The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: zorbakim on December 22, 2018, 07:42:09 PM
-
The heavens are not far from me and revolves around me.
The ancient east Asian 'round sky square earth' is a representation of it.
It is possible because the celestial bodies are holograms.
The hologram is an interference phenomenon of waves.
This world is full of waves.
Therefore, Newtonian gravity that sees the celestial bodies as stones is complete fiction.
How come huge rocks float on our heads?
Satellites are possible by waves full of sky.
Solar winds and cosmic rays are a kind of powerful waves.
All this proves you're the center of the universe.
-
The heavens are not far from me and revolves around me.
No, they are very far away.
All the evidence indicates they are very far away, and not just centred around you.
It is possible because the celestial bodies are holograms.
Prove it.
Therefore, Newtonian gravity that sees the celestial bodies as stones is a complete fiction.
Nope, that would be your delusional crap which is friction.
How come huge rocks float on our heads?
They don't. They orbit.
-
The heavens are not far from me and revolves around me.
No, they are very far away.
All the evidence indicates they are very far away, and not just centred around you.
It is possible because the celestial bodies are holograms.
Prove it.
Your senses are always proving.
-
The heavens are not far from me and revolves around me.
No, they are very far away.
All the evidence indicates they are very far away, and not just centred around you.
Does the evidence even indicate the definition of the word heavens?
-
The heavens are not far from me and revolves around me.
Incorrect! Anybody can tell that the sun, moon and stars must be many times further from the earth than the size of the earth:
Open you eyes and see that:- The angular sizes of the sun and moon do not change noticeably from rising to setting apart from possibly a little distortion near the horizon.
- The angular sizes and shapes of the constellations do not change wherever and whenever they can be seen, ask any astronomer.
Even the ancient philosophers knew this even before they reasoned that the earth had to be a Globe.
But modern flat-earthers never bother to really look and observe the sky.
-
If I were on the equator on the Spring Equinox, the sun would move a perfect semicircle around me.
If the radius R is 6,360 kilometers, the distance the sun moves is about 20,000 kilometers.
It takes 12 hours.
(https://i.imgur.com/QB36eCH.jpg)
The semicircle of the sun's track could be drawn on a flat surface.
At 6 a.m. when the sun rises, the sun appears to be in the position of 1 to the observer in the middle.
However, it appears to be on top of the head of the observer in the position of 1' at the same time.
Similarly at sunset, the sun appears to be in position 3 to the middle observer,
but it appears to be on the top of the head of the observer in 3' at the same time.
(https://i.imgur.com/Do4DKbU.jpg)
This wave is repeated equally to form a circle.
The circumference is the same as the circumference of the earth.
In other words, the circumference of the earth is a cycle that the sun's wave completes.
This is possible because the sun is a hologram.
All celestial bodies are holograms.
The hologram is made by the interference of three waves.
Likewise, this world is a beautiful harmony created by the heaven, land and human.
I think that It has something to do with the Trinity.
(https://i.imgur.com/XRENNks.jpg)
-
Your senses are always proving.
My senses do not prove anything you are claiming.
If I were on the equator on the Spring Equinox, the sun would move a perfect semicircle around me.
Prove it.
Show that it is a perfect semicircle, without any variation in distance at all.
The semicircle of the sun's track could be drawn on a flat surface.
Yes, but perpendicular to the ground. Instead the entirely of the ground track could be drawn on a sphere or a cylinder.
However, it appears to be on top of the head of the observer in the position of 1' at the same time.
No it doesn't, as the sun isn't at position 1.
The circumference is the same as the circumference of the earth.
Why?
Simple rational thought indicates that in order to be above a person at 1, it should be many many many many many many many many times the size of Earth.
This is possible because the sun is a hologram.
Again, PROVE IT!
There is absolutely no reason to think they are holograms.
-
This is possible because the sun is a hologram.
All celestial bodies are holograms.
A hologram is a recording of the interference pattern of two or more coherent light waves on, for example, a piece of film. The piece of film itself is the hologram. When that piece of film is subsequently illuminated properly, and one looks at the film, it appears as if one is looking "through" the film, seeing a three-dimensional image of what was originally the source of the the light waves.
It's just an image. That original light source is not there. It's no different than someone looking at a picture of you. It's just an image of you. It's not you. You are not there.
The sun is not a hologram.
-
This is possible because the sun is a hologram.
All celestial bodies are holograms.
A hologram is a recording of the interference pattern of two or more coherent light waves on, for example, a piece of film. The piece of film itself is the hologram. When that piece of film is subsequently illuminated properly, and one looks at the film, it appears as if one is looking "through" the film, seeing a three-dimensional image of what was originally the source of the the light waves.
It's just an image. That original light source is not there. It's no different than someone looking at a picture of you. It's just an image of you. It's not you. You are not there.
The sun is not a hologram.
It is a matter of substance and image.
What is real is a metaphysical matter.
But what I'm saying is not real, but the sun that looks like it.
It's the sun that we sense.
We see the sun, just like we see hologram patterns.
And it is a hologram for the individual.
So I mean it 'Holographic multiverse'.
-
Wave interference patterns do not form holograms. At the interference the wave is actually missing and will not be detected.
A hologram would require waves.
-
This is possible because the sun is a hologram.
All celestial bodies are holograms.
A hologram is a recording of the interference pattern of two or more coherent light waves on, for example, a piece of film. The piece of film itself is the hologram. When that piece of film is subsequently illuminated properly, and one looks at the film, it appears as if one is looking "through" the film, seeing a three-dimensional image of what was originally the source of the the light waves.
It's just an image. That original light source is not there. It's no different than someone looking at a picture of you. It's just an image of you. It's not you. You are not there.
The sun is not a hologram.
It is a matter of substance and image.
What is real is a metaphysical matter.
But what I'm saying is not real, but the sun that looks like it.
It's the sun that we sense.
We see the sun, just like we see hologram patterns.
And it is a hologram for the individual.
So I mean it 'Holographic multiverse'.
Make that "magical mumbo jumbo"
That's the only way your idea works
-
But what I'm saying is not real
Well I'm glad you can admit that you are just spouting BS.
I think I will stick to reality with the real sun.
You are aware proper holograms still have what amounts to a real position in 3D space and can be seen from various angles?
As such pretending the sun is a hologram doesn't help your nonsense.
-
Wave interference patterns do not form holograms.
Wrong. No,not just wrong -- dead wrong! A hologram is a recording of wave interference patterns.
-
Wave interference patterns do not form holograms.
Wrong. No,not just wrong -- dead wrong! A hologram is a recording of wave interference patterns.
Click sokarul's username.
