The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: sceptimatic on April 09, 2013, 11:53:51 AM
-
.....
-
If the earth is rotating at 1038 mph and we don't feel it because the atmosphere is rotating in unison with it because it's somehow gripped to the ground, then why don't miners "underground" not feel the earths rotation?
After all, surely the atmosphere isn't gripping the underground with them is it.
Not sure what you're asking here Sceptimatic - are you suggesting that miners should feel wind underground?
What do you think the miners should experience on a Round Earth that apparently they do not?
-
It's one of his weekly troll posts. But please sceptics enlightens us. Why should they feel wind if that is what you are getting at. This should further your creadbility and the creadbility of this socioty no end.
-
I'm not on about wind, I'm on about feeling the supposed rotation.
Why should they?
-
Well, apparently the earth rotates at 1038 mph and we don't feel it because on the earth, the atmosphere rotates exactly with the rotation and is the reason we don't feel it's movement supposedly, so if that's the case, then why don't miners feel the rotation as they are not under the influence of this magic earth gripped atmosphere rotating with the earth are they.
Bwahaha! That's stupider than water-logged metal from the other gravity thread.
-
Yes. Much much more.
-
Enjoy your shower, do you use a luffa or a chunk of metal to wash with. Bwahaha!
-
I'm not on about wind, I'm on about feeling the supposed rotation.
Why should they?
Well if the earth is spinning at 1038 mph, shouldn't their senses tell them they are moving?
Same reason as always; the same readon that you don't feel like you're moving in an airplane or car that's going at a constant speed. What does being underground have to do with it? There's no special "influence" from the atmosphere at ground level. ???
-
I'm not on about wind, I'm on about feeling the supposed rotation.
Why should they?
Well if the earth is spinning at 1038 mph, shouldn't their senses tell them they are moving?
Same reason as always; the same readon that you don't feel like you're moving in an airplane or car that's going at a constant speed. What does being underground have to do with it? There's no special "influence" from the atmosphere at ground level. ???
Same on the top and same under ground. Ok.
When you're in a plane do you know how fast you're going?
-
Sceptimatic
Take an ant. Put the ant on a ball, like a tennis ball. Turn the ball at the rate of 1 turn per 24 hours. Ask ant if he/she felt the spin.
-
Sceptimatic
Take an ant. Put the ant on a ball, like a tennis ball. Turn the ball at the rate of 1 turn per 24 hours. Ask ant if he/she felt the spin.
Then, to satisfy scepti, make a hole in the tennis ball, put the ant in the hole, and repeat the experiment.
-
Same on the top and same under ground. Ok.
I think he gets it..
-
Sceptimatic
Take an ant. Put the ant on a ball, like a tennis ball. Turn the ball at the rate of 1 turn per 24 hours. Ask ant if he/she felt the spin.
A flawed analogy for several reasons, but ok.
-
Sceptimatic
Take an ant. Put the ant on a ball, like a tennis ball. Turn the ball at the rate of 1 turn per 24 hours. Ask ant if he/she felt the spin.
(http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-video/437745.gif)
Sceptimatic
Take an ant. Put the ant on a ball, like a tennis ball. Turn the ball at the rate of 1 turn per 24 hours. Ask ant if he/she felt the spin.
A flawed analogy for several reasons, but ok.
Reasons besides the fact that if the Earth was a tennis ball we would be the size of a bacterium? Obviously, we are not quite as big as an ant compared to a tennis ball.
What other reasons?
-
The ant is still affected by an outside force - gravity. It would feel like you would feel if you closed your eyes on a rollercoaster. In a vacuum you would be correct (ignoring point when you started and stopped the ball spinning). Also ignore the fact that an ant's answer to that question would be something like 'what is spin?' ( kkkzzkk chhrk kttks)
-
Reasons besides the fact that if the Earth was a tennis ball we would be the size of a bacterium? Obviously, we are not quite as big as an ant compared to a tennis ball.
