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, 01:31 PM   #241
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,718
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
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?
My fish tank analogy renders any need for "calculations" moot.


(context)
carlitos 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, 01:32 PM   #242
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,629
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Air is not a fluid, but, ... not important.
Not important...but it is.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc 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, 01:42 PM   #243
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,470
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Not important...but it is.
Is what? Air is not a fluid, it is a gas. It is, of course, important in many ways, but for the simple analogies we are working with here, it makes no difference.

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, 01:47 PM   #244
TheGoldcountry
Illuminator
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,806
Until the OP even begins to understand such simple, grade-school concepts such as relative motion, and the differences between acceleration/velocity and energy/force, you guys are spinning your wheels in mud. (or a similar slick substance)
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry 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, 01:48 PM   #245
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,629
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Is what? Air is not a fluid, it is a gas. It is, of course, important in many ways, but for the simple analogies we are working with here, it makes no difference.

Hans
It is both a fluid and a gas, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fluid
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen

Last edited by sphenisc; 30th May 2017 at 01:52 PM.
sphenisc 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, 02:55 PM   #246
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Warm regards loss leader.

The sun is revolving around us at 1000mph is more believable.
I'm surprised that no one commented on this genuinely "stundie" worthy post.

If the sun is orbiting the earth at 1000mph, and makes the journey in 24 hours, then the circumference of the orbit 24,000 miles. Which....is also the approximate circumference of the earth. So, they only way the sun could do this is if were orbiting ON the surface of the earth.

Anyone see the sun zip by them them today?

It shows just how much thought CT'ers put into their posts.
__________________
"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, 02:56 PM   #247
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,742
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 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.

When you START putting random WORDS in CAPITALS we know that you have LOST.
__________________
"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, 03:05 PM   #248
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,987
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
I'm surprised that no one commented on this genuinely "stundie" worthy post.

If the sun is orbiting the earth at 1000mph, and makes the journey in 24 hours, then the circumference of the orbit 24,000 miles. Which....is also the approximate circumference of the earth. So, they only way the sun could do this is if were orbiting ON the surface of the earth.

Anyone see the sun zip by them them today?

It shows just how much thought CT'ers put into their posts.
I asked a leading question, but our protagonist was not biting. I suspect because he/she knew where that would lead.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 03:17 PM   #249
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,304
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
Doesn't need debunking, it is that bad. It doesn't prove the earth doesn't rotate.

But I mentioned telescopes, can you tell me what a parsec is?

In your model a parsec would be infinite, but it is not, it is a defined unit of measure, related to the apparent movement of stars relative to each other.

Or do you believe stars are fixed in the firmament?

Because they are not and their apparent motion relative to each other proves that the earth revolves around the sun.

And in order to keep telescope trained on a star, the telescope must rotate, that is what an equatorial mount is for. The telescope must rotate because the earth is rotating.
__________________
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 30th May 2017, 03:25 PM   #250
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Doesn't need debunking, it is that bad. It doesn't prove the earth doesn't rotate.

But I mentioned telescopes, can you tell me what a parsec is?

In your model a parsec would be infinite, but it is not, it is a defined unit of measure, related to the apparent movement of stars relative to each other.

Or do you believe stars are fixed in the firmament?

Because they are not and their apparent motion relative to each other proves that the earth revolves around the sun.

And in order to keep telescope trained on a star, the telescope must rotate, that is what an equatorial mount is for. The telescope must rotate because the earth is rotating.
Wrong!

All of the stars and the billions of galaxies in the universe all orbit the earth on the same plane. Their orbital speed is proportional to their distance from the earth, so they all appear to move across the sky in unison. Duh!!

__________________
"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, 03:27 PM   #251
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,987
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 the solid moving earth and on the INSIDE of the fluid moving atmosphere. Any accurate analogy must account for BOTH movements.
Not true, but let us work along. Lets us go outside the car. If you are driving down the road at 60 mph, what speed are you going to an outside observer? Would you agree that it is 60 mph?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
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.
Nope. You get a disc. A cross section of a sphere is a disc. The only way you get a donut is if you have a hollow sphere. Are you embracing the hollow earth nonsense? Because they really have a hate on with the flatties.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I like this analogy because the EFFECTS of the constant unidirectional motion on other objects located within it, CANNOT BE IGNORED
Once again, consider a tree standing alone in a plain. The tree is moving east at 1,000 mph, the ground underneath is moving east at 1,000 mph, the surrounding atmosphere around it is moving east at 1,000 mph. What wind does the tree feel?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
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.
Yup and they are measured and Earth turns out to be spherical every time. Think I am wrong? OK, present the actual measurements to support that.

