Even if that was true it would be irrelevent that would just be air resistance deforming it but if it was truely void of all forces then it would be perfectly round it's how we form lead shot.
Ok so here you go how do you explain that liquids absent of forces assume the shape with the least surface area per unit volume. That's why raindrops are round and how lead shot is formed. The earth is mostly liquid the core is liquid so therefore because it's not influenced by forces it's round just wondering if anyone has a response
Raindrops start out as round high in the atmosphere as water collects on dust and smoke particles in clouds. But as raindrops fall, they lose their rounded shape. Instead, a raindrop is more like the top half of a hamburger bun. Flattened on the bottom and with a curved dome top, raindrops are anything but the classic tear shape. The reason is due to their speed falling through the atmosphere.
raindrops void of forces are round they air friction distorts them as they fall so they are no longer void of forces
AND his point supports mine internal forces inside the object (gravity) pull everything inwards towards the center when there are no forces from outside the object making it a sphere making it the least surface area per volume because of this.he also expands my argument from liquids to all objects, solids just need more gravity to do.
AND his point supports mine internal forces inside the object (gravity) pull everything inwards towards the center when there are no forces from outside the object making it a sphere making it the least surface area per volume because of this.he also expands my argument from liquids to all objects, solids just need more gravity to do.
and the earth is mostly liquid in the core and mantleHave you personally verified this or are you just blindly taking someone's word for it? This is not a how a zetecist would handle it.
2. The earth is not a raindropThe Earth also isn't a liquid.
Small quantities of mercury become spheriods
R u kidding no it's not have you seen water in space it's round oh wait you don't think that really happened
Aether really aether I can't even believe that people can be so willfully ignorant and illogical. I might as well say the earth is a cube and my little brother pushing it causes gravity and light just bends around the cube to make it look round. Special pleading and moving the goal post that's all this claim is. You start at a preconceived notion and use special pleading whenever it's proven wrong. You have no evidence and are illogical in your beliefs. You are no more valid than saying I have an invisible dragon who can't be detected by anything. This is complete and utter nonsense (non-science) is more like it. I hope all of you someday realize how ignorant you are being.
Falling water droplets don't form spheres. They become flattened disks.It never ceases to amaze me how Tom Bishop never reads his own quoted material. From the quote above,
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/science_sky/91232
In actual fact, even the hamburger-bun shape for raindrops, which is based on the observations of single drops steadily falling through a nearly non-turbulent airstream, is idealized, particularly for heavy rain events. If we could isolate single drops in a rainstorm and follow each from its formation until its final splashdown, we would see, not a tear drop, nor a steady spherical or bun-shaped mass, but an ever-changing, quasi-spherical shape throughout its lifetime.(emphasis mine).
Falling water droplets don't form spheres. They become flattened disks.It never ceases to amaze me how Tom Bishop never reads his own quoted material. From the quote above,
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/science_sky/91232QuoteIn actual fact, even the hamburger-bun shape for raindrops, which is based on the observations of single drops steadily falling through a nearly non-turbulent airstream, is idealized, particularly for heavy rain events. If we could isolate single drops in a rainstorm and follow each from its formation until its final splashdown, we would see, not a tear drop, nor a steady spherical or bun-shaped mass, but an ever-changing, quasi-spherical shape throughout its lifetime.(emphasis mine).
It has become a hobby of mine finding just how inane and poor Tom Bishop's research is. Never mind surface tension is irrelevant for a whole planet (gravity is the real force here) but Tom Bishop tells us as a fact that falling water droplets are flat, and they are not. There is a huge difference between a specific droplet size of water falling in non-turbulent wind being a flattened sphere, and "water droplets become flattened disks".Falling water droplets don't form spheres. They become flattened disks.It never ceases to amaze me how Tom Bishop never reads his own quoted material. From the quote above,
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/science_sky/91232QuoteIn actual fact, even the hamburger-bun shape for raindrops, which is based on the observations of single drops steadily falling through a nearly non-turbulent airstream, is idealized, particularly for heavy rain events. If we could isolate single drops in a rainstorm and follow each from its formation until its final splashdown, we would see, not a tear drop, nor a steady spherical or bun-shaped mass, but an ever-changing, quasi-spherical shape throughout its lifetime.(emphasis mine).