What other reasons?
The velocity at the equator of the tennis ball's rotation would be about 5 micrometres per second, while on Earth it's about 460 metres per second.
The tennis ball is not in a vacuum free fall like the Earth is.
The gravitational attraction between the tennis ball and the ant is negligible.
The atmosphere isn't rotating with the tennis ball, so if the ball was spinning fast enough, the air would blow the ant off if the centripetal acceleration already didn't.
-
Every seems to be having a problem with the size of a tennis ball. Not the fact that we've discovered how to communicate with Ants ;)
-
Every seems to be having a problem with the size of a tennis ball. Not the fact that we've discovered how to communicate with Ants ;)
I for one welcome our ant overlords.
-
I'm not on about wind, I'm on about feeling the supposed rotation.
Why should they?
Well if the earth is spinning at 1038 mph, shouldn't their senses tell them they are moving?
If you're in a car with all of the windows painted black and moving at a constant speed, do your senses tell you that you're moving?
-
Reasons besides the fact that if the Earth was a tennis ball we would be the size of a bacterium? Obviously, we are not quite as big as an ant compared to a tennis ball.
What other reasons?
The velocity at the equator of the tennis ball's rotation would be about 5 micrometres per second, while on Earth it's about 460 metres per second.
The tennis ball is not in a vacuum free fall like the Earth is.
The gravitational attraction between the tennis ball and the ant is negligible.
The atmosphere isn't rotating with the tennis ball, so if the ball was spinning fast enough, the air would blow the ant off if the centripetal acceleration already didn't.
The tennis ball analogy is merely used to show how slow the Earth is moving in relation to it's size. It rotates once every 24 hours. That is the point. Skepti was misunderstanding how large the Earth is. Moving at 1030 mph is not fast when you know how huge the (RE) earth is.
The atmosphere isn't rotating with the tennis ball, so if the ball was spinning fast enough, the air would blow the ant off if the centripetal acceleration already didn't.
No, the ball cannot rotate faster, because it must rotate once every 24 hours. If you speed it up to the point of flinging the ant off, it will be rotating twice per second (or slower, or faster, you know what I mean.)
The velocity at the equator of the tennis ball's rotation would be about 5 micrometres per second, while on Earth it's about 460 metres per second.
Yes, but the point was, the ratio between the Earths size and rotation speed must be equal to the tennis ball's size and rotation speed. For it to be equal, they must both rotate once every 24 hours.
-
Scepti was asking why we can't feel the rotation, but what is meant by that is the 1000mph velocity at the equator of the Earth in relation to Earth's centre. The tennis ball fails to create the same conditions if you apply the same rules to it as the Earth is undergoing.
-
Yeah the tennis ball thing pretty much sucks. You can't say we can't feel it because it is so slow because actually it is pretty fast.
-
Yeah the tennis ball thing pretty much sucks. You can't say we can't feel it because it is so slow because actually it is pretty fast.
lol.
The speed does not matter. Do we have to explain relativity to you too? We could be spinning 5,000,000 mph on an enormous "planet", but as long as it rotates once every 24 hours, you will detect as much movement as we feel standing on the Earth right now.
On a spinning sphere, the "equator" is going a certain direction until it starts to curve. As long as this curve of motion is not too sharp, we won't feel anything.
Back to tennis ball. If you fly out to space until the Earth is as big as a tennis ball to you, it will appear as if it is standing still, barely rotating. Unless you watch very closely, you won't detect movement, simply because it spins once per day. It will spin half way around in 12 hours. That dude in space watching us "spin" "really fast" on Earth will say, "Huh? You guys are hardly moving. Calm down. It seems like 1030 mph is huge, but not for a sphere with a circumference of 24,900 miles."
-
I'm debating whether to actually reply to you because your 'how clever I think I am':'how clever what I am saying is' ratio is really skewed.