Click <Show Posts>
Read some of his posts.
You'll see why nobody bothers to respond to him. ::)
-
zorbakim - I think to you there will be it useful to read.
http://falsehood.my1.ru/forum/2
-
zorbakim - I think to you there will be it useful to read.
http://falsehood.my1.ru/forum/2
Who writes all your Science Fantasy about your Spaceship earth etc?
-
It is a matter of substance and image.
What is real is a metaphysical matter.
But what I'm saying is not real, but the sun that looks like it.
It's the sun that we sense.
We see the sun, just like we see hologram patterns.
And it is a hologram for the individual.
So I mean it 'Holographic multiverse'.
It is clear that it is so.
-
It is a matter of substance and image.
What is real is a metaphysical matter.
But what I'm saying is not real, but the sun that looks like it.
It's the sun that we sense.
We see the sun, just like we see hologram patterns.
And it is a hologram for the individual.
So I mean it 'Holographic multiverse'.
It is clear that it is so.
A Korean e-book about my cosmology was released last April.
https://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=188146361 (https://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=188146361)
It consists of five chapters.
Chapter 2 is a counterargument to the heliocentric theory and Chapter 3 is a counterargument to the round earth theory.
The other three chapters are about my cosmology, Homocentric Universe.
I am preparing an English version of Homocentric Universe.
It will be sold as an ebook on Amazon within May.
Homocentric Universe is perfectly capable of explaining all the phenomena of the earth.
In other words, it explains not only the visible distance, but also the star's diurnal motion, the altitude of the North Star, Antarctica, the flight distance of southern hemisphere, and so on.
Of course, <Homocentric Universe> is a flat earth theory.
My YouTube account will help a little.
After the English version is released, I will keep updating it.
-
It is a matter of substance and image.
What is real is a metaphysical matter.
But what I'm saying is not real, but the sun that looks like it.
It's the sun that we sense.
We see the sun, just like we see hologram patterns.
And it is a hologram for the individual.
So I mean it 'Holographic multiverse'.
It is clear that it is so.
A Korean e-book about my cosmology was released last April.
https://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=188146361 (https://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=188146361)
It consists of five chapters.
Chapter 2 is a counterargument to the heliocentric theory and Chapter 3 is a counterargument to the round earth theory.
The other three chapters are about my cosmology, Homocentric Universe.
I am preparing an English version of Homocentric Universe.
It will be sold as an ebook on Amazon within May.
Homocentric Universe is perfectly capable of explaining all the phenomena of the earth.
In other words, it explains not only the visible distance, but also the star's diurnal motion, the altitude of the North Star, Antarctica, the flight distance of southern hemisphere, and so on.
Of course, <Homocentric Universe> is a flat earth theory.
My YouTube account will help a little.
After the English version is released, I will keep updating it.
Since NASA backed FETÖ has forbid us to use youtube in our offices so I can't open youtube links. But I'll open it at home then will say you my thoughts about it.
I hope you success about ebook.
-
Chapter 2 is a counterargument to the heliocentric theory and Chapter 3 is a counterargument to the round earth theory.
So you have finally managed to come up with someone new and didn't want to put it here?
-
It is a matter of substance and image.
What is real is a metaphysical matter.
But what I'm saying is not real, but the sun that looks like it.
It's the sun that we sense.
We see the sun, just like we see hologram patterns.
And it is a hologram for the individual.
So I mean it 'Holographic multiverse'.
It is clear that it is so.
A Korean e-book about my cosmology was released last April.
https://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=188146361 (https://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=188146361)
It consists of five chapters.
Chapter 2 is a counterargument to the heliocentric theory and Chapter 3 is a counterargument to the round earth theory.
The other three chapters are about my cosmology, Homocentric Universe.
I am preparing an English version of Homocentric Universe.
It will be sold as an ebook on Amazon within May.
Homocentric Universe is perfectly capable of explaining all the phenomena of the earth.
In other words, it explains not only the visible distance, but also the star's diurnal motion, the altitude of the North Star, Antarctica, the flight distance of southern hemisphere, and so on.
Of course, <Homocentric Universe> is a flat earth theory.
My YouTube account will help a little.
After the English version is released, I will keep updating it.
Since NASA backed FETÖ has forbid us to use youtube in our offices so I can't open youtube links. But I'll open it at home then will say you my thoughts about it.
I hope you success about ebook.
Thanks, Wise. :)
-
Homocentric Universe is perfectly capable of explaining all the phenomena of the earth.
Ok, you have two friends, one in Seoul and one in Buenos Aires.
If they are 19 420 km apart, which one is in the center of the Universe?
-
SHALL WE EVER SEE ANYONE ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO THIS ARGUMENT?* :
The distances between the equator and the north pole cannot be the same for a globe and a flat earth. Just think of half a ball. To draw the distance between the top and the bottom of the half ball, you would have to draw along the curve of the ball. Now, if you flatten the half ball, you will get the same distance between the center of the circle and the outside edge. However, the size of the bottom of the half ball has to expand out to a larger circle. So, either your distance around the equator is wrong or your distance between the equator and the north pole is wrong or your flat earth model is wrong. Take your pick.
Since the known distance from the north/south pole to the equator is 10,000 km (5400 nm)...and since the known circumference of the earth is 40,000 km (21600 nm)...then it follows that the earth cannot be a flat disk since the radius of a disk of 40,000 km is 6369 km...not 10,000 km...So, the only way around this simple argument is providing any evidence to the contrary regarding the circumference of the equator or the distance from the poles to the equator or both. There are 90 degrees of distance from the equator to the North Pole. Each degree has 60 minutes, each minute = 1 nautical mile, therefore 60 x 90 = 5,400 nautical miles = *10 000 km.* Btw, what would be meaning of the word EQUATOR on the flat earth?
Now, if the earth were a flat disc (on which the distance from the NP to the Equator would be 10000 km, as it is the case in our reality), then the circumference of such a disc (at the equator) would be 62800 km, not 40000 km!!! This number (62800 km) is absolutely preposterous (and in every conceivable aspect beyond the wildest imagination of an utter lunatic), so that only a complete idiot would give any attention to such ludicrous fanciful value. So, since the KNOWN distance from the North Pole to the Equator is out of question, and since the KNOWN value for the circumference of the Equator is out of question, also, your flat earth dreams end up right here, once and for all.
Three wake up videos (there are much more such videos on my channel, however these three will suffice for now) :
A Playing piano on a Flat Plain :
ACCOMPANYING DISCUSSION (that took place below the video above) :
Jamie Courtereille
1 week ago
Problem with your curving the lines. If your lines are straight and then you curve them, you are shortening the distance.