So what exactly is your point?
It has become a hobby of mine finding just how inane and poor Tom Bishop's research is. Never mind surface tension is irrelevant for a whole planet (gravity is the real force here) but Tom Bishop tells us as a fact that falling water droplets are flat, and they are not. There is a huge difference between a specific droplet size of water falling in non-turbulent wind being a flattened sphere, and "water droplets become flattened disks".Falling water droplets don't form spheres. They become flattened disks.It never ceases to amaze me how Tom Bishop never reads his own quoted material. From the quote above,
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/science_sky/91232QuoteIn actual fact, even the hamburger-bun shape for raindrops, which is based on the observations of single drops steadily falling through a nearly non-turbulent airstream, is idealized, particularly for heavy rain events. If we could isolate single drops in a rainstorm and follow each from its formation until its final splashdown, we would see, not a tear drop, nor a steady spherical or bun-shaped mass, but an ever-changing, quasi-spherical shape throughout its lifetime.(emphasis mine).
So what exactly is your point?
It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.
It's amazing to me that a particularly zealous, if ignorant, globularist states that the earth must be round like a rain drop or lead shot, and the only argument the rest of you wish to talk about is that Dr. Bishop's observation only rings true in an "idealized environment". If you spent half as much time grooming your fellow globularist, it would be time well spent. Perhaps you could remove a few nits from your own hide before applying the fine-tooth comb to Planists.The only advantage flattists have over REr's is that they write pretty good disses, even if they add nothing to the discussion.
I too believe in a round earth...a round FLAT earth. As an obvious sign of their combined stunted mental growth malnourished by media driven dribble and ridiculous techno babble, the proponents of a spherical world have used a two dimensional verb to name themselves. Completely owned.
It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.Since when is a hamburger bun flat?
It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.Since when is a hamburger bun flat?
If the author was thinking of flat, he would have said "flat as a coin".
It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.Since when is a hamburger bun flat?
If the author was thinking of flat, he would have said "flat as a coin".
A hamburger bun is flat in the exact same sense that the Earth is flat.
Flat on the top and round on the bottom. We are on an upside-down hamburger bun.It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.Since when is a hamburger bun flat?
If the author was thinking of flat, he would have said "flat as a coin".
A hamburger bun is flat in the exact same sense that the Earth is flat.
So the earth is flat on the bottom and round on the top? ???
(http://firstharvest.us/proimage/large/hamburger_bun200910150350.jpg)
Flat on the top and round on the bottom. We are on an upside-down hamburger bun.It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.Since when is a hamburger bun flat?
If the author was thinking of flat, he would have said "flat as a coin".
A hamburger bun is flat in the exact same sense that the Earth is flat.
So the earth is flat on the bottom and round on the top? ???
(http://firstharvest.us/proimage/large/hamburger_bun200910150350.jpg)
What bizarre fantasy theories you Round-Earthers concoct.Flat on the top and round on the bottom. We are on an upside-down hamburger bun.It says right in the bit you quoted that they do, in fact, fall in the shape of a hamburger bun.Since when is a hamburger bun flat?
If the author was thinking of flat, he would have said "flat as a coin".
A hamburger bun is flat in the exact same sense that the Earth is flat.
So the earth is flat on the bottom and round on the top? ???
(http://firstharvest.us/proimage/large/hamburger_bun200910150350.jpg)
Demons are RE´ers! That explains everything...
Flat on the top and round on the bottom. We are on an upside-down hamburger bun.
Flat on the top and round on the bottom. We are on an upside-down hamburger bun.