Relativity is nothing to do with what your are talking about.
But basically, you literally said nothing correct in that post. The reason we don't feel any movement on the earth isn't because of its speed at all. It's because everything around us moves at the same speed as the earth. It could spin once a second and we wouldn't notice because everything else, including ourselves, is spinning once a second.
-
But basically, you literally said nothing correct in that post. The reason we don't feel any movement on the earth isn't because of its speed at all. It's because everything around us moves at the same speed as the earth. It could spin once a second and we wouldn't notice because everything else, including ourselves, is spinning once a second.
Really? You're going to call him stupid and then say that?
-
So it's the speed then? ???
-
Everyone keeps saying stuff, but not actually calculating anything.
The fact is that over such a large distance, the high velocity of a point on the equator wouldn't affect anyone much. I weigh 90kg. At the equator, the centripetal force exerted on me due to the spinning earth is only 3N. The force acting on me due to gravity is 883N. The resultant force is 880N, so not much difference (0.34%). C'mon, this is basic stuff.
It can easily be shown that Fg = 288.24Fc where Fg is the force acting on a mass due to gravity and Fc is the force acting on said mass due to centripetal motion. (In other words, as above, Fc is only 0.34% of Fg). This is at the equator.
-
Everyone keeps saying stuff, but not actually calculating anything.
The fact is that over such a large distance, the high velocity of a point on the equator wouldn't affect anyone much. I weigh 90kg. At the equator, the centripetal force exerted on me due to the spinning earth is only 3N. The force acting on me due to gravity is 883N. The resultant force is 880N, so not much difference (0.34%). C'mon, this is basic stuff.
It can easily be shown that Fg = 288.24Fc where Fg is the force acting on a mass due to gravity and Fc is the force acting on said mass due to centripetal motion. (In other words, as above, Fc is only 0.34% of Fg). This is at the equator.
Someone buy this guy a drink.
-
Everyone keeps saying stuff, but not actually calculating anything.
The fact is that over such a large distance, the high velocity of a point on the equator wouldn't affect anyone much. I weigh 90kg. At the equator, the centripetal force exerted on me due to the spinning earth is only 3N. The force acting on me due to gravity is 883N. The resultant force is 880N, so not much difference (0.34%). C'mon, this is basic stuff.
It can easily be shown that Fg = 288.24Fc where Fg is the force acting on a mass due to gravity and Fc is the force acting on said mass due to centripetal motion. (In other words, as above, Fc is only 0.34% of Fg). This is at the equator.
Well said... even extra effort for the subscripts
-
Well said... even extra effort for the subscripts
Correct use of SI units, subscripts, consistent notation, and even parenthesised explanation. You could publish that shit.
-
Everyone keeps saying stuff, but not actually calculating anything.
The fact is that over such a large distance, the high velocity of a point on the equator wouldn't affect anyone much. I weigh 90kg. At the equator, the centripetal force exerted on me due to the spinning earth is only 3N. The force acting on me due to gravity is 883N. The resultant force is 880N, so not much difference (0.34%). C'mon, this is basic stuff.
It can easily be shown that Fg = 288.24Fc where Fg is the force acting on a mass due to gravity and Fc is the force acting on said mass due to centripetal motion. (In other words, as above, Fc is only 0.34% of Fg). This is at the equator.
Ok so, 1oz of gold(approx 1600) is worth 1600 X .34% = 5.76 less on the equator.
-
This again? Gold's mass is measured by the Troy Ounce, an Imperial Unit of Mass. Not weight, mass. They use balance scales to measure the mass, not springs.
-
Ok so, 1oz of gold(approx 1600) is worth 1600 X .34% = 5.76 less on the equator.
Also your calculator sucks.
-
Well said... even extra effort for the subscripts
Correct use of SI units, subscripts, consistent notation, and even parenthesised explanation. You could publish that shit.
Went to a good Uni! Tuks of Niks!!