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
Rockets use ballistics. Birds, balloons, helicopters and commercial jets use aerodynamics. These are not the same things.

Why the hell do I even need to point this out?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
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.
Must we run around that hamster wheel yet again?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
The most plausible explanation we don't experience the effects is because the atmosphere is STATIONARY.
Why yes, it appears you will ignore all of the responses once again. Now given that I reduced the matter to simple addition and subtraction last time around this hamster wheel and you continued to ignore it, what reasonable conclusion do you think I should make?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Wishing peace love and prosperity to all souls reading this post.
I doubt the sincerity of this sentiment.

May you live in interesting times.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 03:37 PM   #252
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer View Post
That's easy, Fish feelings are based on a scale.
Bravo! that was funny
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, 03:37 PM   #253
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,987
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
Wrong!

All of the stars and the billions of galaxies in the universe all orbit the earth on the same plane. Their orbital speed is proportional to their distance from the earth, so they all appear to move across the sky in unison. Duh!!

Wrong.

All of the stars are simply lights embedded in the firmament which is a dome made of glass into which god has embedded bright twinkly things which will fall to earth in the end times. they are only small objects a couple of thousand miles away.



And yes, a subset of flatties actually do claim this as fact. Don't make me draw a Venn Diagram of the intersecting cranks.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 03:44 PM   #254
TheGoldcountry
Illuminator
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,806
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post

And yes, a subset of flatties actually do claim this as fact. Don't make me draw a Venn Diagram of the intersecting cranks.
Hey, astrophysics is one thing. That is WAY too complicated.
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry 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, 03:47 PM   #255
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,987
Oh yeah, another claim of some flatties is that gravity is caused by the disc accelerating vertically and continuously at 9.8 m/s rather than gravity.

This must have been an early claim, because a moments maths would reveal that Earth must be moving at many times the speed of light by now even under the 6,000 year creationist bollocks age of Earth.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 03:48 PM   #256
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,610
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Air is not a fluid, but, ... not important.
Uhh yeah it is. He's wrong about most things, but not that.
phunk 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, 03:51 PM   #257
p0lka
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 729
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
The coreolis effect is not caused by earths rotation. 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. 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.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Here is one simple and really clear demonstration of what you imagined was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate:
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


I hope your hat is delicious.
thewholesoul can you give me the link to your hat eating experience that you swore to god you would do?
p0lka 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, 04:00 PM   #258
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,610
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.
You don't understand the whole speed boost issue at all. The extra speed is relative to the center of the Earth, not the surface. Rockets, birds, commercial jets, your ass in that chair, ALL have that extra speed. But you don't notice it because so does the ground beneath you and the air around you.

The reason that extra speed is important for rockets is that the speed they need to orbit is not relative to the ground. It's relative to the center of mass of the Earth. The rocket doesn't gain the extra speed while in flight. It has it already before it takes off, since the ground it takes off from is spinning around the center of mass.
phunk 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, 04:04 PM   #259
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,262
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Warm regards foster, how's it going? I was wondering when this,argument was going to be raised.

The reason we don't feel the velocity of the aeroplane is because we are located INSIDE the moving solid body. Like when you run your organs are the passengers and they don't feel the friction against the air that you are pushing through

We are located on the OUTSIDE on the EXTERIOR of the solid moving body.

Now if you were sitting on the OUTSIDE of a plane travelling at that speed, could you still eat those peanuts? I don't think so.
You could eat those peanuts if the air outside the planes interior was moving with the same velocity as the plane.

You aren't questioning science. What you are doing is making fallacious comparisons and arguments. Your're not questioning poorly established science. You're questioning established empirical facts.This is what your argument looks like. It's said fire is hot. Prove it is hot. Fire burns. Prove fire burns.

One bit of evidence can be shown when snipers or person shooting at targets at hundreds or thousands of meter away have to account for the corolius force to shoot accurately.

Last edited by Steve001; 30th May 2017 at 04:07 PM.
Steve001 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, 04:06 PM   #260
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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
Excellent analogy Dave. I thought it was very clear.

Okay so as you pointed out NASA get the boost when and only when the roundabout is,physically spinning in the same way that you got a boost jumping off the rotating object.

