
Correct


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
"co-moving" is an ambiguous term, I prefer being carried or transported but the fact is the air inside a plane is stationary and we can prove that with our senses and instrumentstion.
"co-moving" is no more or less ambiguous than "STATIONARY" (though it was less capitalized). "STATIONARY" relative to what, the plane, the ground the stars? You can consider the motion, or lack there of, relative to whatever you do prefer, even "being carried or transported". Try not to get hung up in the language.



Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
You lost me there buddy
Naw you just lost yourself. Why did you get on the plane if it didn't go anywhere?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 30th May 2017 at 11:46 AM. Reason: typo
The Man 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, 11:38 AM   #218
EvilBiker
Muse
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 982
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
You lost me there buddy
Frankly, I think you get lost whenever the term "relative" comes up, though maybe not in the familial sense

Piece.
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
EvilBiker 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, 11:38 AM   #219
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,724
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

How come you can feel a 10mph motion of part of the atmosphere but not a 750mph motion of the entire atmosphere? It's like a fish in the river being able to feel a slight local change in turbulence but being unable to feel the massive flow of the river. It makes no sense to me.
Put a fish in a tank. Load the tank on a truck. Drive the truck 100 mph. How is the fish doing?

ETA - Oh, geez. 6 pages went by since the post I replied to. Sorry.

Last edited by carlitos; 30th May 2017 at 11:40 AM.
carlitos 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, 11:42 AM   #220
EvilBiker
Muse
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 982
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Put a fish in a tank. Load the tank on a truck. Drive the truck 100 mph. How is the fish doing?

ETA - Oh, geez. 6 pages went by since the post I replied to. Sorry.

No need to apologise, it's been fairly circular since page 1, so your comment is still relevant, and subsequently ignored with the rest of them.
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
EvilBiker 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, 11:52 AM   #221
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,753
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Put a fish in a tank. Load the tank on a truck. Drive the truck 100 mph. How is the fish doing?

ETA - Oh, geez. 6 pages went by since the post I replied to. Sorry.

Yeah, but he still isn't getting any warmer.

He doesn't realise that you can't disprove a hypothesis by failing to understand it.
__________________
"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, 12:04 PM   #222
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,243
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
No, it IS stationary unless you're flying in a convertible aeroplane with the roof down.
So the plane flies off, and the air stays on the runway?
Obviously not.
The Air is contained in the plane, and travels at the same speed. It is stationary in relation to the plane. That is a relative frame of reference.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Stationary air does not produce winds of hundreds of miles per hour, at least not in my experience
Er, you just said about being in an open topped plane... so you are obviously aware of the effect of you flying at speed through stationary air.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
The reason we don't feel the velocity of the plane is because we are located INSIDE the plane as opposed to being seated OUTSIDE the plane
Right... You, the air, everything is flying at the same speed, so you don't feel it.
On this planet, we are all INSIDE the atmosphere, which moves at the same speed as the planet. So we don't feel it.

This, again, is a relative frame of reference.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
No. You believe the atmosphere is physically in motion, that is, not stationary
Again: Relative frame of reference.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
No, you are confused. The spinning globe model posits two moving objects

1. The solid spinning earth
2. The fluid spinning atmosphere

We are located on the exterior side of the solid earth and within the fluid atmosphere.
The planet, the oceans, the atmosphere, all one system, all in the same relative frame of reference.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If we are in a fluid atmosphere in motion we would get a speed boost when travelling with it and resistance when travelling against it.
Does this happen when you walk around on a plane? Or in a train?
The air in a plane is in motion, carried with everything else on the plane.
It is static RELATIVE to the plane.
Same for the Earths atmosphere. You are within the system, travelling relative to the moving object.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Just like NASA claim to do.
That is not what NASA claims.
What NASA claims would be true of our world WITHOUT the atmosphere. Baseball pitch machines use the same mechanic, a spinning wheel, a ball passes the wheel, touches the wheel, and leaves at a tangent, relative to the speed of the wheel. No atmosphere required.
__________________
@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, 12:05 PM   #223
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,489
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hello blue mountain. They are separate issues I believe. What causes the retrograde motion we observe is not related to the stationary state of the planet.
The heliocentric model adequately explains the observed motion of planets. If you want to support another model, you need to provide another explanation.

