Why do men have nipples?
Sorry, the title of the thread is a bit misleading and I maybe did not read the OP. I thought you want to disprove RE using physics and math and I really wanted to see how you do that.
Can you? Just for me?
Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model
This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.
The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.
This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.
The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.
Why is there a waterfall on Lake Victoria, Africa, where the said centrifugal forces are bulging the water out to make the earth globe? If the earth's rotation is bulging the water out at the equator, how can it also fall to a lower spot on earth? If the water at the equator is being bulged out to make the globe, why is the large Lake Victoria, sitting at the equator, so level and horizontal across its surface?
http://vizts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Victoria-Falls-amazing-view.jpg
Why is there a waterfall on Lake Victoria, Africa, where the said centrifugal forces are bulging the water out to make the earth globe? If the earth's rotation is bulging the water out at the equator, how can it also fall to a lower spot on earth? If the water at the equator is being bulged out to make the globe, why is the large Lake Victoria, sitting at the equator, so level and horizontal across its surface?The apparent acceleration due to the apparent centrifugal force is roughly 0.03 m/s^2 (I can do the math again if you want, even showing the derivation of it).
Why do men have nipples?Because they are mutant women.
This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.
The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.
This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.
The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.
This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.
The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.
OK I know you can answer most problems as you are smart but please tell me this
which come first the chicken or the egg on ball earth :-X lol
This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.
The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.
Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.
What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?
Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?
Mars got me thinking about this.
This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.
The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.
Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.
What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?
Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?
Mars got me thinking about this.
It's a combination of various things: Gravity, the Earth's magnetic field and the cycles of the dynamic atmosphere.
Watch the flat earth proponents telling me that any source I post is part of the great conspiracy.
However, for those serious about debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind#Atmospheres
http://sciencing.com/earths-magnetosphere-protects-suns-solar-wind-1955.html - this one actually talks about Mars too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape#Dominant_atmospheric_escape_and_loss_processes_on_Earth
Yes, I'm using wikipedia - it's laid out concisely and simply and if you want more information there are countless links to follow. But since I ask more of people coming at this from the other side, I'm also going to explain how I understand what's going on:
The Earth's gravity keeps the atmosphere close to it, just like it does with the moon and the plethora of space junk accruing in orbit - much of which can be observed with nothing more than a pair of binoculars if you know where to look. On top of that, the dynamic centre of the earth produces a magnetic field that keeps us safe from the ravages of the near-vacuum of space. Hot metal spinning fast produces electromagnetic currents - this is a scientific fact you can verify yourself if you really want to (but this isn't a discussion of electrodynamics - go to a physics board if you want to argue that.) Plus, anyone who has used a compass has observed the effect of the Earth's magnetic field.
The most commonly observable consequences of this solar wind hitting the magnetosphere are the aurorae which happen above both the north and the south pole. This does send charged particles into the atmosphere, but this isn't where we get the matter back. Most of the air lost to the solar wind is replenished by the Earth itself. On top of that, oxygen gas is too massive to be stripped away by the solar wind quickly thanks to a combination of the magnetosphere and Earth's gravity. Over astronomical time periods, the atmosphere is being stripped away but due to the size of the Earth, this effect is negligible on human time scales.
Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.
tl;dr - the particles do escape, but it's happening really slowly because the Earth is really big and has a magnetic field
Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model
Rotational speed of outer section of galaxies?
This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.
The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.
Why is there a waterfall on Lake Victoria, Africa, where the said centrifugal forces are bulging the water out to make the earth globe? If the earth's rotation is bulging the water out at the equator, how can it also fall to a lower spot on earth? If the water at the equator is being bulged out to make the globe, why is the large Lake Victoria, sitting at the equator, so level and horizontal across its surface?
http://vizts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Victoria-Falls-amazing-view.jpg
(http://image.prntscr.com/image/b29e75941a4e4d599c09853f2d2fee8d.png)
In fact, you weigh less near the equator but this difference is negligible. Over large scales, the bulge is measurable. It is 26 miles. Still small though. It would be a few pixels wide in a photo of earth from space. Any claim which tells the earth looks like a perfect sphere in NASA's photons is by people who don't understand this simple fact.
/Topic Closed
This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.
The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.
Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.
What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?
Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?
Mars got me thinking about this.
Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.There is no sharp boundary of space, it just fades off.
What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?
Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?
Mars got me thinking about this.
He is asking why the outer sections of galaxies are rotating at a speed which doesn't match the amount of visible matter in the galaxy.Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model
Rotational speed of outer section of galaxies?
Irrelevant to FE or RE models. I could still answer your question but I am not able to understand what you are asking.
Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.There is no sharp boundary of space, it just fades off.
What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?
Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?
Mars got me thinking about this.
As you get high enough, the gas begins to act as particles.
