[Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

Quote from: JackBlack on April 05, 2017, 12:37:47 AM

Quote from: Semnomic on April 04, 2017, 06:11:08 PM

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.

There is no sharp boundary of space, it just fades off.
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).

Quote from: JackBlack on April 05, 2017, 12:38:49 AM

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:09:13 PM

Quote from: disputeone on April 04, 2017, 02:33:13 PM

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

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.

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.

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?

"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? "

Didn't you claim to be the one explaining everything?

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.

Quote from: Yashas on April 05, 2017, 12:47:26 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 05, 2017, 12:37:47 AM

Quote from: Semnomic on April 04, 2017, 06:11:08 PM

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.

There is no sharp boundary of space, it just fades off.
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).

Quote from: JackBlack on April 05, 2017, 12:38:49 AM

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:09:13 PM

Quote from: disputeone on April 04, 2017, 02:33:13 PM

Quote from: Yashas on April 04, 2017, 08:35:42 AM

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.

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.

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?

"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? "

Didn't you claim to be the one explaining everything?

The platform is yours if you want to explain it, physical observer.

Or you can do what any sensible scientist who doesn't know does:

Say "I don't know."

Then maybe yes can get back to the lost of questions you haven't answered.


You can take a crack, Yashas - I can guarantee you will answer them better.

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.

You didn't offer any evidence to support your claim.
Water in a bucket doesn't show that multiple forces can't act at once.

Perhaps this is a simpler one for you to understand:
Is a broken down car easier to move if you have multiple people pushing it?
See, if the BS you are saying is true, then only one force can act on the car at a given time.
So if someone stars pushing it, in order for that force to have an effect, all other forces can't be acting on it, that means no gravity (or whatever bullshit you want in its place) holding it down so it should start just floating away.
If someone else starts pushing it, well you can only have 1 force acting at once, so that means for them to have an effect they can be the only one providing any force to it, so the other people pushing it are useless.

Back in reality, instead of your delusional fantasy world, multiple forces can act at once.
That means each person is providing a force to the car trying to move it and all those forces are acting on the car. This is why multiple people can push something (or have it easier to do) when one of them couldn't do it alone (or would find it very difficult), and gravity continues acting on it holding the car down.

Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim, or just bullshit?

Are you aware that several of the videos you have provided previously refute your claim and instead show exactly what you are arguing against now?

Here one is:


If what you are saying is true, then the water must either obey gravity (or whatever bullshit you want in its place), and fall to the lowest point, becoming a level surface, or it must obey centrifugal forces, and be thrown to the sides of the container.

But what actually happens?
It obeys both.
There is the gravitational force pulling it down, but there is also the centrifugal force pushing it to the side. This results in it bulging up at the sides and the surface being in equilibrium with the forces balanced.

Is that enough evidence for you?
Or do you have an explanation of what is going on in those videos which doesn't involve 2 or more forces?

Quote from: physical observer on April 05, 2017, 03:49:15 AM

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.

Quote from: Yashas on April 05, 2017, 06:36:34 AM

Quote from: physical observer on April 05, 2017, 03:49:15 AM

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.

Once again, physical forces are not mutually exclusive.

And sorry to bring this up again, but if you don't accept our photographic evidence, how can you use photos and videos to support yours?

(Excuse me while I get flat for a sec)
How can we take your word that this is Victoria Falls? How do we know this isn't fake?
Have you been there yourself?  Have you observed this physically?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Notice the fluid surface forms a parabolic shape?

Thought that was cool.

Carry on . . . . .

One more unsupported, unprovable sorry excuse.

No. One more solid rebuttal against your BS.
It is a situation where 2 opposing forces are acting upon you.

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.
Even if you were viewing all of Earth, the bulge is so small you cannot detect without a guide or instrument.

That large body of water is flat and horizontal to plane earth

Except you can't show it is flat.
There is no indication it isn't following the curve of Earth.

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.

Not detecting it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Two opposite forces, gravity, and centrifugal force, cannot act on water at the same time.

Yes, they can. They do so quite often.

You even provided a video where it happened.
Here is that video again:


If only one force could act then either the water would have to fall to the bottom of the container, being completely consistent with a stationary one, or it would need to fly to the side, not being under the force of gravity (or whatever else you want to say makes things fall) at all.

Instead, the water surface is at an angle, in one case following a parabola (at least approximately).