Quote:
The coreolis effect is not caused by earths rotation.
False. If the Earth rotates, we will experience exactly the Coriolis effect we do observe. If you want to claim the Earth does not rotate, you must provide an alternative explanation.

Quote:
Get a sphere, any sphere, rotate it eastwards now if you can get the air on the top hemisphere to spin counter clockwise and the air around the bottom hemisphere to spin clockwise I swear to God I will upload a youtube video of me ating my hat. The idea that the rotation a sphere can cause this effect is non sense. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate.
False. I can design an experiment that will demonstrate it. Do you want me to specify it, or will you just eat you hat now?


Quote:
There MUST be another causal explanation as to why hurricanes and cyclones behave this way. Explanations of physical reality that we cannot demonstrate physically lack empirical validation.
False. "Empirical validation" can be based on observation. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

We can demonstrate the connection between Earth's rotation and the coriolis effect empirically.

And as I say, it is ALSO possible to design an experiment that confirms it.

Quote:
Day night seasons etc existed when the population of the world believed the earth was flat and stationary.
Yes. So what? Are you implying that the beliefs of the population affects reality?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_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 30th May 2017, 12:06 PM   #224
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
PUTTING TO REST THE FALSE ANALOGY

Frankly, it is embarrassing the lack of understanding some people have in here regarding the very globe model they are attempting to defend. In this post I wish establish an accurate analogy.

According to the spinning globe model there are TWO objects in motion

1. The spinning solid earth
2. The spinning fluid atmosphere

They spin at the same velocity (1000 mph) in the same direction (Eastwards).

ALL ANALOGIES THAT POSITION US INSIDE A SOLID MOVING OBJECT ARE WRONG AND SHOULD BE REJECTED

Why? The air is stationary inside closed objects and we are located on the OUTSIDE the solid moving earth and on the INSIDE of the fluid moving atmosphere. Any accurate analogy must account for BOTH movements.

Now, if we take a horizontal cross section slice of the spherical globe we get a donut shaped object. A solid rotating cylinder in the centre which causes the surrounding fluid to also rotate at the same speed and direction. I will address any objections to this analogy if raised.

I like this analogy because the EFFECTS of the constant unidirectional motion on other objects located within it, CANNOT BE IGNORED

Objects moving with the fluids motion WILL according to the laws of physics go faster, farther, and use less energy. In contrast, objects moving in the opposite direction against the fluids motion WILL go slower, travel less distance, and use more energy. All three EFFECTS velocity, distance, and energy consumption can be objectively measured and verified.

When we COMPARE the results of this analogy to reality we encounter a problem. Although NASA rockets DO get a speed boost when flying east, other objects such as birds, balloons, helicopters, and commercial jets DO NOT.
Transnational and transatlantic flight details PROVE THIS travelmath.com

Can anybody in here explain this glaring contradiction? Why we feel the physical effects that we MUST experience if we are located in a constant unidirectional motion in our everyday reality.

The most plausible explanation we don't experience the effects is because the atmosphere is STATIONARY.

Wishing peace love and prosperity to all souls reading this post.

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2017 at 12:19 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 30th May 2017, 12:13 PM   #225
EvilBiker
Muse
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 982
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Can anybody in here explain this glaring contradiction?
You should be able to find your answer somewhere between posts 1 and 223, not necessarily inclusive.

You're welcome.

Pees.
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
EvilBiker 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, 12:16 PM   #226
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,489
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Are you saying that a river flowing with a constant velocity has no force? Yes or no
It has. But not on a fish swimming relatively to the current speed.

Quote:
So you're saying that friction is what is causes the atmosphere to rotate with the spinning earth. And what about the centrifugal force of the earths rotation, where does that energy go?
Basic physics: A force is not energy.