Some of it does fly off, some comes in from elsewhere. But the main factor is gravity. It is now acting as a particle, not as a gas. The vast majority of these particles are well below the escape velocity (for Earth anyway). This means they will go into various orbits, mostly elliptical orbits resulting in them colliding with the gas below them.
But yes, a small portion will be above the escape velocity and leave. For smaller objects, like the moon, the escape velocity is much smaller, allowing far more to leave.
He is asking why the outer sections of galaxies are rotating at a speed which doesn't match the amount of visible matter in the galaxy.Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model
Rotational speed of outer section of galaxies?
Irrelevant to FE or RE models. I could still answer your question but I am not able to understand what you are asking.
I very much doubt we understand 0.1% of it.
This is an open challenge. Provide me with any evidence that disproves round earth and I'll give an explanation using mathematics and physics on why it is wrong.
The only assumption I am going to make is that the mathematics and physics I have been taught is true.
Why is there a waterfall on Lake Victoria, Africa, where the said centrifugal forces are bulging the water out to make the earth globe? If the earth's rotation is bulging the water out at the equator, how can it also fall to a lower spot on earth? If the water at the equator is being bulged out to make the globe, why is the large Lake Victoria, sitting at the equator, so level and horizontal across its surface?
http://vizts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Victoria-Falls-amazing-view.jpg
Lake Victoria is subject to gravity AND centrifugal force.
We keep coming back to this - why do you think physical forces are mutually exclusive?
And while were at it, have you been there?
Now let's use your reasoning:
How do we know that's a picture of Lake Victoria? We have to take your word for it. There is no way for us to verify that that is what you say it is.
Just another empty assertion with fake pictures.
If you want to use photographic evidence to support your claims, you can't discount any of the photos that have been used to discount yours.
Water can't obey both forces at the same time. Water in this bucket is being controlled by centrifugal forces, notice none of the water is trying to fall to a lower point on earth, it is being forced away from earth. Water cannot be controlled by both forces at the same time.Yes, it can.
You said you could disprove the evidence for flat earth with math and physics, all you could do was dismiss a picture of LV as being an actual photo. Go figure, another failure by an RE-ers. Typical!No. I pointed out why your claim is false, and that water will obey both forces, and that results int the equator bulging.
Water can't obey both forces at the same time. Water in this bucket is being controlled by centrifugal forces, notice none of the water is trying to fall to a lower point on earth, it is being forced away from earth. Water cannot be controlled by both forces at the same time.Yes, it can.
It can't be dominated by both.
Planes fly by a balance of a multitude of forces.
When it increases the lift on one wing to bank right, it doesn't magically just get controlled by that one force.
Do you have a rational objection, or can you just repeat the same nonsense?You said you could disprove the evidence for flat earth with math and physics, all you could do was dismiss a picture of LV as being an actual photo. Go figure, another failure by an RE-ers. Typical!No. I pointed out why your claim is false, and that water will obey both forces, and that results int the equator bulging.
What was your refutation? Just repeating the same refuted crap.
So no, another fail by you FE-ers.
Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.There is no sharp boundary of space, it just fades off.
What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?
Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?
Mars got me thinking about this.
As you get high enough, the gas begins to act as particles.
Some of it does fly off, some comes in from elsewhere. But the main factor is gravity. It is now acting as a particle, not as a gas. The vast majority of these particles are well below the escape velocity (for Earth anyway). This means they will go into various orbits, mostly elliptical orbits resulting in them colliding with the gas below them.
But yes, a small portion will be above the escape velocity and leave. For smaller objects, like the moon, the escape velocity is much smaller, allowing far more to leave.
Gases are made up of particles? So are liquids and solids?
Good point about the Moon. The moon does not have an atmosphere because its escape velocity is 5 times lesser than that of earth. The moon's gravity isn't powerful enough to retain an atmosphere. The average surface temperature of the moon (100 C) is higher than that of earth (16 C).He is asking why the outer sections of galaxies are rotating at a speed which doesn't match the amount of visible matter in the galaxy.Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model
Rotational speed of outer section of galaxies?
Irrelevant to FE or RE models. I could still answer your question but I am not able to understand what you are asking.
That is an open question. Answer it and you'll win the next nobel prize.
Many hypotheses have been put forward to explain the observations but none have been confirmed. The most popular hypothesis is dark matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
This question is irrelevant to the FE-RE discussion. I was asking for observations which FE explains or which debunks RE. Does FE have a solution for this? :P
Water can't obey both forces at the same time. Water in this bucket is being controlled by centrifugal forces, notice none of the water is trying to fall to a lower point on earth, it is being forced away from the container that holds it, the bucket. Water cannot be controlled by both forces at the same time.
Serious one - At high alt, right on boundary of space.There is no sharp boundary of space, it just fades off.