So thanks to NASA we know that the round must be physically moving otherwise it couldn't possibly get that speed boost. That part is clear.

But you weren't alone on the roundabout. There were other people. Do they feel a physical difference between a physically moving roundabout and physically stationary one?

If one of them stood up, and walked in a circle would it be easier to walk with the rotation or against it.

If we poured some water on 2/3 of the surface area, how would it behave? Could it ever be still?

Let's say we enclose the roundabout in a dome and we fill the insides with red gas. How would it behave. Would the rotating floor interact with the gas? It would cause it to swirl I.Imagine in a constant unidirectional manner. Is that what we observe in our sky as clouds drift in every direction?


Peace
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, 04:07 PM   #261
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,987
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Uhh yeah it is. He's wrong about most things, but not that.
Probably a definitional issue. Many use fluids as synonymous to liquids.

Liquids and gasses are both fluids.

But you are correct. It is the only thing our protagonist has gotten correct.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 04:10 PM   #262
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
Another thing I was wondering about...If the earth is not rotating, how do Geo-stationary satellites work? Many of our communication satellites are in geo-stationary orbit, so their orbital speed matches the rotation of the earth. That way they stay over the same piece of land all the time so we can bounce signals off them.

If the earth is stationary, then it would be impossible to have a satellite in orbit at zero speed. It would just fall to the earth.
__________________
"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, 04:11 PM   #263
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,987
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Excellent analogy Dave. I thought it was very clear.

Okay so as you pointed out NASA get the boost when and only when the roundabout is,physically spinning in the same way that you got a boost jumping off the rotating object.

So thanks to NASA we know that the round must be physically moving otherwise it couldn't possibly get that speed boost. That part is clear.

But you weren't alone on the roundabout. There were other people. Do they feel a physical difference between a physically moving roundabout and physically stationary one?

If one of them stood up, and walked in a circle would it be easier to walk with the rotation or against it.

If we poured some water on 2/3 of the surface area, how would it behave? Could it ever be still?

Let's say we enclose the roundabout in a dome and we fill the insides with red gas. How would it behave. Would the rotating floor interact with the gas? It would cause it to swirl I.Imagine in a constant unidirectional manner. Is that what we observe in our sky as clouds drift in every direction?


Peace
And the dome of the firmament makes it's appearance.

Called it.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 04:19 PM   #264
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,610
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
Another thing I was wondering about...If the earth is not rotating, how do Geo-stationary satellites work? Many of our communication satellites are in geo-stationary orbit, so their orbital speed matches the rotation of the earth. That way they stay over the same piece of land all the time so we can bounce signals off them.

If the earth is stationary, then it would be impossible to have a satellite in orbit at zero speed. It would just fall to the earth.
Big suction cups. They're stuck to one of those crystal spheres.
phunk 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, 04:20 PM   #265
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,987
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
Another thing I was wondering about...If the earth is not rotating, how do Geo-stationary satellites work? Many of our communication satellites are in geo-stationary orbit, so their orbital speed matches the rotation of the earth. That way they stay over the same piece of land all the time so we can bounce signals off them.

If the earth is stationary, then it would be impossible to have a satellite in orbit at zero speed. It would just fall to the earth.
The flatties claim those are faked by means of ground based antennae. In evidence, they claim that your TV satellite dish is pointed near the horizon and is actually pointing at a blimp floating in the air at an appropriate location.

(I am not making that up)
ETA: How is that ground based antennae?

When it is pointed out that people in, say, Ecuador must point their dishes straight up they claim that pics of such are fake and people in Ecuador cannot afford such dishes. Or TV.

(I am not making that up either)
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by abaddon; 30th May 2017 at 04:21 PM.
abaddon 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, 04:23 PM   #266
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,610
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The flatties claim those are faked by means of ground based antennae. In evidence, they claim that your TV satellite dish is pointed near the horizon and is actually pointing at a blimp floating in the air at an appropriate location.

(I am not making that up)
ETA: How is that ground based antennae?

When it is pointed out that people in, say, Ecuador must point their dishes straight up they claim that pics of such are fake and people in Ecuador cannot afford such dishes. Or TV.

(I am not making that up either)
Been to Ecuador, can confirm, not fake.

Does this mean I must be a shill for the round earth industry?
phunk 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, 04:27 PM   #267
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,987
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Been to Ecuador, can confirm, not fake.