The longer the line the greater the curve, more so if you are attempting to place a false fact that the distances do not line up.
If New York to Cape town is not lining up but the first 4 are, the problem is not on a Flat Earth or a curve Earth.
The problem is that most maps do not have land masses accurately sized to real measurements.
The maps most people use have the US as some gigantic land mass and Africa as some small continent that never line up accurately.?
----------------------------------------------
My answer to Jamie Courtereille :
odiupicku
1 week ago
1. Which comparison makes more sense to you :
FLAT MAP X-1 :
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvSpTWt7/FLAT-MAP-X-1.jpg)
FLAT MAP X-2 :
(https://i.postimg.cc/pdSNq0Jq/FLAT-MAP-X-2.jpg)
B CG FE MODEL (how would it look like if it were true) :
C This would matter if Australia existed - flat earth for dummies :
BONUS ARGUMENT
D During the full moon the sun and the moon are always in opposition, and that is the fact -- This proof is very simple and irrefutable, unless someone is able to prove that there are two suns in the sky...While the sun sets SOUTH of Lemaire channel (that is to say SOUTH of Cape Horn), the same sun in the same time is visible almost directly NORTH of South West Australia and almost directly SOUTH of this area : Japan/Korea/China... So it is NOON in Japan and Australia and THE MIDNIGHT SUN is visible for the observer in Lemaire channel which is directly SOUTH of Cape Horn...So, an observer who is positioned in Lemaire channel is able to see the setting sun by looking straight to the south, and that same sun is visible for the observers in Korea and China who are looking also towards south, and that same sun is visible for the observer in Australia who is looking towards North!!! Do you see why is this impossible to happen on the flat earth??? On a flat earth the full moon would be between an observer in Lemaire channel and the setting sun, which means that an observer in Lemarie channel would have to watch towards NORTH in order to see the sun which would be at the double distance than the full moon, however observer is seeing the full moon by looking to the NORTH, and the setting MIDNIGHT sun is visible in the SOUTH direction!!! There is simply no way around this PROOF!!!
(https://i.postimg.cc/WbmLjTVW/LAMAIRE-CHANNEL-PROOF.jpg)
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
"Eric Dumbay's 201st proof-make it viral or stay dumb" :
ANTARCTICA (midnight sunset) - SIMPLE PROOF in favor of earth's sphericity :
-
One of these videos i have uploaded on my channel at Aug 20 2017 under the name "Eric Dumbay's 202nd proof-make it viral or stay dumb" :
Below that video within the discussion that i had had with Ryan Parker i have written these very important words (EDIT : it seems that i am going to show my whole discussion with Ryan Parker) :
odiupicku :
Maybe this is going to help you to see this problem from the right perspective :
KANCHENJUNGA MAKALU EVEREST :
(http://i.imgur.com/CGSPC4y.jpg)
EXLANATION : -Using these numbers, 8650 m for the photographer, 8463 m for Makalu, the photograph is taken from 187 m higher elevation than the summit of Makalu, so he has to be looking down toward the of top of Makalu from there, right? The top of that cloud deck seems about the same elevation (although this can fool you sometimes), and the top of Makalu is about even with the horizon formed by the cloud deck, so the horizon has to be below level. You're looking down at Makalu's summit, therefore you're looking down to the horizon, right? -So the summit of Kanchenjunga should appear slightly higher than Makalu, which it does. Now, apply this to our case and you will get the same result :
JON 7 XXX :
(http://i.imgur.com/fcqEvJl.jpg)
Ryan Parker
10 months ago (edited)
It doesn't help at all. Please explain what you mean and how your example proves the Earth is not flat?!
odiupicku
10 months ago (edited)
+Ryan Parker Does this help :
Mt Rainier 9-3 :
(http://i.imgur.com/GGcIj7c.jpg)
Mt Rainier - Hood - Adams :
(http://i.imgur.com/oZp345X.jpg)
Mt Rainier 9-4 :
(http://i.imgur.com/8evn5As.jpg)
odiupicku
10 months ago
EDIT : Mt Rainier - Mt Adams from the summit of Mt Hood :
(http://i.imgur.com/FoweRxi.jpg)
The picture above demonstrates that even when we compare apparent heights of Mt Adams vs Mt Rainier ((100 miles distance between Mt Hood & Mt Rainier and 58 miles distance between Mt Hood & Mt Adams)) as viewed from the summit of Mt Hood (3402m = 11161 ft), Mt Adams (3743 m - 12281 ft) looks higher than Mt Rainier (4392 m - 14409 ft), that is to say : the peak of Mt Rainier looks lower at the horizon than the peak of Mt Adams. So, no marvel that at the distance of 190 miles (between South Sister Mountain and Mt Rainier) Mt Rainier looks so much tinier and lower at the horizon in comparison with Mt Adams (which is 145,6 miles distant from the observer at South Sister Mountain), let alone how tiny Mt Rainier looks in comparison with Mt Hood (87,8 miles distant from the camera positioned on South Sister Mountain), or in comparison with Mt Jefferson (which is only 39,4 miles distant from the South Sister Mountain), and so no marvel that Mt Jefferson which is lowest of all observed mountains looks highest than all other three mountains, since Mt Jefferson is the closest mountain to the observer who stands at South Sister Mountain...
IN ADDITION :
FLAT EARTH - EXPERIMENT - TELESCOPE :
Measuring Earth's Radius With A Telescope :
FLAT EARTH IS A LIE :
(https://s33.postimg.cc/6aitlcgq7/ROB_SKIBA_CHICAGO_SKYLINE_XXX.jpg)
Let's brake this myth : Did the Church Teach the Earth was Flat? : https://strangenotions.com/did-the-church-teach-the-earth-was-flat/
The Early Church Fathers were all geocentrists, and none of them was flat-earther (despite the fact that the Bible is indeed a flat earth book, as well (not only geocentric)), check this out : http://www.philipstallings.com/2015/07/the-biblical-flat-earth-early-church.html
P.S. Although the earth isn't flat, the earth is motionless, and i've proved this fact scientifically, also.
-
Homocentric Universe is perfectly capable of explaining all the phenomena of the earth.
Ok, you have two friends, one in Seoul and one in Buenos Aires.
If they are 19 420 km apart, which one is in the center of the Universe?
Both.
-
Homocentric Universe is perfectly capable of explaining all the phenomena of the earth.
Ok, you have two friends, one in Seoul and one in Buenos Aires.
If they are 19 420 km apart, which one is in the center of the Universe?
Both.
So, when Sun is at the center of Universe too, which one of them has it at zenith, directly above head?
-
Homocentric Universe is perfectly capable of explaining all the phenomena of the earth.