What stops small particles escaping? they must be colliding, moving about so whats stopping them just moving that little bit more over that line and floating off?
Could that be happening but they are getting replaced by inbound particles kind of a constant balancing act ?
Mars got me thinking about this.
As you get high enough, the gas begins to act as particles.
Some of it does fly off, some comes in from elsewhere. But the main factor is gravity. It is now acting as a particle, not as a gas. The vast majority of these particles are well below the escape velocity (for Earth anyway). This means they will go into various orbits, mostly elliptical orbits resulting in them colliding with the gas below them.
But yes, a small portion will be above the escape velocity and leave. For smaller objects, like the moon, the escape velocity is much smaller, allowing far more to leave.
Gases are made up of particles? So are liquids and solids?
Good point about the Moon. The moon does not have an atmosphere because its escape velocity is 5 times lesser than that of earth. The moon's gravity isn't powerful enough to retain an atmosphere. The average surface temperature of the moon (100 C) is higher than that of earth (16 C).He is asking why the outer sections of galaxies are rotating at a speed which doesn't match the amount of visible matter in the galaxy.Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model
Rotational speed of outer section of galaxies?
Irrelevant to FE or RE models. I could still answer your question but I am not able to understand what you are asking.
That is an open question. Answer it and you'll win the next nobel prize.
Many hypotheses have been put forward to explain the observations but none have been confirmed. The most popular hypothesis is dark matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
This question is irrelevant to the FE-RE discussion. I was asking for observations which FE explains or which debunks RE. Does FE have a solution for this? :P
"The most popular hypothesis is dark matter."
Thus it becomes the most popular and accepted explanation in the realm of materialistic mainstream science. Mentally being put on a pedestal with a law/principle of science. Like the rest of the institutions of this world, science has become a total abortion of truth.
"Does FE have a solution for this? :P"
Didn't you claim to be the one explaining everything?
I see you offered no evidence to support your claim. I offered visual evidence to support my claim. You are the one with the crap! Fact, you are not even good enough to have any crap. In order to have crap, you have to ingest something of substance. Your Mickey Mouse intelligence doesn't register on the intelligence scale of substance.I did provide evidence, in the forms of planes, which would fall out of the sky if they could only have one force acting upon them, as well as a multitude of other examples previously.
Water can't obey both forces at the same time. Water in this bucket is being controlled by centrifugal forces, notice none of the water is trying to fall to a lower point on earth, it is being forced away from the container that holds it, the bucket. Water cannot be controlled by both forces at the same time.
You are standing on the ground because the floor is exerting a normal force upwards to prevent the gravitational force from taking you down. There are forces due to air resistance acting at the same time.
The fact that you told that two forces cannot act together indicates that you have probably failed 8th grade.
Water can't obey both forces at the same time. Water in this bucket is being controlled by centrifugal forces, notice none of the water is trying to fall to a lower point on earth, it is being forced away from the container that holds it, the bucket. Water cannot be controlled by both forces at the same time.
You are standing on the ground because the floor is exerting a normal force upwards to prevent the gravitational force from taking you down. There are forces due to air resistance acting at the same time.
The fact that you told that two forces cannot act together indicates that you have probably failed 8th grade.
One more unsupported, unprovable sorry excuse. In the longggggggggggg line of sorry ass excuses. If gravity and centrifugal forces can act on water at the same time, then why doesn't the water in the rotating bucket fall to the lowest place on earth? The centrifugal force of earth's spin is said to be strong enough to force the water on earth into a bulge out, and even more at the equator. Lake Victoria, right on the equator, shows no signs of bulging out over its surface. That large body of water is flat and horizontal to plane earth, even boasting a waterfall, where the water is seeking the next lowest point it can fall to, it is not bulging out.
Two opposite forces, gravity, and centrifugal force, cannot act on water at the same time. Saying I flunked 8th grade is an insult, because you know you're wrong about Lake Victoria and the centrifugal force of the alleged spinning globe. The water in Lake Victoria behaves like it is on a motionless plane, not a spinning speeding ball.
Only a person with a defunct argument needs to hurl insults at someone with a different idea. Especially if the idea is beyond refutation. You can't refute what earth's nature shows:
Tell you what, Africa looks pretty dang flat, and that large body of water does not behave like centrifugal forces are bulging out. You can believe what you wish, but the evidence from earth's physical state, just does not support a spinning globe.
(http://)
One more unsupported, unprovable sorry excuse.No. One more solid rebuttal against your BS.
If gravity and centrifugal forces can act on water at the same time, then why doesn't the water in the rotating bucket fall to the lowest place on earth?Because in this situation the centrifugal forces are greater, causing it to fly to the outside of the bucket. If you slow the bucket down enough, eventually gravity wins and you get wet.