Quote:
Are you seriously saying that a fish swimming AGAINST the current will not encounter any friction? Will not use more energy to travel the same distance?
Not if swimming the same distance relative to the water. If swimming the same distance relative to the shore, it will.

Quote:
That's correct because there is more than one explanation. You believe we don't feel any motion of an eastward moving atmosphere because we travel with it. I believe we don't feel any motion because the atmosphere is stationary. I am arguing for the second explanation. I'm not disagreeing with myself.
Beliefs are not interesting. By the observation of no relative motion to the atmosphere, we cannot determine if the Earth rotates. However, there are other methods.

Quote:
Agreed it makes sense. But when NASA launch rockets east they DO get a speed boost. But when transnational and transatlantic flights travel east they DONT get a speed boost. Can you explain this glaring contradiction?
It is not a contradiction. the aircraft lands back on Earth. The satelite does not.

Quote:
So earths rotation gives nasa rockets flying east a speed boost but earths rotation doesn't give aeroplanes, helicopters, balloons, and birds flying east a speed boost. Care to explain this glaring contradiction?
I think you are being intentionally obtuse, here. Alternatively, you do not read the answers you are given, here.

ecause in an earlier post you said "it's not a speed boost"

Quote:
Wrong in my model there is no 1000mph constant uniform motion. That's your model. And yes if it was in fact true that the atmosphere was moving at that speed there it would be physically impossible for flora or fauna to exist.
Explain why. Earth's surface moves at 1000 mph. The atmosphere moves at 1000 mph. What is the problem?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_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 30th May 2017, 12:18 PM   #227
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,489
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If there was a mushroom cloud then the explosion wasn't contained at all
Earth's gravity cannot contain a nuclear explosion. What do you think the gravity of the sun is?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_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 30th May 2017, 12:23 PM   #228
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,184
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
PUTTING TO REST THE FALSE ANALOGY

Frankly, it is embarrassing the lack of understanding some people have in here regarding the very globe model they are attempting to defend. In this post I wish establish an accurate analogy.

According to the spinning globe model there are TWO objects in motion

1. The spinning solid earth
2. The spinning fluid atmosphere

They spin at the same velocity (1000 mph) in the same direction (Eastwards).

ALL ANALOGIES THAT POSITION US INSIDE A SOLID MOVING OBJECT ARE WRONG AND SHOULD BE REJECTED

Why? The air is stationary inside closed objects and we are located on the OUTSIDE of the solid moving earth and on the INSIDE of the fluid moving atmosphere. Any accurate analogy must account for BOTH movements.

Now, if we take a horizontal cross section slice of the spherical globe we get a donut shaped object. A solid rotating cylinder in the centre which causes the surrounding fluid to also rotate at the same speed and direction. I will address any objections to this analogy if raised.

I like this analogy because the EFFECTS of the constant unidirectional motion on other objects located within it, CANNOT BE IGNORED

Objects moving with the fluids motion WILL according to the laws of physics go faster, farther, and use less energy. In contrast, objects moving in the opposite direction against the fluids motion WILL go slower, travel less distance, and use more energy. All three EFFECTS velocity, distance, and energy consumption can be objectively measured and verified.

When we COMPARE the results of this analogy to reality we encounter a problem. Although NASA rockets DO get a speed boost when flying east, other objects such as birds, balloons, helicopters, and commercial jets DO NOT.

Transnational and transatlantic flight details PROVE THIS travelling.com

Can anybody in here explain this glaring contradiction? Why we feel the physical effects that we MUST experience if we are located in a constant unidirectional motion in our everyday reality.

The most plausible explanation we don't experience the effects is because the atmosphere is STATIONARY.

Wishing peace love and prosperity to all souls reading this post.
The only "glaring contradiction" is that you are still confusing moving with 'the fluid' as moving through 'the fluid'. "Objects moving with the fluids motion" are "STATIONARY", co-moving, being carried or transported with the same motion as the fluid. Again "the atmosphere is STATIONARY" relative to us and the surface of the Earth specifically because we are moving with it not through it.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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, 12:24 PM   #229
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,489
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
The link states "An equatorial mount is a mount for instruments that compensate the rotation of earth"

In other words its not used to measure the earths rotation, but to compensate for it, assuming it is there.
Compensating is also measuring. Almost all measurement methods consist of compensating.

