- Prev: Re: Telling Liesd for God - The Science if the Bible
- Next: Re: Books are the key
- Index: The Sudarsana Archive -- Date Index
- Thread: The Sudarsana Archive -- Topic Index
Date Index | Topic Index
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org
Dear Glen,
Thank you for your reply. I see your points are presented very
scientifically and conclusively. I really undertook this exercise to try
and understand the Vedic model more completely and how it fits with the
current views. So I greatly appreciate your input. I can't realistically
argue the "flat earth" model but my other aim was to try and present the
idea the same thing can be seen from different angles and that our view
of the world is truly a relative one.
Incidentally, I have discovered some scientists (notably some responses
from sci.astro) are VERY touchy about anything which goes against their
ideas. It seems to be almost the same reaction one gets when speaking to
fanatical a born-again christian (I'm not referring to you or the others
who have responded very intelligently and logically).
I have included a reply I sent to an astronomer in Sweden and I would be
interested in your opinion of the effect of the pseudo-force on
aircraft, whether it would be absent as I have suggested and what does
actually happen on an airplane?
I don't know what you think, but I am convinced there is something
beyond this universe and some intelligent direction behind everything. I
could never seriously accept the idea that, "It all came from nothing,"
and "You are born, you get old and you die. End of story."
Thanks again,
Madhudvisa dasa .
Subject: Re: HINDUISM, ASTRONOMY & MODERN SCIENCE
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 08:54:27 -0900
Organization: Shelter International
pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <shelter-2404950925450001@mg4_38.its.utas.edu.au> you write:
>
> > Firstly, as far as the earth being fixed or rotating, we can't
> > tell. Everything is relative. We are certainly moving in relation
> > to the sun, the moon and the other heavenly bodies, but they could
> > conceivably be moving while we are stationary.
>
> Nonsense! The relativity principle that you try yo invoke here is valid
> only for RECTILINEAR and UNIFORM motion. This excludes rotation -- it
> DOES matter what rotates and what does not.
>
> One example: if the earth was non-rotating, then the coriolis force,
> which acts on anything moving along the surface of the earth, would
> be absent (the coriolis force is a pseudo-force that appears whenever
> one pretends that a rotating coordinate system is non-rotating). In
> meteorology the coriolis force is very important -- without it all
> those well-known low and high pressure centers, as well as the more
> powerful tropical hurricanes, would never form.
>
This is actually the strongest evidence for the earth being a rotating
globe. Andrew Bromage described it very nicely to me.
> Dear Andrew,
G'day.
> Thank you for 'entering into the spirit' of this little exercise
> and editing and commenting on my original posting.
Thanks --- I always love a good thought exercise.
> I was wondering if you could explain to me what the "coriolis
> pseud-force at the equator" is and how it would affect the
> North-Pole centered flat earth?
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.
It is caused by a pseudo-force (similar to centrifugal pseudo-force
in that it isn't really a force) called the coriolis pseudo-force.
It can best be explained by noticing that the surface of the Earth
moves "faster" near the equator. It still moves at the same angular
velocity (360 degrees per 24 hours), but the linear speed (in metres
per second or kilometres per hour) is greater.
This means that if you are in the southern hemisphere and you take
any area, the northernmost part of that area is moving faster than
the southernmost part. However if you are directly on the equator,
the northernmost part and the southernmost part will be moving at
the same speed.
Do you kind of understand this?
I think you can see that if the Earth were a disc centred at the
North pole, the equator would not be preferred over any other part
of the Earth for this effect. Also, centrifugal effects should be
noticed, but they are not now.
All the best.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
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. However
if the earth was fixed and the coriolis force was imposed somehow from a
rotating universe above the effect would not change if you left the
earth's surface. The simple experiment is to see what happens in an
airplane. 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!
> > 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. I must
have got used to the forces. It seems stationary to me. The sun seems to
be moving. If it wasn't for the scientists I would probably [and so
would you] think I was stationary and the universe was moving.
Presumably if I was born on the carousel I would also get used to it and
if there was some scientist there to tell me I was stationary [even
though it felt like I was moving] while it was the universe moving
around me, I'd probably believe him.
> > So how could this planet be flat and we have not noticed? Sometimes
> > we can find two or more hypothesis to explain a given set of data
> > equally well. They both predict the outcome of future events and
> > the operation of the system. But one is right and the other is
> > wrong. Or maybe both are right?
> >
> > We are biased toward the modern idea of a globe shaped earth
> > because we have had it drummed into us by the education system..
> > and we have seen the pictures!
>
> Nobody need to just trust our education system or the pictures we see,
> anyone can easily, for themselves, learn that the earth is not flat.
> Below is two experiments anyone can perform:
>
> 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. 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.
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) 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.
>
> 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.
And of course we have this classical experiment:
3. Select any direction, travel in a straight line, continue until you
return to your starting point.....
This works in the flat-earth model as long as you travel East-West, or
even Northeast and so on but it won't work if you travel due North or
due South. Has anyone done it, I wonder?
>
> Of course there's a final escape for the determined flat-earther: to
> refuse to believe your eyes ......
That is not very scientific.
So, in conclusion, the matter can be very simply settled. Just look at
the water going down the plug-hole the next time you pull the plug out
of the basin in the bathroom of an airplane. If the water goes straight
down and you're not over the equator then the world is a rotating
sphere, however if it swirls around we might have to consider other
possibilities!
Please chant Hare Krishna and be happy in this life and don't come back
to this material world any more. It's miserable here! Instead go back
home, back to Godhead and serve Krishna there.
Thank you everyone for your time and interest in this exercise.
--
Madhudvisa dasa |
| S H E L T E R I N T E R N A T I O N A L
|____________________________________________
The present age is characterised by a bitter struggle for a short life
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org