-
I'm debating whether to actually reply to you because your 'how clever I think I am':'how clever what I am saying is' ratio is really skewed.
Relativity is nothing to do with what your are talking about.
But basically, you literally said nothing correct in that post. The reason we don't feel any movement on the earth isn't because of its speed at all. It's because everything around us moves at the same speed as the earth. It could spin once a second and we wouldn't notice because everything else, including ourselves, is spinning once a second.
Incorrect. The centrifugal forces caused by basic physics, which you clearly skipped class to, would fling you off.
It does have to do with relativity. When you are on a spinning sphere, at time "a" you are travelling through space tangent to the sphere at that location due to momentum. If this change in direction from travelling tangent to point "a" to travelling tangent to point "b" is too sudden, you will certainly notice it.
When I said the "massive planet rotating at 5,000,000 mph", I meant everything was spinning with it, as you say, the same speed. So, the guy on the "planet" is rotating at 5,000,000 mph, along with everything on it.
What did I say that was logically or factually incorrect? I am always open for learning, so if you or anyone can explain what I missed, I will correct myself.
-
If the earth is rotating at 1038 mph and we don't feel it because the atmosphere is rotating in unison with it because it's somehow gripped to the ground, then why don't miners "underground" not feel the earths rotation?
After all, surely the atmosphere isn't gripping the underground with them is it.
If the world is hurtling upward at 9.8 m/s2 , why don't airplanes have to constantly aim upward?
-
If the earth is rotating at 1038 mph and we don't feel it because the atmosphere is rotating in unison with it because it's somehow gripped to the ground, then why don't miners "underground" not feel the earths rotation?
After all, surely the atmosphere isn't gripping the underground with them is it.
If the world is hurtling upward at 9.8 m/s2 , why don't airplanes have to constantly aim upward?
They do, but we've been brainwashed by NASA so we don't notice. :-\
-
If the earth is rotating at 1038 mph and we don't feel it because the atmosphere is rotating in unison with it because it's somehow gripped to the ground, then why don't miners "underground" not feel the earths rotation?
After all, surely the atmosphere isn't gripping the underground with them is it.
If the world is hurtling upward at 9.8 m/s2 , why don't airplanes have to constantly aim upward?
I'm stunned that you think that there is some other system whereby planes don't have to 'aim upward' to get into the sky..
-
Well said... even extra effort for the subscripts
Correct use of SI units, subscripts, consistent notation, and even parenthesised explanation. You could publish that shit.
Went to a good Uni! Tuks of Niks!!
Tuks of Niks indeed! I'm glad that I at least learned a bit more than the correct way to write stuff down, although for some professors it is far more important to explain every single little thing you write down with parenthesis (and to get your font and margins right) than to actually use your knowledge to solve a problem given to you accurately and produce a system that works. lol.
-
Well said... even extra effort for the subscripts
Correct use of SI units, subscripts, consistent notation, and even parenthesised explanation. You could publish that shit.
Went to a good Uni! Tuks of Niks!!
Tuks of Niks indeed! I'm glad that I at least learned a bit more than the correct way to write stuff down, although for some professors it is far more important to explain every single little thing you write down with parenthesis (and to get your font and margins right) than to actually use your knowledge to solve a problem given to you accurately and produce a system that works. lol.
Used to frustrate me no end... I am the untidiest person when working stuff out and just calculations where ever I have space... A lot of my time was spent was making my work illegible to the average person
-
Incorrect. The centrifugal forces caused by basic physics, which you clearly skipped class to, would fling you off.
It does have to do with relativity. When you are on a spinning sphere, at time "a" you are travelling through space tangent to the sphere at that location due to momentum. If this change in direction from travelling tangent to point "a" to travelling tangent to point "b" is too sudden, you will certainly notice it.
When I said the "massive planet rotating at 5,000,000 mph", I meant everything was spinning with it, as you say, the same speed. So, the guy on the "planet" is rotating at 5,000,000 mph, along with everything on it.
