>
> > I don't think you have grasped the spirit of this exercise. It is an
> > attempt to encourage you to use your brain and think in a different way.
> > Maybe questioning some of those ideas you have blindly accepted? So
> > with that in mind...
>
> Well, if we are supposed to question anything, including what's obviously
> true, then please consider this: suppose we're not humans, but tomato
> plants, living on the inside of a hollow sun at cool temperatures.... <grin>
>
> If you want to be unreasonable, why not suggest something really
> outrageous instead of merely a flat earth ????
>
I'm not trying to be outrageous, but just to understand a model which
was used by some people in the past who were very learned in these
matters. Whether you accept the model or not you cannot reject their
advanced astronomical and mathematical knowledge.
> > You know that in the southern hemisphere, water runs down a plughole
> > clockwise. In the northern hemisphere, it runs anti-clockwise. (A
> > cyclone turns in the same direction.) Well at the equator, it turns
> > out that water goes straight down.
<<This is not my statement, it is Andrew Bromage's>>
>
> This is actually a myth (try it!) -- the reason is that the coriolis
> force due to the earth's rotation acting on the water in a bathtub is
> much smaller than the water's initial movements. The direction that
> the water runs down the plughole will be more determined by random
> factors when the water was tapped into the tub -- it will appear to
> be clockwise as well as counter-clockwise about equally often.
>
I just went to the bathroom and filled the bath 10 times and let the
water out. Every time it spiraled out clockwise! My hunch is if you try
it it will always spiral out anti-clockwise. Try it and see.
>
> To succeed with the bathtub experiment, you should use as large a tub as
> possible, preferably a swimmingpool. You should also let the water
> settle down for a week or so before performing the experiment. Then
> you might succeed.
Nonsense. My bath gives perfectly consistent results. (so does the
hand basin for that matter!
>
> A more reliable way to demonstrate the rotation of the earth would
> be to use Focault's pendulum.
>
> > While no sane person could deny the existence of such a force we could
> > develop an experiment to determine if it was caused by the rotation of
> > the earth or the rotation of the universe above a flat, fixed earth [I'm
> > not sure how]. In the rotating earth model for the coriolis force (at
> > least as described above for water going down the plug-hole) to have any
> > effect one would have to be standing on the rotating earth. If your
> > movement was independent to the earth there would be no effect.
>
> That's incorrect -- there is no coriolis force if you're standing still on
> the surface of a rotating earth. The coriolis force only appears if you're
> moving on the surface of a rotating earth, and the faster you move the
> stronger the coriolis force will be.
I don't know about that, but it doesn't affect my point. If the coriolis
force is caused by the rotation of the earth (and I presume you think it
is) If you were not on the rotating earth there would be no coriolis
force.
>
> > However if the earth was fixed and the coriolis force was imposed
> > somehow from a rotating universe above
>
> Don't you have a better theory than just suggesting it's "imposed somehow" ??
>
I have sent you a letter containing a better theory.
> The coriolis force due to a rotating earth is well understood and can be
> strictly described in mathematical and mechanical terms (it's the vector
> product of the rotation vector and the local velocity vector). Here you
> suggest we replace it with very vague speculations. That's not progress,
> that's regress!!!
Many, many times well understood things have turned out to be incorrect.
Just because the maths works out nicely doesn't mean its a fact.
>
> > the effect would not change if you left the
> > earth's surface. The simple experiment is to see what happens in an
> > airplane.
>
> The airplane is too small -- you'll need an airplane many kilometers large
> to find out what happens. It's much better to see what happens in the
> free atmosphere, which moves at airplane heights and is not tied to the
> surface of the earth either.
I can't go up in the "free atmosphere" so how could I perform the
experiment? The airplane experiment, however, is easy for me to do.
Although you doubt the validity of my bath-tub experiment, even though
it gives me completely consistent results, I suspect I would get similar
consistent results in the airplane. Who knows, it may prove the earth is
a rotating sphere!
Also, the airplane is not "tied to the surface of the earth". Many
people have written to me using this very fact to prove the earth is
rotating. If you start at a point and fly due North you don't end up due
North because the earth has rotated somewhat while you were flying. So
you can't "have your cake and eat it to".