Does this mean I must be a shill for the round earth industry?
In crank world, yes.

Submit your claim form for reimbursement and as a senior shill, I will accelerate it.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 04:31 PM   #268
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Yes you are wrong. Some of the air travels at the speed of sound being compressed in shock waves creating a sonic boom. As an air craft is designed to fly through the air (slice through it more specifically). Not all the air in contact with the air craft gets 'dragged' along with it, as the air craft is specifically engineered to reduce drag.


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_drag
You got me. I was wrong. I was wrong to claim that air couldn't move at the identical speed at the speed of sound.

"A sonic boom is the sound associated with the shock waves created by an object traveling through the air faster than the speed of sound. Sonic booms generate enormous amounts of sound energy, sounding much like an explosion."

So, when a solid surface moving at 1000mph (the speed of sound) comes in contact with air it generates a physical effect in the form of a sound wave. So why cant we constantly hear one, given that the earth is travelling at that speed and also in contact with the air?

"Some studies claim to show that sonic booms from U.S. Navy testing in Vieques, Puerto Rico, increased the incidence of vibroacoustic disease, a thickening of heart tissue."

Where's all the vibroacoustic diseases?

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Some of the air travels at the speed of sound being compressed in shock waves creating a sonic boom.
but ALL our atmosphere is travelling at the speed of sound at the equator, why isn't ALL that atmosphere constantly compressed into shock waves? Why isn't ANY?

Is it not your position that the ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE we inhabit here on Earth is PHYSICALLY MOVING at the SPEED OF SOUND, yet somehow magically it doesn't cause or create the associated PHYSICAL EFFECTS?

Is that not a violation of cause and effect?

I can't wait to hear your response, on salivating here!

wishing buckets of light on those who seek truth!

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2017 at 04:35 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, 04:37 PM   #269
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,610
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
You got me. I was wrong. I was wrong to claim that air couldn't move at the identical speed at the speed of sound.

"A sonic boom is the sound associated with the shock waves created by an object traveling through the air faster than the speed of sound. Sonic booms generate enormous amounts of sound energy, sounding much like an explosion."

So, when a solid surface moving at 1000mph (the speed of sound) comes in contact with air it generates a physical effect in the form of a sound wave. So why cant we constantly hear one, given that the earth is travelling at that speed and also in contact with the air?
Because a sonic boom is created when something is moving the speed of sound relative to the air. If the air is also moving at the same speed as us, then we have 0 speed relative to the air.

Think about it. The sonic boom happens outside the plane, because the plane is moving through the air at the speed of sound in that air. The sonic boom doesn't happen on the pilot's face, because his face is stationary relative to the air inside the cockpit. Likewise, the atmosphere is moving at the same speed as the ground, so there's no relative speed and no global sonic boom.
phunk 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, 04:42 PM   #270
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,262
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Excellent analogy Dave. I thought it was very clear.

Okay so as you pointed out NASA get the boost when and only when the roundabout is,physically spinning in the same way that you got a boost jumping off the rotating object.

So thanks to NASA we know that the round must be physically moving otherwise it couldn't possibly get that speed boost. That part is clear.

But you weren't alone on the roundabout. There were other people. Do they feel a physical difference between a physically moving roundabout and physically stationary one?

If one of them stood up, and walked in a circle would it be easier to walk with the rotation or against it.

If we poured some water on 2/3 of the surface area, how would it behave? Could it ever be still?

Let's say we enclose the roundabout in a dome and we fill the insides with red gas. How would it behave. Would the rotating floor interact with the gas? It would cause it to swirl I.Imagine in a constant unidirectional manner. Is that what we observe in our sky as clouds drift in every direction?


Peace
Here is info on the affect the coriolis force has on a bullets flight.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...th-of-a-bullet

Last edited by Steve001; 30th May 2017 at 06:24 PM.
Steve001 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, 04:46 PM   #271
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Quote:
The coreolis effect is not caused by earths rotation. 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 eating my hat. The idea that the rotation a sphere can cause this effect is non sense. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate. 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
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Here is one simple and really clear demonstration of what you imagined was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate:
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


I hope your hat is delicious.
I'm sorry but the challenge stated to use "any sphere" you provide an example of a roundabout. That's a fail.

Hey skeptics, get any sphere spin it eastwards, and I will eat my hat on YouTube if you can get the motion if the spinning rotating sphere (and nothing else) to cause clockwise and counterclockwise air motion on opposing hemispheres.