Aether resistance.Flat on the top and round on the bottom. We are on an upside-down hamburger bun.
The question that springs to mind then is why an upside-down hamburger bun? What are the forces that contort it into this shape? If it's forces much the same as those that act on a raindrop, then there should be a force pushing down on the surface we live on to make it flat.
Flat on the top and round on the bottom. We are on an upside-down hamburger bun.
Hmmm... Flat and round... That may be an approach for a compromise between different theories...(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6623/hybridearth.png)
Another round earther with photoshop and paint skills. This has been noted.
Aether resistance.
No. How does that follow?Aether resistance.
Wouldn't we then have an unexplained resistive force every time we move around? Why don't we detect this?
Aether resistance.
Wouldn't we then have an unexplained resistive force every time we move around? Why don't we detect this?
How has air resistance been disproved? ???Aether resistance.
Wouldn't we then have an unexplained resistive force every time we move around? Why don't we detect this?
Now air resistance has been disproved?
How has air resistance been disproved? ???Aether resistance.
Wouldn't we then have an unexplained resistive force every time we move around? Why don't we detect this?
Now air resistance has been disproved?
Aether resistance.
Wouldn't we then have an unexplained resistive force every time we move around? Why don't we detect this?
No. How does that follow?
Now air resistance has been disproved?
Well, a force that resists the motion of the flat Earth upwards would no doubt resist the motion of any objects on it's surface that this aether also comes into contact with. Why wouldn't it?The aether comes into contact with the air of the atmolayer. Aether is not air.
It´s not because, well, it dooes not exit. Also, it´s incompatible by definition with the relativityWell, a force that resists the motion of the flat Earth upwards would no doubt resist the motion of any objects on it's surface that this aether also comes into contact with. Why wouldn't it?The aether comes into contact with the air of the atmolayer. Aether is not air.
ORLY?It´s not because, well, it dooes not exit. Also, it´s incompatible by definition with the relativityWell, a force that resists the motion of the flat Earth upwards would no doubt resist the motion of any objects on it's surface that this aether also comes into contact with. Why wouldn't it?The aether comes into contact with the air of the atmolayer. Aether is not air.
Yep. The Lorenz equation (?) was made for aetherical measures (it states the compresion of the aether being pushed on near-light speeds) , and then, with the substitution of aether with space, it just explains the effects of near light speeds on bodies. As it can only be used to ONE of those things, and it has been proved, you must choose. Aether, or Real Life TMYou must be referring to the Lorentz ether theory.
What is now often called Lorentz Ether theory ("LET") has its roots in Hendrik Lorentz's "Theory of electrons", which was the final point in the development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century.Even Wikipedia seems to think this is BS. Why should this be taken as evidence?
Lorentz's initial theory created in 1892 and 1895 was based on a completely motionless aether. It explained the failure of the negative aether drift experiments to first order in v/c by introducing an auxiliary variable called "local time" for connecting systems at rest and in motion in the aether. In addition, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment led to the introduction of the hypothesis of length contraction in 1892. However, other experiments also produced negative results and (guided by Henri Poincaré's principle of relativity) Lorentz tried in 1899 and 1904 to expand his theory to all orders in v/c by introducing the Lorentz transformation. In addition, he assumed that also non-electromagnetic forces (if they exist) transform like electric forces. However, Lorentz's expression for charge density and current were incorrect, so his theory did not fully exclude the possibility of detecting the aether. Eventually, it was Henri Poincaré who in 1905 corrected the errors in Lorentz's paper and actually incorporated non-electromagnetic forces (incl. Gravitation) within the theory, which he called "The New Mechanics". Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were incorporated into special relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski.
WTF means BS?Use Urban Dictionary.
It really hurts my religion to use a trollish dictionary.Urban Dictionary is not for trolls. It is a reliable source for all kinds of slang and the names of bizarre sexual practices.