The centrifugal force of earth's spin is said to be strong enough to force the water on earth into a bulge out, and even more at the equator.Yes, a very tiny amount. The bulge is a mere 0.15%.
Lake Victoria, right on the equator, shows no signs of bulging out over its surface.That is because you aren't viewing a large enough area.
That large body of water is flat and horizontal to plane earthExcept you can't show it is flat.
where the water is seeking the next lowest point it can fall to, it is not bulging out.Again, you just can't detect it.
Two opposite forces, gravity, and centrifugal force, cannot act on water at the same time.Yes, they can. They do so quite often.
because you know you're wrong about Lake Victoria and the centrifugal force of the alleged spinning globe. The water in Lake Victoria behaves like it is on a motionless plane, not a spinning speeding ball.No. We know you are wrong.
Especially if the idea is beyond refutation. You can't refute what earth's nature shows:Good think your idea is very easy to refute and goes completely against what Earth's nature shows.
Tell you what, Africa looks pretty dang flat, and that large body of water does not behave like centrifugal forces are bulging out.It looks pretty consistent with both, until you get a curved horizon.
You can believe what you wish, but the evidence from earth's physical state, just does not support a spinning globe.No. It does support it.
Notice the fluid surface forms a parabolic shape?It looks much cooler when you have a parabolic dish with a lip).
Thought that was cool.
Carry on . . . . .
Notice the fluid surface forms a parabolic shape?It looks much cooler when you have a parabolic dish with a lip).
Thought that was cool.
Carry on . . . . .
You put the water in, then get it spinning at just the right speed and it has a nice thin coating over the entire surface.
Two opposite forces, gravity, and centrifugal force, cannot act on water at the same time.Rubbish!
Physical Observer
I'm sorry but you are displaying astonishing scientific illiteracy. Of course multiple forces can act on an object at the same time. Does gravity just say "ok centrifugal force, your turn - I'll just nip out for a smoke and a pancake whilst you carry on"?
If you pick something up off the floor gravity doesn't look the other way for a bit. You just apply a greater force. The net vector addition has the resultant going up so the object moves upwards.
To be honest if you don't get this then there's pretty much no point debating anything with you.
Newton's laws are clearly laid out here...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Physical Observer
I'm sorry but you are displaying astonishing scientific illiteracy. Of course multiple forces can act on an object at the same time. Does gravity just say "ok centrifugal force, your turn - I'll just nip out for a smoke and a pancake whilst you carry on"?
If you pick something up off the floor gravity doesn't look the other way for a bit. You just apply a greater force. The net vector addition has the resultant going up so the object moves upwards.
To be honest if you don't get this then there's pretty much no point debating anything with you.
Newton's laws are clearly laid out here...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Number one, never, ever give me wiki as a source. Once I found wiki change the Principle of Biogenesis to the hypothesis of biogenesis, I banned them from my list of a respectable and acceptable information resource.
Number two, show me an case from earth's nature where water is obeying both forces, centrifugal and gravity, at the same time, BET YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!!
Physical Observer
I'm sorry but you are displaying astonishing scientific illiteracy. Of course multiple forces can act on an object at the same time. Does gravity just say "ok centrifugal force, your turn - I'll just nip out for a smoke and a pancake whilst you carry on"?
If you pick something up off the floor gravity doesn't look the other way for a bit. You just apply a greater force. The net vector addition has the resultant going up so the object moves upwards.
To be honest if you don't get this then there's pretty much no point debating anything with you.
Newton's laws are clearly laid out here...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Number one, never, ever give me wiki as a source. Once I found wiki change the Principle of Biogenesis to the hypothesis of biogenesis, I banned them from my list of a respectable and acceptable information resource.
Number two, show me an case from earth's nature where water is obeying both forces, centrifugal and gravity, at the same time, BET YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!!
You are unbelievably scientifically illiterate. Even a 4-year-old kid understands that you can pull a person using both his hands. You are applying two forces.
There are millions (if not billions) of examples where more than one force is acting. Students from 9th grade to 12th grade solve hundreds of problems involving multiple forces.
Take a 9th grade textbook and start studying. You seem to have failed high school (if not primary school).
We are talking about water, dude, not people. Please show me the evidence where water is obeying both forces, gravity and centrifugal, at the same time. Your claims mean absolutely nothing without visual evidence to back it up. I baked up my claim with visual evidence, why can't you?
The Amazon River right on the equator in S. America:
The river shows no indication it is being acted upon by centrifugal forces. Please notice the shelf of water between the two falls, horizontally flat to plane earth across its surface. Now please show me your visual evidence of water being pulled by centrifugal force, and also falling to the lowest point possible on earth. Time to put your money where your mouth is.........................