Ok, you have two friends, one in Seoul and one in Buenos Aires.
If they are 19 420 km apart, which one is in the center of the Universe?
Both.
So, when Sun is at the center of Universe too, which one of them has it at zenith, directly above head?
The sun is not the center of the universe. Only man is the center.
-
Homocentric Universe is perfectly capable of explaining all the phenomena of the earth.
Ok, you have two friends, one in Seoul and one in Buenos Aires.
If they are 19 420 km apart, which one is in the center of the Universe?
Both.
So, when Sun is at the center of Universe too, which one of them has it at zenith, directly above head?
The sun is not the center of the universe. Only man is the center.
Ofcourse it isn't.
But it doesn't esclude the possibility of Sun COMING TO THE CENTER of the Universe.
And about those two friends: how many centers does Universe have?
-
Homocentric Universe is perfectly capable of explaining all the phenomena of the earth.
Ok, you have two friends, one in Seoul and one in Buenos Aires.
If they are 19 420 km apart, which one is in the center of the Universe?
Both.
So, when Sun is at the center of Universe too, which one of them has it at zenith, directly above head?
The sun is not the center of the universe. Only man is the center.
Ofcourse it isn't.
But it doesn't esclude the possibility of Sun COMING TO THE CENTER of the Universe.
And about those two friends: how many centers does Universe have?
The centers are as many as the number of people in the world.
-
The centers are as many as the number of people in the world.
i.e. there is no centre?
-
The centers are as many as the number of people in the world.
There is no practical reason to limit it to humans.
Earth has many other living beings as well.
They also see Sun, Moon, stars, clouds, land, sea...
Migrating species use either Sun, or Earth's magnetic field, or ocean streams, or whatever.
Now, if we get back to humans, which coordinate system will use a guy on vacation
in Angola to describe position of Jupiter's satellite Calisto to a guy in Mongolia?
-
That everyone is central is different from that there is no center.
There are many people, but no one can get into another's mind.
We only live in our own minds.
The same is true of non-human creatures.
Everything lives in their own universe.
Therefore, there are so many worlds.
But they become a world in harmony.
-
That everyone is central is different from that there is no center.
Yes, one literally makes no sense unless everyone is at one point.
Everything lives in their own universe.
While we all have our own interpretation and experience of the universe, it is the one universe that is shared. Otherwise we would be unable to interact.
-
He didn't say that at all.
-
That everyone is central is different from that there is no center.
Yes, one literally makes no sense unless everyone is at one point.
Everything lives in their own universe.
While we all have our own interpretation and experience of the universe, it is the one universe that is shared. Otherwise we would be unable to interact.
Can you evidence this statement:
Otherwise we would be unable to interact.
-
That everyone is central is different from that there is no center.
There are many people, but no one can get into another's mind.
We only live in our own minds.
The same is true of non-human creatures.
Everything lives in their own universe.
Therefore, there are so many worlds.
But they become a world in harmony.
Do things out of anybody's mind exist?
Do things care if they are in someone's mind or not?
-
Can you evidence this statement:
If we do not exist in the same universe we would be isolated from one another and unable to interact.
In order to interact we need to exist in the same place in some way.
-
That everyone is central is different from that there is no center.
Yes, one literally makes no sense unless everyone is at one point.
Everything lives in their own universe.
While we all have our own interpretation and experience of the universe, it is the one universe that is shared. Otherwise we would be unable to interact.
Can you evidence this statement:
Otherwise we would be unable to interact.
John, I knew this place four years ago.
I learned a lot here.
Thank you for your efforts.
But we have to find a new model to explain the phenomena.
I found a new flat earth model, not a disk.
The world shape is not a matter of map, but a matter of time and space.
The answer is a holographic multiverse.
It is in line with ancient world views.
My model can explain everything about the current phenomena.
I have already published a Korean book and am translating some of it into English.
I hope it will help.
-
That everyone is central is different from that there is no center.
There are many people, but no one can get into another's mind.
We only live in our own minds.
The same is true of non-human creatures.
Everything lives in their own universe.
Therefore, there are so many worlds.
But they become a world in harmony.
Do things out of anybody's mind exist?
Do things care if they are in someone's mind or not?
We can't know beyond our own minds.
It's just the realm of our imagination and conjecture.
I only know my mind and my senses.
What's clear is that this world is my senses.
Beyond my senses is the realm of imagination and conjecture.
-
Can you evidence this statement:
If we do not exist in the same universe we would be isolated from one another and unable to interact.
In order to interact we need to exist in the same place in some way.
I want to ask you.
How can you perceive the world without you?
So what's the first thing?
-
So I changed the title of this post.
The holographic universe and the multiverse prove that I am the center of the universe.
It is the exact opposite of current cosmology, but it can explain current phenomena exactly.
After all, it is a matter of choice.
The choice of whether you are insignificant or the main character.
In the end, it is up to you.
In other words, worldview is not a matter of geometry, but of values.
-
I want to ask you.
How can you perceive the world without you?
So what's the first thing?
Without yourself you are unable to do anything.
But without you, other people can still perceive the world.
But we have to find a new model to explain the phenomena.
Why? What is wrong with the current model?
A RE explains the known phenomena quite well.
It is only if you are desperately clinging to a FE that you need a new model.
What's clear is that this world is my senses.
No, what is clear is you use your senses to observe the world.
Again, this doesn't mean the world is your senses.
The holographic universe and the multiverse prove that I am the center of the universe.
So far they are nothing more than baseless claims and such prove nothing.
But you are yet to even establish that they prove that you are the centre of the universe.
It is the exact opposite of current cosmology, but it can explain current phenomena exactly.
Again, another baseless claim.
How about you stop with the baseless claims are start trying to back up your claims?
After all, it is a matter of choice.
The choice of whether you are insignificant or the main character.
i.e. you can't deal with reality so you escape to fantasy. You value your own arrogance and imaginary importance over the truth?
And again, even your nonsense doesn't indicate you are the main character. Instead it only has you as the main character in your delusional fantasy world. To every one else you are not the main character and instead they are. You are still just as insignificant.
In other words, worldview is not a matter of geometry, but of values.
Yes, do you value the truth and thus accept the current cosmology, or are you too arrogant to admit you are an insignificant part of the the universe and need cling to delusions?
I pick the truth.
-
That everyone is central is different from that there is no center.
There are many people, but no one can get into another's mind.
We only live in our own minds.
The same is true of non-human creatures.
Everything lives in their own universe.
Therefore, there are so many worlds.
But they become a world in harmony.
Do things out of anybody's mind exist?
Do things care if they are in someone's mind or not?
We can't know beyond our own minds.