What did I say that was logically or factually incorrect? I am always open for learning, so if you or anyone can explain what I missed, I will correct myself.
Everything you've said is correct, except you're using that word again - relativity. It's obvious now that you're just misusing the word, and don't actually think that the speeds we are moving at are relativistic speeds.
I should also note that the massive planet rotating, say, 10x as fast as Earth, with the speeds at the equator being 5M mph, you need to also consider the gravity of such a large beast. We'd be surely crushed, and even more-so at the poles.
-
Incorrect. The centrifugal forces caused by basic physics, which you clearly skipped class to, would fling you off.
It does have to do with relativity. When you are on a spinning sphere, at time "a" you are travelling through space tangent to the sphere at that location due to momentum. If this change in direction from travelling tangent to point "a" to travelling tangent to point "b" is too sudden, you will certainly notice it.
When I said the "massive planet rotating at 5,000,000 mph", I meant everything was spinning with it, as you say, the same speed. So, the guy on the "planet" is rotating at 5,000,000 mph, along with everything on it.
What did I say that was logically or factually incorrect? I am always open for learning, so if you or anyone can explain what I missed, I will correct myself.
Everything you've said is correct, except you're using that word again - relativity. It's obvious now that you're just misusing the word, and don't actually think that the speeds we are moving at are relativistic speeds.
I should also note that the massive planet rotating, say, 10x as fast as Earth, with the speeds at the equator being 5M mph, you need to also consider the gravity of such a large beast. We'd be surely crushed, and even more-so at the poles.
Relativity does not only refer to Einstein's special and general theories. In fact his theories were only to extend relativity from Galilean Relativity.
-
Relativity does not only refer to Einstein's special and general theories. In fact his theories were only to extend relativity from Galilean Relativity.
While I've read about Galileo's work in this field, I didn't realize it was named relativity. Thanks.
-
A miner sat inside a small rail car underground should move in his rail car by the movement of the ground above him, in the real world of course but in the magical world of the science way, something stops that happening. What?
Can you refrase the question?
-
A miner sat inside a small rail car underground should move in his rail car by the movement of the ground above him, in the real world of course but in the magical world of the science way, something stops that happening. What?
Can you refrase the question?
Think about it.
Physician heal thyself.
-
A miner sat inside a small rail car underground should move in his rail car by the movement of the ground above him, in the real world of course but in the magical world of the science way, something stops that happening. What?
Can you refrase the question?
Think about it.
So you're saying that a miner sitting in a rail car, under ground should what?...
Isn't the fact that he's not pushed up or through the mine wall proof he is moving with the earth?
-
A miner sat inside a small rail car underground should move in his rail car by the movement of the ground above him, in the real world of course but in the magical world of the science way, something stops that happening. What?
Can you refrase the question?
Think about it.
So you're saying that a miner sitting in a rail car, under ground should what?...
Isn't the fact that he's not pushed up or through the mine wall proof he is moving with the earth?
There is no atmosphere supposedly rotating with him, he's free from the friction of that, so why doesn't he move inside the rail car?
Beside the fact that yes, there is air underground, air has nothing to do with it. Even if there were no air you still won't notice the rotation. If you sat it a swivel chair that turned around once a day, you wouldn't feel it either.
What a miner might notice is Coriolis force. If he sped along a track travelling straight north, he might not feel it but he might be able to measure it. On a flat, non rotating Earth there would be no such force.
-
A miner sat inside a small rail car underground should move in his rail car by the movement of the ground above him, in the real world of course but in the magical world of the science way, something stops that happening. What?
Can you refrase the question?
Think about it.
So you're saying that a miner sitting in a rail car, under ground should what?...
Isn't the fact that he's not pushed up or through the mine wall proof he is moving with the earth?
There is no atmosphere supposedly rotating with him, he's free from the friction of that, so why doesn't he move inside the rail car?