Lol, you just lost the battle and adjusted your question. Anyway here is a proof for water too:
It is a common high school problem to find the shape of the surface in a rotating body. The result turns out to be parabolic. We consider the gravitational force + centrifugal force together to obtain the answer.
The water does not go through the container because the container is pushing the water back in. You have 3 obvious forces (+ more hidden forces).
P.S: If you had a little better understanding of science, I would have screwed you long ago. Every particle of water is feeling a force from every other particle of water in its vicinity. I don't expect you to understand it so let us not talk about it.
Lol, you just lost the battle and adjusted your question. Anyway here is a proof for water too:
It is a common high school problem to find the shape of the surface in a rotating body. The result turns out to be parabolic. We consider the gravitational force + centrifugal force together to obtain the answer.
The water does not go through the container because the container is pushing the water back in. You have 3 obvious forces (+ more hidden forces).
P.S: If you had a little better understanding of science, I would have screwed you long ago. Every particle of water is feeling a force from every other particle of water in its vicinity. I don't expect you to understand it so let us not talk about it.
That is not visual evidence that water on earth is being pulled to make earth's curvature, and also falling to a lower place on earth at the same time. Water on earth does not act like the water in the rotating container. You can't find a body of water on earth that is both being pulled from earth by centrifugal force, and falling to a lower place on earth at the same time, can you? You can't even find a body of water on earth that is being pulled away from earth by centrifugal force, can you? That is why you need to insult and use lab experiments that do not apply.
Notice the water in the rotating container becomes concave when centrifugal forces are applied, the water surface does not convex to make an arch, a bow across its surface, does it? If you spun that container to match earth's 1,000 MPH surface, I bet the water would fly out the open top of the container. You'd have to put a lid on it to keep the liquid in the container. Bodies of water on earth don't have lids on them, do they?
We are talking about water, dude, not people. Please show me the evidence where water is obeying both forces, gravity and centrifugal, at the same time. Your claims mean absolutely nothing without visual evidence to back it up. I baked up my claim with visual evidence, why can't you?
The Amazon River right on the equator in S. America:
The river shows no indication it is being acted upon by centrifugal forces. Please notice the shelf of water between the two falls, horizontally flat to plane earth across its surface. Now please show me your visual evidence of water being pulled by centrifugal force, and also falling to the lowest point possible on earth. Time to put your money where your mouth is.........................
do you know how much centrifugal force is acting on the water?
even if you do not believe that the earth is global, do the calculation.
here an example:
lets calculate the force on a human body:
centrifugal force F=m*v^2/r
m=100kg
v=1000 mph = 447 m/s
r=6371km = 6371000 m
F=100 kg * 447^2 m^2/s^2 / 6371000m
F=3.13 kg m/s^2
as we know kg m/s^2 is Newton
its a force of 3N
that can be seen as a weight of 0.3 kg
that is only 0.3% of the body weight.
Lol, you just lost the battle and adjusted your question. Anyway here is a proof for water too:
It is a common high school problem to find the shape of the surface in a rotating body. The result turns out to be parabolic. We consider the gravitational force + centrifugal force together to obtain the answer.
The water does not go through the container because the container is pushing the water back in. You have 3 obvious forces (+ more hidden forces).
P.S: If you had a little better understanding of science, I would have screwed you long ago. Every particle of water is feeling a force from every other particle of water in its vicinity. I don't expect you to understand it so let us not talk about it.
That is not visual evidence that water on earth is being pulled to make earth's curvature, and also falling to a lower place on earth at the same time. Water on earth does not act like the water in the rotating container. You can't find a body of water on earth that is both being pulled from earth by centrifugal force, and falling to a lower place on earth at the same time, can you? You can't even find a body of water on earth that is being pulled away from earth by centrifugal force, can you? That is why you need to insult and use lab experiments that do not apply.
Notice the water in the rotating container becomes concave when centrifugal forces are applied, the water surface does not convex to make an arch, a bow across its surface, does it? If you spun that container to match earth's 1,000 MPH surface, I bet the water would fly out the open top of the container. You'd have to put a lid on it to keep the liquid in the container. Bodies of water on earth don't have lids on them, do they?
we can not "see" it because the effect is constant and very little, as i showed you in the post above.
Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.I am sorry, but aurora have been observed everywhere on Earth.
Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.I am sorry, but aurora have been observed everywhere on Earth.
Centrifugal force does not cause water to "bend around the earth"!
that is only 0.3% of the body weight.
"do you know how much centrifugal force is acting on the water?"
Enough to allegedly bow water on earth to make this:
But water at the equator looks like this, horizontally flat to plane earth across its surface:Of course you "don't see centrifugal forces at work", because all they do is slightly reduce the effective gravity!