It's just the realm of our imagination and conjecture.
I only know my mind and my senses.
What's clear is that this world is my senses.
Beyond my senses is the realm of imagination and conjecture.
Beyond your senses is your communication with other people around and comparison with their senses.
Don't tell me that you don't understand when someone else tells you: "I don't like this food" or "there's a mouse in the kitchen".
-
The above two presuppose an outside world that has nothing to do with me.
Of course, that's a very common idea.
But that doesn't mean it's true.
Truth is in conformity with nature or divine providence.
After all, the truth has to fit both science and religion.
There is an observer effect in quantum mechanics.
So is most religious teachings.
"You're the son of God and the hero of the world."
-
The above two presuppose an outside world that has nothing to do with me.
As it involves interacting with you it has a lot to do with you.
But that doesn't mean it's true.
So you think we are all figments of your imagination?
Truth is in conformity with nature or divine providence.
No. Truth is in conformity with nature. It has nothing to do with divine garbage.
After all, the truth has to fit both science and religion.
No, science is the search for truth. Religion is just garbage. Truth does not need to fit religion and frequently shows religions (or parts thereof) to be wrong.
-
Truth is in conformity with nature or divine providence.
After all, the truth has to fit both science and religion.
I would say that truth does fit both true science and true religion.
But so far no one claims that anyone knows all of true science and there are many interpretations of what is true religion.
Have a look at: Science and Religion: Two Books by Kelly James Clark' (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/science-and-religion-two_b_5588326).
-
The above two presuppose an outside world that has nothing to do with me.
Of course, that's a very common idea.
But that doesn't mean it's true.
Truth is in conformity with nature or divine providence.
After all, the truth has to fit both science and religion.
There is an observer effect in quantum mechanics.
So is most religious teachings.
"You're the son of God and the hero of the world."
Recently, my interest in your threads has increased. That's because I started believing in simulation theory. That made me close to your thoughts. in this process, I try to understand the points where the Homocentric universe and simulation theory converge and dissociate.
It is clear that the story of this world is fabricated. I've said this before. I am one of the 7 billion people in this world. much smarter people have lived, much richer people have lived. I have discovered a few different types of immortality. I say, this problem should be discussed and resolved before I live. this is proof that the world is fabricated. I think that we will accelerate the process if we share new findings. Never mind the globularists. Think about my writings. they're just a waste of time.
The classic human body password in the world is energy consumption.There is no life time concept. There are total energy concept. At the beginning of life, people are given a certain energy. I was given a total energy and options were offered for me to use. The main factors affecting the life span according to energy usage are as follows.
E: Total energy. constant.
physical mass: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
intelligence: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
power: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
wealth: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
ambition: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
sport/mobility: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
We can increase the list. The first 3 factors I have marked as bold character offered for me; I have added the remained lines as I predicted them.
One thing that I think is that the sun's rotation is equal to one day. So, if we turn around the earth in the same direction as the sun, does the time stop for us?
Another question was on my mind but I forgot now. I think they wanted me to forget that. I will add when I remember. ;)
-
I have discovered a few different types of immortality. I say, this problem should be discussed and resolved before I live. this is proof that the world is fabricated.
The only type of immortality that exists is having you live on as a story or otherwise having your life remembered.
Not having any real immortality doesn't prove this world is fabricated. All it proves is that people fear death.
The classic human body password in the world is energy consumption.There is no life time concept. There are total energy concept. At the beginning of life, people are given a certain energy. I was given a total energy and options were offered for me to use. The main factors affecting the life span according to energy usage are as follows.
No, there are a multitude of factors which determine life span. Energy is typically an insignificant one.
You only run out of energy through starvation.
The more relevant factors for lifespan are disease and your body wearing out as it is incapable of properly repairing itself.
One thing that I think is that the sun's rotation is equal to one day.
You mean a day is roughly 86400 seconds, as defined by the average amount of time it takes for the sun to reach the same meridian.
This isn't exact.
So, if we turn around the earth in the same direction as the sun, does the time stop for us?
Potentially, in the sense that you may wipe out all life on Earth so with us no longer existing time doesn't mean anything for us.
-
::) :)
-
The above two presuppose an outside world that has nothing to do with me.
Of course, that's a very common idea.
But that doesn't mean it's true.
Truth is in conformity with nature or divine providence.
After all, the truth has to fit both science and religion.
There is an observer effect in quantum mechanics.
So is most religious teachings.
"You're the son of God and the hero of the world."
hehehe
So:
Where did your divine providence put your cosciousness?
Is it in some physical body?
Where is that body?
Is is surrounded by something?
Is that body vulnerable?
By what?
Also:
Are the other people, Earth, Moon, Sun, planets, stars, ... all in your mind?
Or we all exist the way you do?
-
The above two presuppose an outside world that has nothing to do with me.
Of course, that's a very common idea.
But that doesn't mean it's true.
Truth is in conformity with nature or divine providence.
After all, the truth has to fit both science and religion.
There is an observer effect in quantum mechanics.
So is most religious teachings.
"You're the son of God and the hero of the world."
Recently, my interest in your threads has increased. That's because I started believing in simulation theory. That made me close to your thoughts. in this process, I try to understand the points where the Homocentric universe and simulation theory converge and dissociate.
It is clear that the story of this world is fabricated. I've said this before. I am one of the 7 billion people in this world. much smarter people have lived, much richer people have lived. I have discovered a few different types of immortality. I say, this problem should be discussed and resolved before I live. this is proof that the world is fabricated. I think that we will accelerate the process if we share new findings. Never mind the globularists. Think about my writings. they're just a waste of time.
The classic human body password in the world is energy consumption.There is no life time concept. There are total energy concept. At the beginning of life, people are given a certain energy. I was given a total energy and options were offered for me to use. The main factors affecting the life span according to energy usage are as follows.
E: Total energy. constant.
physical mass: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
intelligence: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
power: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
wealth: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
ambition: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
sport/mobility: if this value increases, the life time decreases.
We can increase the list. The first 3 factors I have marked as bold character offered for me; I have added the remained lines as I predicted them.
One thing that I think is that the sun's rotation is equal to one day. So, if we turn around the earth in the same direction as the sun, does the time stop for us?
Another question was on my mind but I forgot now. I think they wanted me to forget that. I will add when I remember. ;)
Interesting. Your story is similar to the Eastern yin-yang principle.
The principle I pursue is yin-yang.
I Ching will be helpful.
-
God is not transcendent but intrinsic.
Man is the image of God.
Don't try to find God in the distance.
-
God is not transcendent but intrinsic.
Man is the image of God.
You have that the wrong way around. God is the image of man.