What makes you think he doesn't move?
-
I'm very surprised Johann Benzenberg's 1804 experiment (or Ferdinand Reich's later in 1830's, or some of the others) has not been mention in this thread so far! It does, afterall, use a mine shaft to demonstrate earth's rotation =)
-
If the earth is rotating at 1038 mph and we don't feel it because the atmosphere is rotating in unison with it because it's somehow gripped to the ground, then why don't miners "underground" not feel the earths rotation?
After all, surely the atmosphere isn't gripping the underground with them is it.
If the world is hurtling upward at 9.8 m/s2 , why don't airplanes have to constantly aim upward?
I'm stunned that you think that there is some other system whereby planes don't have to 'aim upward' to get into the sky..
Of course they have to aim upward to get into the sky. However, I didn't say to get into the sky. They level out once they reach desired altitude, the aren't constantly climbing to get away from the Earth.
-
http://www.lhsgems.org/rotates.html (http://www.lhsgems.org/rotates.html)
Mentioned. Thanks for pointing us to that neimoka.
-
If the earth is rotating at 1038 mph and we don't feel it because the atmosphere is rotating in unison with it because it's somehow gripped to the ground, then why don't miners "underground" not feel the earths rotation?
After all, surely the atmosphere isn't gripping the underground with them is it.
If the world is hurtling upward at 9.8 m/s2 , why don't airplanes have to constantly aim upward?
I'm stunned that you think that there is some other system whereby planes don't have to 'aim upward' to get into the sky..
Of course they have to aim upward to get into the sky. However, I didn't say to get into the sky. They level out once they reach desired altitude, the aren't constantly climbing to get away from the Earth.
They still need to be pushed upward. That's why they don't turn the engines off when they get to the right height.
-
A miner sat inside a small rail car underground should move in his rail car by the movement of the ground above him, in the real world of course but in the magical world of the science way, something stops that happening. What?
So, a guy in a rail car should move underground because of the ground above him. What? Everything is moving. At that location, he is moving, the ground above him is moving, the ground below him is moving at the same speed.
Everything you've said is correct, except you're using that word again - relativity. It's obvious now that you're just misusing the word, and don't actually think that the speeds we are moving at are relativistic speeds.
I should also note that the massive planet rotating, say, 10x as fast as Earth, with the speeds at the equator being 5M mph, you need to also consider the gravity of such a large beast. We'd be surely crushed, and even more-so at the poles.
Yes, we would be crushed. I know that. Analogy fails at that point. Pretend gravity is as strong on that surface as on the surface of the Earth. ;)
As someone else stated, relativity does not have to do with time slowing down and such. It simply means, if everything is moving at 1030 mph in one direction, then no net movement is detected. They all might as well be standing still. What I was saying with the rotation speeds, a sharp curve in rotation tries to change our natural direction of movement. Like a merry go round. You are constantly being flung out side because of the super fast rotation, but you are holding on to go in circles. If you let go, you will fly tangent to the point at which you let go.
The Earth is simply not spinning fast enough in proportion to itself to fling us off. It takes 6 house to even go a quarter way around the circle of rotation. That is figuratively like standing on a merry-go-round that spins one full rotation every 24 hours. Now, we are on a giant merry go round (Earth), but it still is rotating once every 24 hours. At one point are momentum wants us to go 1030 mph in a direction tangent to the Earths surface. In one hour, our direction will change by 15 degrees. Every minute, our direction changes by 0.25 degrees. This is hardly enough of a change to notice.
However, on something that spins once a second, as that oblivious FE guy posted, your direction changes by 180 degrees in half a second. That is extremely noticeable.
Please note: Everything I posted is in relation to someone standing on the equator.
-
I posted this in the debate section, someone designed an experiment to verify the results of Faucults Pendulum with a game controller and spare parts, well within the budget of anyone with serious interest.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58293.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58293.0.html)
The method and resulting data are certainly fascinating.