Ocean water Senegal, Africa, right on the equator. I don't see centrifugal forces at work:
Now please, if you have visual evidence to support your claim, present it, or be honest and say you have none.
Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.I am sorry, but aurora have been observed everywhere on Earth.
Yep, we cannot see it, because it is not happening. I have the visual proof, you do not.
Yep, we cannot see it, because it is not happening. I have the visual proof, you do not.
we all have visual and logic prove that it is happening.
you stated in one post you teach your baseball team to use the magnus effect.
can you see the effect directly? no you only see the result of it.
there we can see that you are unable to use simple logic.
Yep, we cannot see it, because it is not happening. I have the visual proof, you do not.
we all have visual and logic prove that it is happening.
you stated in one post you teach your baseball team to use the magnus effect.
can you see the effect directly? no you only see the result of it.
there we can see that you are unable to use simple logic.
I have not been shown any bodies of water that rest in an earthly vessel, like a lake, river, pond, or ocean, that is being subjected to centrifugal forces. I have shown you'll bodies of water at the equator, where the centrifugal forces are said to be the strongest, that do not match water being subjected to centrifugal forces. Water at the equator is flat, level and horizontal across its surface, it does not bow in a curve, and still fall to a lower spot on earth.
Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.I am sorry, but aurora have been observed everywhere on Earth.
I've seen it from my mountain perch in Maine.
Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.I am sorry, but aurora have been observed everywhere on Earth.
I don't see it. It can't happen either. The magnetic field of the earth diverts the charged particles towards the poles. Therefore, you can see aurora near the poles.
Please do your homework and don't make baseless fake claims.
Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.I am sorry, but aurora have been observed everywhere on Earth.
I don't see it. It can't happen either. The magnetic field of the earth diverts the charged particles towards the poles. Therefore, you can see aurora near the poles.
Please do your homework and don't make baseless fake claims.
I do not give two shakes whether or not you have seen it.
Aurora have been reported from all over the Earth at all different latitudes and longitudes.
You go do some research before you throw out more crap.
Water can't obey both forces at the same time. Water in this bucket is being controlled by centrifugal forces, notice none of the water is trying to fall to a lower point on earth, it is being forced away from earth. Water cannot be controlled by both forces at the same time.Yes, it can.
It can't be dominated by both.
Planes fly by a balance of a multitude of forces.
When it increases the lift on one wing to bank right, it doesn't magically just get controlled by that one force.
Do you have a rational objection, or can you just repeat the same nonsense?You said you could disprove the evidence for flat earth with math and physics, all you could do was dismiss a picture of LV as being an actual photo. Go figure, another failure by an RE-ers. Typical!No. I pointed out why your claim is false, and that water will obey both forces, and that results int the equator bulging.
What was your refutation? Just repeating the same refuted crap.
So no, another fail by you FE-ers.
"It can't be dominated by both."
I see you offered no evidence to support your claim. I offered visual evidence to support my claim. You are the one with the crap! Fact, you are not even good enough to have any crap. In order to have crap, you have to ingest something of substance. Your Mickey Mouse intelligence doesn't register on the intelligence scale of substance.
Physical Observer
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Physical Observer
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been explained to you over and over again. The resultant force on the water at the equator is still down as the centrifugal force (acting in the opposite directition to gravity) is tiny.
All the waters you see ARE curved. It's just that it's impossible to see as the radius of curvature is 6400 kilometres!
I'm beginning to think that this just one big wind up.
Did you look up Newton's laws?
We know the earth is round. Agree?Physical Observer
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been explained to you over and over again. The resultant force on the water at the equator is still down as the centrifugal force (acting in the opposite directition to gravity) is tiny.
All the waters you see ARE curved. It's just that it's impossible to see as the radius of curvature is 6400 kilometres!
I'm beginning to think that this just one big wind up.
Did you look up Newton's laws?
None of you can show me the physical evidence form earth, can you? Impossible to see the curvature, can't find any bodies of water on earth dealing with centrifugal forces, the ground feels motionless.
"Did you look up Newton's laws?"
Did you look at the physical condition of earth?
We know the earth is round. Agree?Physical Observer
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been explained to you over and over again. The resultant force on the water at the equator is still down as the centrifugal force (acting in the opposite directition to gravity) is tiny.
All the waters you see ARE curved. It's just that it's impossible to see as the radius of curvature is 6400 kilometres!
I'm beginning to think that this just one big wind up.
Did you look up Newton's laws?
None of you can show me the physical evidence form earth, can you? Impossible to see the curvature, can't find any bodies of water on earth dealing with centrifugal forces, the ground feels motionless.
"Did you look up Newton's laws?"
Did you look at the physical condition of earth?