Try thewholesoul' s coreolis challenge!!!

Good luck!

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2017 at 04:48 PM. Reason: typo
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, 04:51 PM   #272
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,254
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.
Thanks for responding. Many others in this thread have made their comments on your responses, and for the most part they line up with mine. For example, the fact that Mars has an apparent retrograde motion against the background stars has been known about (and puzzled about) since antiquity. A moving Earth and Mars in heliocentric orbits provides an elegant solution the problem.

Quote:
I don't know. Ask Google.or start page.
Therein lies one of the problems with the stationary model. It can't explain why radio signals to and from Mars take wildly different times over the course of a couple of years. But a moving Earth and Mars in heliocentric orbits provides an elegant solution the problem.

Quote:
The coreolis effect is not caused by earths rotation. 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. 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.
Others have answered this effectively. Again, a rotating Earth provides a simple and elegant solution to the question of the Coriolis effect.

Quote:
Day night seasons etc existed when the population of the world believed the earth was flat and stationary.
That's called a non-sequitur ("it does not follow.") I asked why summer and winter are switched between the northern and southern hemispheres, where "summer" is a season when the temperatures are overall warmer than during the "winter." Compare the climate charts of any city in Canada, the US, Europe, or Asia with countries like Chile, or Argentina, or Australia. Once you get about 45 degrees north or south of the equator you'll notice a pattern where the warmest month, as measured by daily mean temperature, is typically July in countries north of the equator, while south of it July is usually the coldest month. The situation is reversed in January.

How does a stationary Earth explain that?
__________________
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.

Last edited by Blue Mountain; 30th May 2017 at 04:52 PM.
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 30th May 2017, 04:51 PM   #273
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,987
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
You got me. I was wrong. I was wrong to claim that air couldn't move at the identical speed at the speed of sound.

"A sonic boom is the sound associated with the shock waves created by an object traveling through the air faster than the speed of sound. Sonic booms generate enormous amounts of sound energy, sounding much like an explosion."

So, when a solid surface moving at 1000mph (the speed of sound) comes in contact with air it generates a physical effect in the form of a sound wave. So why cant we constantly hear one, given that the earth is travelling at that speed and also in contact with the air?

"Some studies claim to show that sonic booms from U.S. Navy testing in Vieques, Puerto Rico, increased the incidence of vibroacoustic disease, a thickening of heart tissue."

Where's all the vibroacoustic diseases?
Yes. Where are they? You seem to be claiming that there should be shed loads of them on the basis of nothing at all.

To be clear, it is a real affliction. Nevertheless, it is quite rare and in your messed up idea we should all have it, yet we don't. Are you wrong? Or is everyone but you wrong? Which is more likely?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
but ALL our atmosphere is travelling at the speed of sound at the equator, why isn't all that atmosphere constantly compressed into shock waves?
Because everything is travelling at the same speed. How many times must relative speed be explained and in how many ways? How do you actually function in the real world without understanding relative velocity? How many times must simple addition and subtraction be explained to you?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Is it not your position that the ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE we inhabit here on Earth is PHYSICALLY MOVING at the SPEED OF SOUND, yet somehow magically it doesn't cause or create the associated PHYSICAL EFFECTS?
No, it is not. That is your strawman and yours alone. Please stop trying to foist it on everyone else.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Is that not a violation of cause and effect?
No. I have reduced it to simple addition and subtraction. You are now claiming that this befuddles you. If you are claiming that simple addition and subtraction is beyond your ability, that is your problem. Take it up with your elected representative/dictator/alien overlord.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I can't wait to hear your response, on salivating here!
No you are not. The response has been given in many ways by many respondents. You have ignored every single one. Do you think it is more or less likely that you will ignore any further responses?

And what have you to say about your prediction that I personally would bail out after two more posts? Was that a successful prediction? Or another fail on your part?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
wishing buckets of light on those who seek truth!
May you receive that which you deserve.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 04:53 PM   #274
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
What is outside the atmosphere to cause it to experience any drag effects?
We are INSIDE a constantly unidirectional material motion. This action of a physical material fluid in motion (the atmosphere) is what will cause the drag. In fact it would render live on the planet physically impossible if you think about it. I'm so happy it doesn't actually exist.