>
> > I don't know what happens (I've never thought to take any
> > notice) but if the earth is flat there will be no difference the water
> > will swirl around as it goes down the plug-hole, however if the earth is
> > a rotating sphere as you predict the water will just go straight down.
> > An easy way to prove if the earth is flat and fixed or rotating and
> > spherical!
>
> It's hard enough to do the plug-hole experiment on the earth -- you'll
> never succeed in an airplane (far too much mechanical vibrations).
Nonsense. It's not so delicate. You look at the force of that water
swirling down the plug-hole. (anti-clockwise for you I hope!)
You don't even have to go to the bathroom, my kitchen sink also gives
perfectly consistent results. I just punched a hole in the bottom of a
milk carton but that didn't work so well.
>
> >>> Everyone, I am sure, has had the experience of sitting in a train
> >>> at a station beside another train on the next track. When one of
> >>> the trains starts to move it is difficult to tell if it's your
> >>> train or the other one....
> >>
> >> This works because the train approximates uniform rectilinear motion.
> >> Now try this with a carousel instead -- sit on the caruosel, and try
> >> to imagine that the carousel is stationary while the entire earth
> >> rotates around it. If your imaginatory power is great enough to
> >> succeed with this, then move around on the carousel --- the forces
> >> you then experience will definitely break the illusion.
> >
> > But the earth is [supposedly] rotating and I can't feel a thing.
>
> That's because it rotates so slowly and you're too small. You
> wouldn't feel a thing on a carousel either if it turned as slowly as
> one turn in 24 hours.
Yes, Yes, Yes... But I have been told by someone else who wrote to me
the earth is moving at 200 MPH (aprox) at the equator and not very fast
at the poles. This is quite a difference... particularly as it is
angular therefore (as everyone keeps telling me) there is acceleration.
Once, a couple of years ago I flew from Madrid in Spain (which must be
going about 150 MPH -- it's a guess so please don't flame me if it's
130!) to Helsinki in Finland which must be going much slower but I
didn't feel any difference. Why?
>
> > I must have got used to the forces. It seems stationary to me. The
> > sun seems to be moving.
>
> Correct -- however things are not always what they seem to be.
>
> > If it wasn't for the scientists I would probably [and so
> > would you] think I was stationary and the universe was moving.
>
> If it wasn't for the scientists, we would all be unaware of the universe.
> We would then still believe the sky was a ball, perhaps some tens of
> miles large, surrounding our immediate surroundings that we call "the
> earth". An ancient greek determination of the size of the sun decided
> that it was 19 centimeters large....
>
Our sense perception of the world is truly imperfect. If I could find
his email address I'm sure he would be able to argue his point with me
just as strongly as you are. Is your view any more correct than his?
> >> 1. If the earth is flat, then sunrise and sunset should occur at the
> >> same moment at all places in the world -- right?
> >
> > NO. DEFINATELY NOT. You should carefully read the other postings to try
> > and understand how this model works.
>
> Making the reasonable assumption that there is only one sun, and that
> light travels along straight lines, sunrise and sunset WOULD occur at
> the same moment all over the earth! Sorry.....
>
> > It models the universe exactly as
> > we see it. It was used by the ancient Vedic [Indian] astronomers to
> > accurately predict the movements of planets and stars, to predict solar
> > and lunar eclipses and all other heavenly activities before Western
> > astronomy even existed. So it must at least be a plausable explanation.
>
> Did the Vedic astronomers also predict new planets that later were discovered?
> Western astronomers predicted, and later discovered, Neptune that way....
>
Yes, they not only predicted them but they used them in their
astrological calculations! They were plotting their orbits but they
couldn't see them! Because they didn't use their imperfect eyes to
explore the sky. They took the description of the universe from the
authoritative scriptures. They also describe another still to be
discovered (by Western astronomers) planet called Rahu. Rahu is black..
it doesn't reflect the sunlight so we can't see it and it moves like a
star.