"Did you look at the physical condition of the earth"
Yes, it's round. I can tell it's not flat because the sun sets below a clear horizon. (Not some wishy-washy fading away atmosphere bollocks). That horizon recedes if I gain altitude. The earth and sea do measurably bulge a bit at the equator due to centrifugal force.
Ok, did you look up Newton's laws?
Do you ever answer a question?
I give up.
Ah go on, one more go....
Did you look up Newton's Laws of motion? Have you tried to understand them - you must have done them at school. They explain all you misunderstandings and misconceptions.
Edit to add...
I'm doing forces/acceleration etc with my kids at the moment. I've been looking at that website I linked earlier. It really is excellent so thanks!
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Physics-Tutorial/Newton-s-Laws
Ok, you're making yourself look ignorant and stupid.
The ignorance you can do something about with a bit of effort.
People are politely spoon feeding you answers but to not even look at the resources people are providing you is just plain rude.
Ok, you're making yourself look ignorant and stupid.
The ignorance you can do something about with a bit of effort.
People are politely spoon feeding you answers but to not even look at the resources people are providing you is just plain rude.
They are not the answers requested. It is you'll that is looking ignorant and stupid.
Ok, you're making yourself look ignorant and stupid.
The ignorance you can do something about with a bit of effort.
People are politely spoon feeding you answers but to not even look at the resources people are providing you is just plain rude.
They are not the answers requested. It is you'll that is looking ignorant and stupid.
ignorant is somebody that ignores the evidence that got shown to him.
Relative to the sun it is.We know the earth is round. Agree?Physical Observer
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been explained to you over and over again. The resultant force on the water at the equator is still down as the centrifugal force (acting in the opposite directition to gravity) is tiny.
All the waters you see ARE curved. It's just that it's impossible to see as the radius of curvature is 6400 kilometres!
I'm beginning to think that this just one big wind up.
Did you look up Newton's laws?
None of you can show me the physical evidence form earth, can you? Impossible to see the curvature, can't find any bodies of water on earth dealing with centrifugal forces, the ground feels motionless.
"Did you look up Newton's laws?"
Did you look at the physical condition of earth?
But not a spinning speeding sphere.
Smart move, because there is no visual evidence from earth's nature that supports being on a spinning speeding ball. I really don't care what Newton thought he experienced. Obviously, he didn't investigate the physical condition of earth that well.
| (https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1429114964p2/9810.jpg) | .... | “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” |
It is you'll that is looking ignorant and stupid.Says the guy STILL using "you'll" incorrectly after being told multiple times it does NOT mean "you all" but rather "you will". Ah, irony.
Well, I can overlook grammatical errors if he could just get a basic grasp of critical thinking, at least at the level that my 7 year old autistic nephew has.It is you'll that is looking ignorant and stupid.Says the guy STILL using "you'll" incorrectly after being told multiple times it does NOT mean "you all" but rather "you will". Ah, irony.
That is not visual evidence that water on earth is being pulled to make earth's curvature, and also falling to a lower place on earth at the same time.No one ever said anything of the like.
Water on earth does not act like the water in the rotating container. You can't find a body of water on earth that is both being pulled from earth by centrifugal force, and falling to a lower place on earth at the same time, can you? You can't even find a body of water on earth that is being pulled away from earth by centrifugal force, can you? That is why you need to insult and use lab experiments that do not apply.We can, every single body of water on Earth is.
Notice the water in the rotating container becomes concave when centrifugal forces are applied, the water surface does not convex to make an arch, a bow across its surface, does it?And that is because of the direction of those forces.
If you spun that container to match earth's 1,000 MPH surfaceThen you would be spinning it way to fast. You cannot honestly represent the force by spinning a much smaller container at the same tangential velocity.
I bet the water would fly out the open top of the container. You'd have to put a lid on it to keep the liquid in the container. Bodies of water on earth don't have lids on them, do they?I see you are back to claiming it should fly off.
Once I found wiki change the Principle of Biogenesis to the hypothesis of biogenesisBefore you were claiming it was a law. What changed? Did you realise you were wrong?
Number two, show me an case from earth's nature where water is obeying both forces, centrifugal and gravity, at the same time, BET YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!!We have provided you a case where water is obeying both forces. Care to address that?
"do you know how much centrifugal force is acting on the water?"No. Gravity is what does the majority of the bowing. Gravity alone would pull Earth into a sphere.
Enough to allegedly bow water on earth to make this:
But water at the equator looks like this, horizontally flat to plane earth across its surface:You keep saying that, but you are yet to prove it. You are yet to demonstrate that it doesn't follow the curve of Earth.
Ocean water Senegal, Africa, right on the equator. I don't see centrifugal forces at work:Because they are too small for you to detect, and they are at an equilibrium with gravity.