There is only one relationship to focus on. And that is the physical relationship between a solid physical object in contact with a fluid physical medium travelling at massive speeds.

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2017 at 04:55 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, 04:54 PM   #275
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,254
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I'm sorry but the challenge stated to use "any sphere" you provide an example of a roundabout. That's a fail.

Hey skeptics, get any sphere spin it eastwards, and I will eat my hat on YouTube if you can get the motion if the spinning rotating sphere (and nothing else) to cause clockwise and counterclockwise air motion on opposing hemispheres.

Try thewholesoul' s coreolis challenge!!!

Good luck!
Is Jupiter a suitable sphere for your question?
__________________
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 30th May 2017, 04:57 PM   #276
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,170
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
You got me. I was wrong. I was wrong to claim that air couldn't move at the identical speed at the speed of sound.

"A sonic boom is the sound associated with the shock waves created by an object traveling through the air faster than the speed of sound. Sonic booms generate enormous amounts of sound energy, sounding much like an explosion."

So, when a solid surface moving at 1000mph (the speed of sound) comes in contact with air it generates a physical effect in the form of a sound wave. So why cant we constantly hear one, given that the earth is travelling at that speed and also in contact with the air?
As noted not just from contact with the air but compression of the air into a shock front or shock wave.

Again we are not moving through the air like the plane but with the air. You still seem to be confusing with and through.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
"Some studies claim to show that sonic booms from U.S. Navy testing in Vieques, Puerto Rico, increased the incidence of vibroacoustic disease, a thickening of heart tissue."

Where's all the vibroacoustic diseases?
As you quote there is some in Vieques, Puerto Rico, again moving through the air can create a shock wave and sonic boom, moving with the air can't.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
but ALL our atmosphere is travelling at the speed of sound at the equator, why isn't ALL that atmosphere constantly compressed into shock waves? Why isn't ANY?
You quoted it yourself above "A sonic boom is the sound associated with the shock waves created by an object traveling through the air faster than the speed of sound."

No shock wave no sonic boom, moving with the air not through the air then no shock wave.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Is it not your position that the ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE we inhabit here on Earth is PHYSICALLY MOVING at the SPEED OF SOUND, yet somehow magically it doesn't cause or create the associated PHYSICAL EFFECTS?
Nope not "the ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE we inhabit here on Earth" the poles hardly move at all. Again you are confusing, perhaps deliberately, "the associated PHYSICAL EFFECTS" of moving through something with those associated with moving with something. In other words co-moving and thus stationary relative to that something.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Is that not a violation of cause and effect?
Nope.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I can't wait to hear your response, on salivating here!
Careful, you might drown yourself.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
wishing buckets of light on those who seek truth!
Whatever.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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, 04:57 PM   #277
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
We are INSIDE a constantly unidirectional material motion. This action of a physical material fluid in motion (the atmosphere) is what will cause the drag. In fact it would render live on the planet physically impossible if you think about it. I'm so happy it doesn't actually exist.

There is only one relationship to focus on. And that is the physical relationship between a solid physical object in contact with a fluid physical medium travelling at massive speeds.
Could you explain this "theory" in context of relative motion?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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, 04:59 PM   #278
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
At what latitude?
I don't know but some flatearthers are tracking the sun in real time across the planet. You should find your answer there.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xSkrHCjZ85U
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I0aK1kWMZes
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, 04:59 PM   #279
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,987
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
We are INSIDE a constantly unidirectional material motion.
Wrong. The rotation of the earth is not constant.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
This action of a physical material fluid in motion (the atmosphere) is what will cause the drag.
Wrong. if the fluid is comoving no drag occurs.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
In fact it would render live on the planet physically impossible if you think about it.
Wrong because we are all demonstrably here.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I'm so happy it doesn't actually exist.
Wrong because you demonstrably exist.


Lets us reverse the question. Is there anything that you claim to know which you can back up with evidence?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 05:00 PM   #280
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Oh yeah, another claim of some flatties is that gravity is caused by the disc accelerating vertically and continuously at 9.8 m/s rather than gravity.

This must have been an early claim, because a moments maths would reveal that Earth must be moving at many times the speed of light by now even under the 6,000 year creationist bollocks age of Earth.
Not exactly. According to special relativity one could accelerate continuously and get infinitely close to the speed of light but not reach it. Of course it would also require infinite energy and then there is the fact that the same ones will deny relativity when it goes against them.
__________________
-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
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 12:45 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.