There is nothing about reality which makes god intrinsic.
-
God is not transcendent but intrinsic.
Man is the image of God.
You have that the wrong way around. God is the image of man.
There is nothing about reality which makes god intrinsic.
The thoughts and actions we are doing are divine.
Don't just think of superpowers childishly.
-
One thing that I think is that the sun's rotation is equal to one day. So, if we turn around the earth in the same direction as the sun, does the time stop for us?
Another question was on my mind but I forgot now. I think they wanted me to forget that. I will add when I remember. ;)
Not exactly, because the ground is moving.
The movement of space is that time passes.
Time and space are the same.
-
One thing that I think is that the sun's rotation is equal to one day. So, if we turn around the earth in the same direction as the sun, does the time stop for us?
Another question was on my mind but I forgot now. I think they wanted me to forget that. I will add when I remember. ;)
Not exactly, because the ground is moving.
The movement of space is that time passes.
Time and space are the same.
Ground is not moving. Otherwise we could feel it phsically. neither in the simulation model nor in the Homocentric universe does not need such a thing. You have to change this thought.
-
One thing that I think is that the sun's rotation is equal to one day. So, if we turn around the earth in the same direction as the sun, does the time stop for us?
Another question was on my mind but I forgot now. I think they wanted me to forget that. I will add when I remember. ;)
Not exactly, because the ground is moving.
The movement of space is that time passes.
Time and space are the same.
Ground is not moving. Otherwise we could feel it phsically. neither in the simulation model nor in the Homocentric universe does not need such a thing. You have to change this thought.
Is the sun and the moon moving?
-
One thing that I think is that the sun's rotation is equal to one day. So, if we turn around the earth in the same direction as the sun, does the time stop for us?
Another question was on my mind but I forgot now. I think they wanted me to forget that. I will add when I remember. ;)
Not exactly, because the ground is moving.
The movement of space is that time passes.
Time and space are the same.
Ground is not moving. Otherwise we could feel it phsically. neither in the simulation model nor in the Homocentric universe does not need such a thing. You have to change this thought.
Is the sun and the moon moving?
What can it be else? ???
-
The thoughts and actions we are doing are divine.
Don't just think of superpowers childishly.
You are the one thinking childishly here, believing in pure fantasy.
Nothing we do is divine.
I see no need to act like a child and cling to religious nonsense.
Ground is not moving. Otherwise we could feel it phsically.
No, you wouldn't.
This is because you don't feel motion in general.
Instead you feel acceleration, or more correctly, you feel a force acting through your body, i.e. where one part of your body applies a force to another part.
The acceleration of Earth is so slight you will not feel it, but it has been measured plenty of times.
-
The thoughts and actions we are doing are divine.
Don't just think of superpowers childishly.
You are the one thinking childishly here, believing in pure fantasy.
Nothing we do is divine.
I see no need to act like a child and cling to religious nonsense.
Ground is not moving. Otherwise we could feel it phsically.
No, you wouldn't.
This is because you don't feel motion in general.
Instead you feel acceleration, or more correctly, you feel a force acting through your body, i.e. where one part of your body applies a force to another part.
The acceleration of Earth is so slight you will not feel it, but it has been measured plenty of times.
Yes, I would. In order to prevent this from being said, the acceleration of all particles must be at a certain rate, not equal, and in a complex formula, so that I will not notice their movement. you cannot establish such a complex order in a world with a single speed and acceleration.
-
Yes, I would. In order to prevent this from being said, the acceleration of all particles must be at a certain rate, not equal, and in a complex formula, so that I will not notice their movement. you cannot establish such a complex order in a world with a single speed and acceleration.
Completely wrong.
Again, in order to directly feel the acceleration you would need to have one part of your body applying a force to another part.
That means all you would feel with the real universe is the tidal force of the sun, gravity pulling you down (assuming you aren't in free fall) and a tiny amount from the rotation of Earth.
But all bar gravity here is insignificant. Humans cannot feel the others due to how slight it is. But instruments can and do measure the rotation of Earth.
-
Yes, I would. In order to prevent this from being said, the acceleration of all particles must be at a certain rate, not equal, and in a complex formula, so that I will not notice their movement. you cannot establish such a complex order in a world with a single speed and acceleration.
Completely wrong.
Again, in order to directly feel the acceleration you would need to have one part of your body applying a force to another part.
That means all you would feel with the real universe is the tidal force of the sun, gravity pulling you down (assuming you aren't in free fall) and a tiny amount from the rotation of Earth.
But all bar gravity here is insignificant. Humans cannot feel the others due to how slight it is. But instruments can and do measure the rotation of Earth.
Mine are completely true, again. Since your writings are completely wrong always, I did not read rest.
-
Mine are completely true, again.
Then prove it.
Do the math to show exactly what you should be able to feel and then demonstrate that you are able to feel that.
Otherwise, it is just another blatant lie from you.
Repeatedly asserting that your lies are true wont magically make them true. Instead it just shows you can't accept reality.
-
Mine are completely true, again.
Then prove it.
Do the math to show exactly what you should be able to feel and then demonstrate that you are able to feel that.
Otherwise, it is just another blatant lie from you.
Repeatedly asserting that your lies are true wont magically make them true. Instead it just shows you can't accept reality.
I have many time proved many things and you have denied everything by saying stereotype words like "wrong, lie, again". Get play with yourself.
Your Repeatedly asserting baseless denials do not deserve to get serious them.
-
I have many time proved many things and you have denied everything by saying stereotype words like "wrong, lie, again".
You sure do love projecting don't you?
You have repeatedly fail to prove anything.
I have provided clear explanations of why you are wrong, and you just dismiss them claiming you are correct or have previously proven it.
You have nothing more than baseless claims which are repeatedly refuted.
Now do you have any backing for you claims regarding the motion of Earth, or are they just baseless claims, sitting on more baseless claims?
-
I have many time proved many things and you have denied everything by saying stereotype words like "wrong, lie, again".
You sure do love projecting don't you?
You have repeatedly fail to prove anything.
I have provided clear explanations of why you are wrong, and you just dismiss them claiming you are correct or have previously proven it.
You have nothing more than baseless claims which are repeatedly refuted.
Now do you have any backing for you claims regarding the motion of Earth, or are they just baseless claims, sitting on more baseless claims?
Again and again, all the evidences are proved by me and by other Fe'rs denied by you and other angry globularists by saying stereotype words like "wrong, lie, again". What does repeating same provings give any of us if all we know you will deny everything.
-
Again and again, all the evidences are proved by me and by other Fe'rs denied by you and other angry globularists by saying stereotype words like "wrong, lie, again". What does repeating same provings give any of us if all we know you will deny everything.