Quote:
Here is a repeatable experiment using telescopes that was designed to prove the earths rotation but in fact proved the opposite that the earth is not rotating. It is known as Airys failure.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=87M2i61N1cU

Get back to me when you debunk it.
If an aether carries light, light will exhibit different speed when projected forwards or backwards from a moving object. This is not observed.

The aether does not exist.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_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 30th May 2017, 12:26 PM   #230
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,489
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Anybody who has swam or rowed a boat up stream in a river KNOWS what you said is untrue. More energy is required to swim or move against a constant unidirectional motion.I can't believe I have to repeat this point in the international skeptics forum!

Next
Depends on only if relative to something stationary. When you move on Earth, you are not relative to a stationary object.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_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 30th May 2017, 12:33 PM   #231
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,184
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
When we COMPARE the results of this analogy to reality we encounter a problem. Although NASA rockets DO get a speed boost when flying east, other objects such as birds, balloons, helicopters, and commercial jets DO NOT.
Transnational and transatlantic flight details PROVE THIS travelmath.com

Can anybody in here explain this glaring contradiction? Why we feel the physical effects that we MUST experience if we are located in a constant unidirectional motion in our everyday reality.
abaddon (I think it was) already laid this out for you in some very specific detail and MRC_Hans touches on it above. Again the point being they do get that same "speed boost" in all those cases it just doesn't make any difference when your goal is to move across the surface of the earth from one location to another, or even return to the same location that is itself moving with that very same "speed" you had with the "boost".
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 30th May 2017 at 12:34 PM.
The Man 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, 12:34 PM   #232
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,697
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
Relative to the bank of the river, yes, you would have to expend more energy. Relative to the water you are swimming or rowing in, nope.

Frame of reference, bigger picture, etc. All very basic stuff, really.

My initial response to this inane insightful post was "Are you trying to collect patches for your ignorant sash towards your Dodo Scout level." "Hm, let me think about that", but then I realised that I knew the answer already, and so I shared my thoughts briefly, succinctly and on point, with no malice aforethought.

Peas.
fuelair 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, 12:36 PM   #233
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,489
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
No, you are confused. The spinning globe model posits two moving objects
No, YOU are confused. Or intentionally obtuse.

Quote:
1. The solid spinning earth
2. The fluid spinning atmosphere

We are located on the exterior side of the solid earth and within the fluid atmosphere.
And they are moving at the same velocity.

Quote:
If we are in a fluid atmosphere in motion we would get a speed boost when travelling with it and resistance when travelling against it.
No, because we are moving relative to the surface of Earth, and so is the atmosphere.

Quote:
Just like NASA claim to do.
No, because NASA's rockets are not aiming at a speed relative to Earth's surface. I have now explained this to you four times in three different ways; which words is it you don't understand?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_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 30th May 2017, 12:38 PM   #234
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,697
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
Relative to the bank of the river, yes, you would have to expend more energy. Relative to the water you are swimming or rowing in, nope.

Frame of reference, bigger picture, etc. All very basic stuff, really.

My initial response to this inane insightful post was "Are you trying to collect patches for your ignorant sash towards your Dodo Scout level." "Hm, let me think about that", but then I realised that I knew the answer already, and so I shared my thoughts briefly, succinctly and on point, with no malice aforethought.

Peas.
I always prefer malice aforethought where it is oh, so very needed!!!!!!!
fuelair 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, 12:41 PM   #235
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Earth's gravity cannot contain a nuclear explosion. What do you think the gravity of the sun is?

Hans
I looked it up and it's about 30 times that of the earth (at the surface of each body). Is that enough to contain nuclear explosions?
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 30th May 2017, 12:41 PM   #236
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,243
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
PUTTING TO REST THE FALSE ANALOGY

Frankly, it is embarrassing the lack of understanding some people have in here regarding the very globe model they are attempting to defend. In this post I wish establish an accurate analogy.