If you wish to assert they cannot act at the same time you will need to provide a reason (and preferably evidence) which indicates they can't.

Having one force massively larger than the other so it appears that only one is acting is not demonstrating the other one is not acting, all it does is indicate the other is too small to detect in that experiment.

You would need a situation where the 2 forces are comparable in magnitude (like say the video you provided), where only one acts.

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.
On the small scale, the water in Lake Victoria behaves like Earth was either a motionless plane or a spinning, speeding ball.
There is no way to distinguish them.
On the larger scale, it acts like a spinning ball, not a motionless plane.

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?

Thought that was cool.

Carry on . . . . .

It looks much cooler when you have a parabolic dish with a lip).
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.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 05, 2017, 03:28:27 PM

Notice the fluid surface forms a parabolic shape?

Thought that was cool.

Carry on . . . . .

It looks much cooler when you have a parabolic dish with a lip).
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.

What about a Flat dish accelerating at 9.8m/s/s?
Genuinely curious as to how this would look

I won't bother answering because I have already answered. If physical observer cannot understand high school level physics and math, I am helpless.

@Physical Observer

How many forces are acting if two people are pulling you from two sides?

Two opposite forces, gravity, and centrifugal force, cannot act on water at the same time.

Rubbish! In that video,

• If gravity acted alone the water surface would be (locally) flat.
• If centrifugal force acted alone the water would be vertical against the sides of the container.

It is the two forces, gravity, and centrifugal force acting together that makes the surface take on a parabolic shape.

Even if the two forces are opposing, the nett force is still just the vector sum.

At the equator
          the gravitational acceleration alone is about 9.84 m/s² and
          the centrifugal acceleration alone is about 0.03 m/s², so
the nett gravity (as we call it) is about 9.81 m/s². I said "about" because it does depend on altitude and other factors.

In other words, the effect of the earth's rotation is only about 0.3% that of gravitation.

Is that too much to swallow?

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!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Zaphod on April 06, 2017, 02:10:32 AM

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).

Quote from: physical observer on April 06, 2017, 02:38:16 AM

Quote from: Zaphod on April 06, 2017, 02:10:32 AM

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.

Objects don't "obey" forces, they are subject to forces and and move according to Newton's laws. Forces are vector quantities and can be summed accordingly.

So, the water at the equator is being pulled towards centre of the earth by gravity, AND being flung out by centrifugal force. As has been said countless times gravity is a lot stronger so the water doesn't fly off. Nor do you fly off.

Newton's laws don't change just because they are on Wikipedia. Look them up and try to understand them. You must surely have covered them at school?

Please try to understand or there is little point entering into a discussion.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Physics-Tutorial/Newton-s-Laws

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?

Quote from: Yashas on April 06, 2017, 04:07:41 AM

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.

Quote from: physical observer on April 06, 2017, 02:57:39 AM

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.

"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:



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.

Quote from: physical observer on April 06, 2017, 04:44:02 AM

Quote from: Yashas on April 06, 2017, 04:07:41 AM

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.

Yep, we cannot see it, because it is not happening. I have the visual proof, you do not.

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.

Quote from: Novarus on April 04, 2017, 06:49:24 PM

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.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 06, 2017, 04:43:13 AM

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:

Centrifugal force does not cause water to "bend around the earth"!
All it does in make the equatorial diameter of the earth about 0.3% larger than the polar diameter.

But water at the equator looks like this, horizontally flat to plane earth across its surface:



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.

Of course you "don't see centrifugal forces at work", because all they do is slightly reduce the effective gravity!

You have not the slightest concept of "relative values".

Sure, I agree that "water at the equator looks like this, horizontally flat to plane earth across its surface".
Because as I and others have explained numerous times, on the Globe it should look flat, especially over small areas.

We tell you the same things over and over and you take absolutely no notice.
Please explain why you ignore the simple explanations you are given numerous times!

Quote from: Novarus on April 04, 2017, 06:49:24 PM

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.

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.

Quote from: physical observer on April 06, 2017, 05:06:03 AM

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.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 06, 2017, 06:09:40 AM

Quote from: physical observer on April 06, 2017, 05:06:03 AM

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.

the centrifugal force acts perpendicular to the water surface therefore you do not see it directly.

and whats with the magnus effect do you have no answer for it or do you simply ignoring it now?