I have shown you'll bodies of water at the equator, where the centrifugal forces are said to be the strongest, that do not match water being subjected to centrifugal forces. Water at the equator is flat, level and horizontal across its surface, it does not bow in a curve, and still fall to a lower spot on earth.No. They do match. You don't seem to understand what that means do you?
Smart move, because there is no visual evidence from earth's nature that supports being on a spinning speeding ball. I really don't care what Newton thought he experienced. Obviously, he didn't investigate the physical condition of earth that well.No. There is plenty. It has been provided to you and you just dismiss it or lie about it or ignore it.
Water conforms to forces acting upon it:
Another mountain where sun casts shadow upward. This makes FE model impossible. How can he sun be lower than the mountain?
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5ba92u/mt_hood_casting_a_shadow_on_the_clouds_this/
Because 1.5 degrees over 6 minutes is too fast? Oh wait, no it isn't. Just further proof you have no clue what you're talking about.Another mountain where sun casts shadow upward. This makes FE model impossible. How can he sun be lower than the mountain?
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5ba92u/mt_hood_casting_a_shadow_on_the_clouds_this/
Go back and look at my rebuttal to the previous mountain shadow claim. It proves a motionless platform for the mountain, not one moving at 1,600 feet per second. The mountain would not be in the same position long enough to cast any shadow of any recordable duration on a spinning ball.
Mountain shadows proving rotating earth, debunked, again! You'll need a new shtick!
Now all you have to do is prove that that is what is happening to earth physically with evidence from physical earth, good luck!I already provided a picture of it.
Go back and look at my rebuttal to the previous mountain shadow claim. It proves a motionless platform for the mountain, not one moving at 1,600 feet per second. The mountain would not be in the same position long enough to cast any shadow of any recordable duration on a spinning ball.Do you mean where you spoued pure nonsense and got your ass handed to you, yet again?
Mountain shadows proving rotating earth, debunked, again! You'll need a new shtick!
I give up.
Ah go on, one more go....
Did you look up Newton's Laws of motion? Have you tried to understand them - you must have done them at school. They explain all you misunderstandings and misconceptions.
Edit to add...
I'm doing forces/acceleration etc with my kids at the moment. I've been looking at that website I linked earlier. It really is excellent so thanks!
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Physics-Tutorial/Newton-s-Laws
"I give up."
Smart move, because there is no visual evidence from earth's nature that supports being on a spinning speeding ball. I really don't care what Newton thought he experienced. Obviously, he didn't investigate the physical condition of earth that well.
That's funny curvature shouldn't be measurable left to right at sea level.
I've seen people measure a horizon drop with a theodolite but I think you don't know what you are talking about.
Whats next? Toilets flushing in different directions? Travelling west in a plane is faster than travelling east?
Edit, in hindsight it looks like the picture is on the piss, check your line again.
Travelling west in a plane is faster than travelling east because the earth is rotating. Go find out why rockets are launched from west to east. *high school physics*
Lmao.
Dude weak.
Inertial FoR, high school physics.
That's funny curvature shouldn't be measurable left to right at sea level.
I've seen people measure a horizon drop with a theodolite but I think you don't know what you are talking about.
Whats next? Toilets flushing in different directions? Travelling west in a plane is faster than travelling east?
Edit, in hindsight it looks like the picture is on the piss, check your line again.
Travelling west in a plane is faster than travelling east because the earth is rotating. Go find out why rockets are launched from west to east. *high school physics*
Lmao.
Dude weak.
Inertial FoR, high school physics.
Can you elaborate on your claim of magic planes?
(What is it with people and magic planes?)
Another mountain where sun casts shadow upward. This makes FE model impossible. How can he sun be lower than the mountain?
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5ba92u/mt_hood_casting_a_shadow_on_the_clouds_this/
Go back and look at my rebuttal to the previous mountain shadow claim. It proves a motionless platform for the mountain, not one moving at 1,600 feet per second. The mountain would not be in the same position long enough to cast any shadow of any recordable duration on a spinning ball.
Mountain shadows proving rotating earth, debunked, again! You'll need a new shtick!
That's funny curvature shouldn't be measurable left to right at sea level.
I've seen people measure a horizon drop with a theodolite but I think you don't know what you are talking about.
Whats next? Toilets flushing in different directions? Travelling west in a plane is faster than travelling east?
Edit, in hindsight it looks like the picture is on the piss, check your line again.
Travelling west in a plane is faster than travelling east because the earth is rotating. Go find out why rockets are launched from west to east. *high school physics*
Lmao.
Dude weak.
Inertial FoR, high school physics.
Can you elaborate on your claim of magic planes?
(What is it with people and magic planes?)
The direction of jetstreams are decided by the rotation of the earth. I am sorry for not being clear. If there was no jetstream, travelling either side in a plane wouldn't make a difference.