> > To understand the sunrise/sunset according to this model take a piece of
> > paper and draw a big circle (the flat earth). Draw another circle inside
> > this one from the same central point but half the diameter. This is the
> > equator. The northern hemisphere is the smaller circle and the central
> > point is the North Pole. The outside of this circle (the other side of
> > the equator) is the Southern Hemisphere and (as you have no doubt
> > noticed by now) is not a point, rather it is the circumference of the
> > circle. It is a rugged icy mountain range. This is what we refer to
> > South Pole. The whole universal structure is rotating above this flat
> > body (I have described it in more detail elsewhere) but the idea is the
> > whole universe is rotating over our heads 360 degrees every 24 hours.
> > The whole thing is tilted (in the Western model the earth is tilted
> > about 33 degrees)
>
> Sorry -- it's only tilted by 23 degrees ....
>
Maybe, it doesn't matter. My reference was the Time-Life "Family World
Atlas", page 4, which states "...the earth... is inclined at 66.5
degrees to the orbital plane and always points into space in the same
direction"
> > and in 12 months moves around the circumference of the
> > circle causing the seasonal changes. This thing (called the
> > sisumara-chakra or "dolphin swiming in the sky") is arranged so it's 24
> > hourly rotation causes the sun, the planets and stars to rise and set as
> > we observe them... they've worked it all out don't you worry.
> >
> > If we simplify it and just consider the sun at the time it is above the
> > equator. (by the way the directions are: North-towards the centre,
> > South-towards the perimeter, West-clockwise, South-anticlockwise.) The
> > sun moves along the equator from East to West (ie: clockwise) It is
> > positioned in such a way as to illuminate the area underneath it as we
> > currently experience. So you can see the sun travels around the planet
> > in 24 hours giving us day and night exactly as we experience it now. The
> > sun also changes it's position during the year as we experience and it
> > moves at various speeds. During the summer it moves slowly during the
> > day and quickly at night, during the winter it moves slowly at night
> > and quickly during the day. So you see it perfectly models what we
> > observe.
>
> This succeeds becaause:
>
> 1. The Vedics only considered the local conditions, being unaware of the
> global conditions, and
NO. NO. NO. It works everywhere simultaneously!
>
> 2. A sufficiently small piece of the earth's surface IS flat. When buying
> a city map, it's perfectly fine if it's printed on a flat piece of
> paper.
>
> But let's test your model: make a cardboard model of a flat earth: a
> circular piece of cardboard some 20-30 cm in diameter. The rim is the
> "south pole", the center is the north pole, and midway between the
> center and the rim you draw a circle that represents the equator.
>
> On the equator you should also mark for equidistant points (i.e. 90
> degrees away from each other seen from the "north pole" i.e. the center
> of the disk). Mark these points A, B, C, D -- put A and C opposite each
> other, and B and D opposite each other:
>
> (SOUTH POLE)
> rim
>
>
>
>
> B
>
>
>
>(SOUTH POLE)rim A N.pole C rim (SOUTH POLE)
>
>
>
> D
>
>
>
>
> rim
> (SOUTH POLE)
>
>
> Now, take a lamp which represents the Sun. Hold the lamp directly
> above A -- this represents noon at A. Hold the lamp beside the piece
> of cardboard, this represents sunrise/sunset.
NO. NO. NO. You have missed the point completely! The sun never goes under
the cardboard. It rotates above the surface moving above the equator. So
when it is above A (say midday) it is midnight at C. If you take your
light you will see this. The sun gradually moves around the circle
causing midnight, midday, sunrise and sunset in the proper sequence as
we observe it. You will notice with your cardboard model the opposite
point to the sun (where it is midnight) is not completely dark -- the
Vedic model describes a big mountain narrow at the bottom and wide at
the top at the North Pole which casts a shadow over the other side of
the planet making it dark. (you may not belive such a mountain could
exist but we are trying to understand the model at the moment so don't
worry about it)
Hold it straight below the piece of cardboard -- this represents midnight.
NO. NO. NO!
>
> Repeat this for B, C, and D -- the Vedic geocentric model succeeds
> that far, when applied locally, i.e. to one point at a time.
>
> Now, here's the challenge: try to apply it globally: hold the lamp
> in such a position that it, simultaneously, will appear:
>
> 1. directly above as seen from A ("noon")
>
> 2. directly below as seen from C ("midnight")
>
> 3. directly from the side as seen from B and D ("sunrise"/"sunset")
>
> You should hold the lamp (our "sun") and the piece of cardboard (our
> flat "earth") in such a way that conditions 1., 2. and 3. all are
> fullfilled -- AT THE SAME TIME !!!!