According to the spinning globe model there are TWO objects in motion

1. The spinning solid earth
2. The spinning fluid atmosphere

They spin at the same velocity (1000 mph) in the same direction (Eastwards).

ALL ANALOGIES THAT POSITION US INSIDE A SOLID MOVING OBJECT ARE WRONG AND SHOULD BE REJECTED
Once upon a time Theodore Edison Bear, the Sceptic Teddy, was riding his bicycle through town, when Mrs Lady flagged him down.
"How dare you! You hooligan! You ruffian!" Mrs Lady squawked in some delirium.
"I beg your pardon?" Teddy asked, confused.
"You are stalking and harassing that poor bicycle!" Mrs Lady snapped. "Wherever it goes, you are right there!"
"I happen to ride the bicycle, Madam!" Teddy snorted. "I happen to own the bicycle."
"I do not care!" Mrs Lady folded her arms. "You were not even holding the handle bars! You were not attached. You simply sat on the saddle, and no matter how fast the bike went, you would not allow it to escape!"
"Well of course, I was on the blooming bike!"
"And how is that possible?" Chimed in Ken the pigmy polar bear. "The bike was going fast, and you, Teddy, are a waddlesome bear, who was not inside the bike, or tethered to it, how can you have kept up with it?"
Teddy sighed.
"Look, it is all rather simple. When the bike started down the hill, I may not have been holding on, but I was sat upon it. I was in contact with it, and thus I moved at the same speed as it. As did my bobble hat, scarf, and bag of jelly beans. We were, what one might call, a system. Unless another force acts upon us, we are all relative to each other. I do not need to be tied to the bike, or inside the bike. When I took you in my hot air balloon, we drifted for miles upon the wind, yet we did not feel a howling gale around us, as we were moving relative to the wind. It is all about the frame of reference? Do you see?"
"Don't you worry..." Mrs Lady whispered, to the bicycle. "You ride off now, and I will stop that nasty bear following you everywhere..."
__________________
@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, 12:47 PM   #237
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,489
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
PUTTING TO REST THE FALSE ANALOGY

Frankly, it is embarrassing the lack of understanding some people have in here regarding the very globe model they are attempting to defend. In this post I wish establish an accurate analogy.
Considering you apparant lack of insight you are being much too bold.



Quote:
1. The spinning solid earth
2. The spinning fluid atmosphere

They spin at the same velocity (1000 mph) in the same direction (Eastwards).
At some latitude, yes.

Quote:
ALL ANALOGIES THAT POSITION US INSIDE A SOLID MOVING OBJECT ARE WRONG AND SHOULD BE REJECTED
No.

Quote:
Why? The air is stationary inside closed objects and we are located on the OUTSIDE the solid moving earth and on the INSIDE of the fluid moving atmosphere. Any accurate analogy must account for BOTH movements.
Since there is no outside influence (from the vacuum of space) it is equal to a closed system.

Quote:
Now, if we take a horizontal cross section slice of the spherical globe we get a donut shaped object. A solid rotating cylinder in the centre which causes the surrounding fluid to also rotate at the same speed and direction. I will address any objections to this analogy if raised.
Air is not a fluid, but, ... not important.

Quote:
I like this analogy because the EFFECTS of the constant unidirectional motion on other objects located within it, CANNOT BE IGNORED

Objects moving with the fluids motion WILL according to the laws of physics go faster, farther, and use less energy. In contrast, objects moving in the opposite direction against the fluids motion WILL go slower, travel less distance, and use more energy. All three EFFECTS velocity, distance, and energy consumption can be objectively measured and verified.
No, you are wrong. (And I suspect you know this). As long as we are working with realtive motion, that is, motion withing the moving system, there is no effect from the motion of the system as such.

Quote:
When we COMPARE the results of this analogy to reality we encounter a problem. Although NASA rockets DO get a speed boost when flying east, other objects such as birds, balloons, helicopters, and commercial jets DO NOT.
Transnational and transatlantic flight details PROVE THIS travelmath.com

Can anybody in here explain this glaring contradiction? Why we feel the physical effects that we MUST experience if we are located in a constant unidirectional motion in our everyday reality.
All movements that start from Earth and end on Earth are relative to Earth. Thus, the movement of Earth has no effect.