-
If the earth is rotating at 1038 mph and we don't feel it because the atmosphere is rotating in unison with it because it's somehow gripped to the ground, then why don't miners "underground" not feel the earths rotation?
After all, surely the atmosphere isn't gripping the underground with them is it.
If the world is hurtling upward at 9.8 m/s2 , why don't airplanes have to constantly aim upward?
I'm stunned that you think that there is some other system whereby planes don't have to 'aim upward' to get into the sky..
Of course they have to aim upward to get into the sky. However, I didn't say to get into the sky. They level out once they reach desired altitude, the aren't constantly climbing to get away from the Earth.
They still need to be pushed upward. That's why they don't turn the engines off when they get to the right height.
They don't point the nose up. The point the nose forward. Does Bernoulli's Principle not apply on a flat Earth?
-
There is no atmosphere supposedly rotating with him, he's free from the friction of that, so why doesn't he move inside the rail car?
How does he breath if there's no atmosphere down there with him?
-
They don't point the nose up. The point the nose forward. Does Bernoulli's Principle not apply on a flat Earth?
But the wings create lift, which counteracts the downward force of gravity, or in the flat Earth case, would force the plane upwards at the same rate as the Earth is going upwards. It's equivalent.
-
When I was 1,600 feet underground I did not feel the earth rotating. I fact, nothing seem out of the ordinary. The earth is round.
-
http://www.lhsgems.org/rotates.html (http://www.lhsgems.org/rotates.html)
Mentioned. Thanks for pointing us to that neimoka.
I would be interested to learn if FE offers an explanation to why there is a consistent eastward drift to a falling object?
-
http://www.lhsgems.org/rotates.html (http://www.lhsgems.org/rotates.html)
Mentioned. Thanks for pointing us to that neimoka.
I would be interested to learn if FE offers an explanation to why there is a consistent eastward drift to a falling object?
Can we see the proof of this?
Yes. See experiments mentioned above.
-
You can, but you are not gonna like how...
-
You can, but you are not gonna like how...
Actually doing the experiments? =D
Scepti, if it makes things any easier for you to accept, these experiments were not accepted by the scientific community as conclusive evidence of the earth being a rotating globe (due to failing to match Gauss' very thorough mathematical predicitons, afaik) but the eastward drift is demonstrated to exist in all such experiments - which is what I asked about.
(edited for typos)
-
Ah, Scepti. Don't ever change.
-
http://www.lhsgems.org/rotates.html (http://www.lhsgems.org/rotates.html)
Mentioned. Thanks for pointing us to that neimoka.
I would be interested to learn if FE offers an explanation to why there is a consistent eastward drift to a falling object?
nice read. its a shame that no one in the flat earth society is actually a zetetic as they claim and instead will just claim this is all nonscenee because ti goes against their blinkered ideology that the earth is flat and everyone else is wrong no matter what. lol
-
When I was 1,600 feet underground I did not feel the earth rotating. I fact, nothing seem out of the ordinary. The earth is round.
No, sokarul. Scepti claims that you should feel something out of the ordinary if the Earth was round and rotating.
I disagree with him, but I thought you should understand what you're arguing against before you do so.
-
ha-ha!!! I should have guessed, the high priest Rowbotham himself has already declared that
What value can such uncertain and conflicting evidence possess in the minds of reasoning men? They are shameless logicians, indeed, who contend that, from such results, the earth is proved to have a diurnal rotation!
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za54.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za54.htm)
His take on repeatability seems a bit, eh, exaggerated.
So, does present day FE agree with him (in insisting that such deflection did not actually take place), or is there some explanation for the phenomenon? Hmm now this is going vrey much offtopic, but I've missed if there's an FE explanation to why foucault's pendulum changes it's direction, if there is one could you please point me to it?
-
You can, but you are not gonna like how...