Again, stop projecting.
Your "evidence" is refuted, not simply denied. Then when you can't defend your claims you just lie and say you have already proven them.
You are the one that just rejects evidence using words like "wrong", "fake", "lie".
I'm not asking you to repeat the same refuted nonsense.
I am asking you to actually back up your claims, something you are yet to do.
Don't just post the same baseless claims. Don't just claim to have already proven them or to have already provided evidence.
Actual back up your claims.
Like I said, explain clearly just what you think you should feel due to the motion of Earth, and then demonstrate that you are actually capable of feeling it.
-
Again and again, all the evidences are proved by me and by other Fe'rs denied by you and other angry globularists by saying stereotype words like "wrong, lie, again". What does repeating same provings give any of us if all we know you will deny everything.
Again, stop projecting.
Your "evidence" is refuted, not simply denied. Then when you can't defend your claims you just lie and say you have already proven them.
You are the one that just rejects evidence using words like "wrong", "fake", "lie".
I'm not asking you to repeat the same refuted nonsense.
I am asking you to actually back up your claims, something you are yet to do.
Don't just post the same baseless claims. Don't just claim to have already proven them or to have already provided evidence.
Actual back up your claims.
Like I said, explain clearly just what you think you should feel due to the motion of Earth, and then demonstrate that you are actually capable of feeling it.
Again, stop saying lie. Denying the fact proof's being not valid is your claim. You are simply denying the proof then saying nothing has been proved. You are acting like a denier robot denies everything I offer. So why do I suggest anything about you ask to me?
Can you tell me a time when you have agreed any of my proofs / evidences / claims / suggestions, anything about a scientific proof. Why would I suggest anything that I definitely know you will deny it whatever it will be?
-
Again, stop saying lie.
Again, stop projecting. I'm not the one lying here.
If I was you would easily be able to substantiate your claim by providing what is being asked and I would be unable to refute it.
Yet you can't justify your claim and I can easily refute it.
Again, everyday experience, such as driving along a highway or sitting in a plane in flight clearly demonstrates that we do not feel motion. Instead what we feel is the acceleration of the object (but not necessarily all). Sitting in a car or a plane travelling along a straight path feels the same as sitting in chair at your desk. You don't feel it. Instead you feel the turbulence when the plane shakes around which causes to accelerate where the plane accelerates you by pushing on part of you, and when the car accelerates again by pushing on you.
So you wouldn't feel Earth moving.
Now we need to consider the acceleration part. Note: acceleration alone is not enough. You need a force being applied across your body.
When you stand "still" on Earth, you feel your feet getting pushed up by Earth. When you are in free fall you initially feel nothing as your entire body accelerates together with no force needing to be transmitted through your body (more technical below).
So the only time you feel "motion" is when you have a force applied through your body. Perhaps what is more important, is that is what you are actually feeling is this force and the motion isn't actually needed. It can be a force applied to accelerate you or slow you down, or simply be a force passing through you. The latter can be shown easily by forcing your hands together. They remain stationary, yet you can feel it, similar to how it would feel if you pressed your hand against the seat in an accelerating car.
So now the question becomes what force would need to be transmitted through your body if Earth was in motion?
Well, from the Earth's orbit around the sun (or the moon's orbit around Earth), you have the tidal force acting on you.
And with several of these forces it can be easier to consider it in terms of acceleration and potentially even jerk.
The tidal acceleration as a good approximation is given by a=2GMr/d3.
To simplify the math, if we consider a human with a height of 2 m, so r is 1 m, then considering the sun at 150 million km with a mass of 2x1030 kg, we end up with an acceleration of ~8x10-14 m/s.
From the moon underestimated at 350 000 km away, with a mass of 7.34x1022 kg, we get an acceleration of 2.3x10-13 m/s.
From Earth (i.e. if we are in free fall just above the surface) with a distance of 6371 km, and a mass of 6x1024 kg, we get an acceleration of 3x10-6 m/s
If we were to assume our person is 100 kg, with 50 kg of that at the top of their head and 50 kg at their feet, this gives us a force for the tidal due to Earth of a staggering 0.15 mN.
This is equivalent to the weight of 0.016 g or 16 mg.
If you take the slightly more reasonable approach of splitting this 100 kg equally over your body, it drops down to less than 10 mg.
That is comparable to the weight of 2 ants.
Are you suggesting that if an ant stood on your shoe you would feel it when you are walking (feel it from its weight, not from it crawling around)? If so, I'm calling BS.
The only force left to consider is that from the rotation of Earth.
This has the effect of making you feel lighter.
At the equator it amounts to a mere 0.03 m/s or 0.34 % of gravity.
Now this can actually become significant. For our hypothetical 100 kg person, this means they would weigh ~340g less.
But gravity is known to vary by far more than this around Earth, from ~9.7639 to 9.8337 m/s. A variation of ~0.07 m/s, twice that of gravity. So if you claim you can feel that, if you moved around Earth, you would.
You are simply denying the proof then saying nothing has been proved.
Again, there is a difference between denial and refuting.
I am not denying your proof. I am refuting your alleged proof. I am explaining why it is wrong.
If your proof was sound I wouldn't be able to do this.
Meanwhile all you do is deny or claim fake. You are unable to show any actual problems with arguments I present.
So again, STOP PROJECTING!
If your claims are sound you would be able to substantiate them instead of just repeatedly asserting they are correct and repeating refusing to back them up.
You are acting like a denier robot denies everything I offer. So why do I suggest anything about you ask to me?
No, I act like a rational individual that expect people making wild claims to back up those wild claims rather than simply assert that they are correct and that they have been proven before.
If you want any sane person to take your claims seriously, you would need to back them up.
If you actually cared about the truth and thought what you were saying was true you would provide a backing for your claims.
The only reason not to is if you know it has no backing and don't want to admit that, or if you have a very poor backing (i.e. one which cannot withstand rational scruitiny) that is enough to convince you but don't want it refuted, which is as good as having no backing.
Can you tell me a time when you have agreed any of my proofs / evidences / claims / suggestions, anything about a scientific proof.
Can you tell me a time when you have provided anything sound rather than false claims of proof or evidence or the like which is easily refuted?
All you have provided (that I have seen) are a collection of baseless claims with pretend support from horribly flawed arguments or extremely poor evidence which shows nothing.
Why would I (or any sane person) agree to them?
If you can provide an actual proof, or provide actual evidence for your claims, evidence which is capable of distinguishing between your claim being true and your claim being false, I would accept it. You are yet to do so.
So don't bother asking me for a time I accept one of your claims when you are yet to provide what is required for a rational person to accept them.