>
I think you can now see they are.
> Pretty hard, isn't it ???
Not at all, it just requires lateral thinking.
>
> Now, replace the piece of cardboard with a round ball. Mark off the
> four points A,B,C,D on the equator of that ball. Hold it so that
> the lamp ("sun") appears overhead from A, directly below from C, and
> at the "horizon" from B and D. This is child's play.
Of course.
>
> Perhaps you question if C really has midnight when A has noon. Here
> your old trusted friend enters the picture -- hav him travel to C,
> while you remain at A. When you have noon, call up your friend and
> ask him whether he has day or night....
>
No need.
>
> Do you still claim that a flat-earth model works as well as a round-earth
> model ???
>
Yes. It does perfectly model what we see happening around us, you just
have to take the time to understand it. I have never said it is actually
like this....
> >> 2. This experiment requires some time and effort from you: you should
> >> learn the constellations in the sky. Spend a year or two to
> >> become truly familiar with them. You'll learn which constellations
> >> are visible from your place. Pay particular attention to the
> >> south (this assumes you live on the northern hemisphere), since there
> >> most constellations will be at its highest above the horizon (don't
> >> take my word for this -- find out yourself through your own
> >> observations!), in particular the borderline of what's visible and
> >> what never becomes visible (i.e. what never rises above the southern
> >> horizon). When you know the sky really well, travel south a thousand
> >> miles or so, and observe the sky from your new location. You'll find
> >> out that, above the southern horizon, there'll be constellations you
> >> never saw before (don't take my word for this -- look for yourself!).
> >> Travel even more south and you'll see even more new constellations.
> >> If the earth was flat, this should never happen.....
> >
> > Even if the earth is flat your field of vision is only so wide and you
> > are looking into the sky in a different direction. I have used this in
> > another posting but will repeat it: [this may not completely explain
> > what you have said]
> >
> >> Madhudvisa, honey, I see you're posting from Australia. Have you
> >> ever wondered why books and pictures of the moon and the stars which
> >> are published in the northern hemisphere show a view which is quite
> >> clearly upside-down, compared to what you see if you go outside at
> >> night and look up? Think about it.
> >
> > If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and stand
> > on one side of it and mark the top with your pen, if you go to the
> > other side and look at it you will find your "top" marking on the
> > bottom. So it is possible to apparently turn things upside down
> > just by changing the direction you look at them -- you don't have
> > to turn upside-down yourself..
> >
> > If we take the sun as an example and it is above the equator. On
> > the flat earth model the people inside the equator (the Northern
> > Hemisphere) would see the sun one way and those on the other side
> > of the equator would still see the same "face" of the sun but it
> > would appear to be upside down...
> >
> > Hare Krishna
> >
> > If you do this you will see the things upside-down as we experience and
> > you are also seeing things from a different angle, you're looking into
> > space a completely different way. If you do blu-tak a plate to the roof
> > move around it and look... You see a different view of the room from
> > every position.
>
> Well, yes, although the difference in perspective will be different
> than observed in the real sky: in your ceiling, patterns not only
> change orientation but they also change apparent shape when observed
> from different points in the room. In the real sky, the constellations
> ONLY change orientation, they NEVER change shape!!!
>
> But you didn't answer my question, and your "ceiling analogy" clearly
> doesn't answer it. From different parts of the room you see the ceiling
> in a different perspective, yes, but you ALWAYS see the WHOLE ceiling!
You can never see the whole ceiling, you have to move your head. If you
move your head you can not only see the ceiling, you can see the floor
as well.. you can see 360 degrees horizontal and 360 degrees vertical.
If you are looking into the sky, even if the earth is flat, the best you
can see is 360 degrees horizontal and 180 degrees vertical. To be
truthful I have not really comprehended this and I can't fully explain
it but that is my ignorence of the model, not a fault in the model. It
needs intelligent people like you to work it out.
Thank you. Hare Krishna.
--
Madhudvisa dasa |
| S H E L T E R I N T E R N A T I O N A L
|____________________________________________
Demons do not surrender unto Me.
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org