Actually doing the experiments? =D
Scepti, if it makes things any easier for you to accept, these experiments were not accepted by the scientific community as conclusive evidence of the earth being a rotating globe (due to failing to match Gauss' very thorough mathematical predicitons, afaik) but the eastward drift is demonstrated to exist in all such experiments - which is what I asked about.
(edited for typos)
That's fair enough...but as you say, there's no conclusive proof is there. It's easy for all of us to sit here and say this and that in a belief that we actually know what we are all talking about as in the "reality" of what "is" in the world or what the world is...but we are all clutching at straws and making best guesses, yet some believe they aren't because they have been have been indoctrinated to the point of saturation, where anything written in books and said by a nominated in your face professor, is the right answer.
I'd say channel your energies into a more critical thought and try and smash the round rotating earth indoctrination and see if the flat earth can be added to.
Why?
Because the rotating round earth has nothing to test your mind if you follow what's been infused into you all your life but a flat earth has many more avenues to go down and many more pieces to fit together and the more people that attempt to do it, the more chance it will all fit.
Remember, the rotating round earth has the numbers and has had those numbers official wise for long enough to cut their own jigsaw pieces to fit, which is cheating.
Actually there is conclusive proof (excluding the extreme philosophical sense in which we can't know anything with certainty), it is only the idea of a global and in my opinion very unlikely conspiracy that makes it possible to even entertain the idea of earth being anything but a rotating sphere. Having personally observed things (like the movement of celestial objects and the foucault's pendulum) which match well with the round earth while have no satisfactory explanation in FE, challenging my mind by seeking rationale for a flat earth seems like seeking evidence for a mouse being larger than an elephant - certainly a challenging exercise and possibly an entertaining one, but inevitably pointless.
Be the earth round or flat or something in between, we seek explanations for any and all events we observe: this is how we advance and improve our body of knowledge. I am simply interested to find out if FE offers any explanation to before mentioned south/east deflection.
-
That's fair enough...but as you say, there's no conclusive proof is there.
There is never conclusive proof when it comes to science. Nothing is ever proven.
TIt's easy for all of us to sit here and say this and that in a belief that we actually know what we are all talking about as in the "reality" of what "is" in the world or what the world is...but we are all clutching at straws and making best guesses, yet some believe they aren't because they have been have been indoctrinated to the point of saturation, where anything written in books and said by a nominated in your face professor, is the right answer.
We are far beyond making best guesses about the shape of our world. Take just the foucault pendulum experiment -
It can be proven Mathematically that a swinging pendulum on a non-rotating flat plane will continue to swing in one direction indefinitely, while on a rotating globe it will rotate at a speed and direction based on a simple formula that is dependent on your latitude of where the experiment is conducted.
So the experiment is performed, and we find that the pendulum does in fact rotate. So we can now conclude that the non-rotating flat plane cannot possibly be the correct shape of our Earth. It might be a spherical Earth or even a rotating flat plane. But we also know that if a flat plane was rotating, then we'd feel the same effects as that of objects on a carousel; they will fly outwards from the centre of the carousel. Since this doesn't happen either, we can safely conclude that out of our options given, the round Earth is the most sensible answer.
And that is just one experiment. There are many more that also support a round Earth and completely debunk the flat Earth. Just because you refuse to acknowledge and often don't even understand what the results tell us, doesn't mean the conclusions made are incorrect.
I'd say channel your energies into a more critical thought and try and smash the round rotating earth indoctrination and see if the flat earth can be added to.
You mean, ignore everything I know about science and start again - but this time I should believe that everything in science is wrong, and I need to find alternate theories to everything, even if they don't add up?
Why?
Because the rotating round earth has nothing to test your mind if you follow what's been infused into you all your life but a flat earth has many more avenues to go down and many more pieces to fit together and the more people that attempt to do it, the more chance it will all fit.
You want to test your mind? LOL go learn some science.