NASA rockets start from Earth and end in space, therefore the movement of earth DOES affect them.

If you don't get it this time, I must conclude that you don't want to know.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

Last edited by MRC_Hans; 30th May 2017 at 12:51 PM.
MRC_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 30th May 2017, 12:51 PM   #238
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,489
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I looked it up and it's about 30 times that of the earth (at the surface of each body). Is that enough to contain nuclear explosions?
The actual gravity is not the only factor. The depth is actually more important. A column of gas on the sun is not only under 30G, it is also vastly deeper. This provides for an immense pressure.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_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 30th May 2017, 12:56 PM   #239
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
You seem to only like to talk about rockets and rivers. What about answering some of the other questions you've been asked and ignored. Why do the stars in the sky move like they do? If earth was stationary, they would pretty much stay in the same spot in the sky. Why is that?
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."
Macgyver1968 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, 01:09 PM   #240
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
PUTTING TO REST THE FALSE ANALOGY

Frankly, it is embarrassing the lack of understanding some people have in here regarding the very globe model they are attempting to defend. In this post I wish establish an accurate analogy. [/quote
Apparently you are the only one who lacks understanding, or you are just a troll seeking attention[quot]

According to the spinning globe model there are TWO objects in motion

1. The spinning solid earth
2. The spinning fluid atmosphere

They spin at the same velocity (1000 mph) in the same direction (Eastwards).

ALL ANALOGIES THAT POSITION US INSIDE A SOLID MOVING OBJECT ARE WRONG AND SHOULD BE REJECTED
As pointed out by others we are on the surface of the globe moving along with the atmosphere. You really need to get your relativities straight, before posting.
Quote:

Why? The air is stationary inside closed objects and we are located on the OUTSIDE the solid moving earth and on the INSIDE of the fluid moving atmosphere. Any accurate analogy must account for BOTH movements.
The analogy that you continue to resist explains all
Quote:

Now, if we take a horizontal cross section slice of the spherical globe we get a donut shaped object. A solid rotating cylinder in the centre which causes the surrounding fluid to also rotate at the same speed and direction. I will address any objections to this analogy if raised.
Why complicate the current model, just accept that the Earth is spinning taking us and the air around it at approximately 1000 mph.
Quote:

I like this analogy because the EFFECTS of the constant unidirectional motion on other objects located within it, CANNOT BE IGNORED
The atmosphere is not contained inside anything
Quote:

Objects moving with the fluids motion WILL according to the laws of physics go faster, farther, and use less energy. In contrast, objects moving in the opposite direction against the fluids motion WILL go slower, travel less distance, and use more energy. All three EFFECTS velocity, distance, and energy consumption can be objectively measured and verified.
Only relatively speaking
Quote:

When we COMPARE the results of this analogy to reality we encounter a problem. Although NASA rockets DO get a speed boost when flying east, other objects such as birds, balloons, helicopters, and commercial jets DO NOT.
Transnational and transatlantic flight details PROVE THIS travelmath.com
There are wind currents independent of the spinning Earth, that one of the reasons we get weather.
Quote:

Can anybody in here explain this glaring contradiction? Why we feel the physical effects that we MUST experience if we are located in a constant unidirectional motion in our everyday reality.

The most plausible explanation we don't experience the effects is because the atmosphere is STATIONARY.

Wishing peace love and prosperity to all souls reading this post.
You are glaring in error of your attempt to observe the space around you. This has been pointed out to you many times, but you refuse to accept the observations and experimentations. I said it before and I'll state it again, you accept facts unless they disagree/debunk your willfully ignorant viewpoints at which time you ignore them or indicate they can't be measured or are contradictory. The only contradiction is in your mind not the rest of us.

BTW, I'll ask again to cite/post a link to this NASA document you refer.
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
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 07:22 AM.
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.