Also, the same (effectively) question can be put to you.
When have you ever accepted anything a RE has said in regards to claims of Earth being round or moving? NEVER!
Instead you just outright reject it, regardless of what is presented.
If you think you can BS some excuse you do. Otherwise you just claim it is fake/a lie or has already been refuted.
Now i ask again:
Do you have any evidence or rational backing for your claims regarding feeling the motion of Earth?
-
I have not a claim. Because the earth is not spining. You have to prove its not affecting the objects by formulas. And I am talking publicly with zorbakim. Still waiting him being online. Sure we can do chat till he come back. :)
-
I have not a claim.
Stop lying.
Need I remind you:
Ground is not moving. Otherwise we could feel it phsically.
That is a claim.
That is one of the many baseless claims you have made on this forum.
I have clearly explained why that claim is false, in my post immediately prior to yours, which you ignored.
Now do you have anything to back up your claim, or can you act like a rational adult for once and admit you are wrong and that you wouldn't feel the motion of Earth?
-
Not being able to feel something doesn't mean it is not there.
Panorama restaurants spin 2 to 3 times per hour.
Sitting there you don't feel the spin.
You can only see it when you see hills, buildings, cars and trees "move around" every 30 or 20 minutes.
Earth spins once every 24 hours.
It is 48 to 72 times slower, and some say "we should feel it under our feet". LOL
We can only see it when we see Sun, Moon, planets and stars "move around" every 24 hours.
-
Not being able to feel something doesn't mean it is not there.
Sounds like a condom advertisement.
-
I have not a claim.
Stop lying.
Need I remind you:
Ground is not moving. Otherwise we could feel it phsically.
That is a claim.
That is one of the many baseless claims you have made on this forum.
I have clearly explained why that claim is false, in my post immediately prior to yours, which you ignored.
Now do you have anything to back up your claim, or can you act like a rational adult for once and admit you are wrong and that you wouldn't feel the motion of Earth?
Because the earth is not spining. You have to prove its not affecting the objects by formulas. And I am talking publicly with zorbakim. Still waiting him being online. Sure we can do chat till he come back. :)
No, it is not a claim. First you have to prove ground's spining and rotating movements phsically. Sorry, I don't see / feel we move at all.
-
One thing that I think is that the sun's rotation is equal to one day. So, if we turn around the earth in the same direction as the sun, does the time stop for us?
Another question was on my mind but I forgot now. I think they wanted me to forget that. I will add when I remember. ;)
Not exactly, because the ground is moving.
The movement of space is that time passes.
Time and space are the same.
Ground is not moving. Otherwise we could feel it phsically. neither in the simulation model nor in the Homocentric universe does not need such a thing. You have to change this thought.
Of course, the ground doesn't move.
I just answered you asked me what would happen if I moved along the sun.
If I'm riding on the sun, the ground looks like moving.
I think you misunderstood.
At any rate, the point is that time and space are the same.
-
One thing that I think is that the sun's rotation is equal to one day. So, if we turn around the earth in the same direction as the sun, does the time stop for us?
Another question was on my mind but I forgot now. I think they wanted me to forget that. I will add when I remember. ;)
Not exactly, because the ground is moving.
The movement of space is that time passes.
Time and space are the same.
Ground is not moving. Otherwise we could feel it phsically. neither in the simulation model nor in the Homocentric universe does not need such a thing. You have to change this thought.
Of course, the ground doesn't move.
I just answered you asked me what would happen if I moved along the sun.
If I'm riding on the sun, the ground looks like moving.
I think you misunderstood.
At any rate, the point is that time and space are the same.
I agree I can missunderstand something because of language barreer. However, I need to be enlighten on how space and time's being same.
-
No, it is not a claim.
You denying it being a claim doesn't help your case.
You are rejecting the rotation of Earth and instead claiming it is stationary on the basis that you don't feel it moving, claiming that you should be able to feel it.
That is a claim. That is something that you need to back up.
-
No, it is not a claim.
You denying it being a claim doesn't help your case.
You are rejecting the rotation of Earth and instead claiming it is stationary on the basis that you don't feel it moving, claiming that you should be able to feel it.
That is a claim. That is something that you need to back up.
Please prove technically why rotating of the earth isn't a claim but its being stationary is a claim ?
-
Please prove technically why rotating of the earth isn't a claim but its being stationary is a claim ?
How about you prove why claiming Earth is stationary and that you would be able to feel it moving if it was moving isn't a claim?
Or how about you try proving that you would feel Earth moving? Especially considering I have shown that you wouldn't.
P.S.: I have never said that saying Earth is rotating is not a claim.
But that being a claim doesn't magically mean saying it is stationary isn't a claim, nor does it mean your claim that you would feel Earth moving if it was moving isn't a claim. This is especially true when you are using your lack of feeling the motion as an argument against the rotation of Earth.
So can you actually defend your claim or act like a rational adult and admit you are wrong and that you would not feel the motion of Earth?
-
No, it is not a claim.
You denying it being a claim doesn't help your case.
You are rejecting the rotation of Earth and instead claiming it is stationary on the basis that you don't feel it moving, claiming that you should be able to feel it.
That is a claim. That is something that you need to back up.
Please prove technically why rotating of the earth isn't a claim but its being stationary is a claim ?
Theyre both claims.
One baseless.
Other not.
-
No, it is not a claim.
You denying it being a claim doesn't help your case.
You are rejecting the rotation of Earth and instead claiming it is stationary on the basis that you don't feel it moving, claiming that you should be able to feel it.
That is a claim. That is something that you need to back up.
Please prove technically why rotating of the earth isn't a claim but its being stationary is a claim ?
Theyre both claims.
One baseless.
Other not.
Nope. The earth's being stationary is a fact, not a claim. We are not talking about basement. The earth's rotating has to be proven.
-
Please prove technically why rotating of the earth isn't a claim but its being stationary is a claim ?
How about you prove why claiming Earth is stationary and that you would be able to feel it moving if it was moving isn't a claim?
Or how about you try proving that you would feel Earth moving? Especially considering I have shown that you wouldn't.
P.S.: I have never said that saying Earth is rotating is not a claim.
But that being a claim doesn't magically mean saying it is stationary isn't a claim, nor does it mean your claim that you would feel Earth moving if it was moving isn't a claim. This is especially true when you are using your lack of feeling the motion as an argument against the rotation of Earth.
So can you actually defend your claim or act like a rational adult and admit you are wrong and that you would not feel the motion of Earth?
Because this is the natural shape. this is called "natural evidence." So what you see is considered theoretically correct. otherwise you need proof. for example, the sky is blue. You have to prove it to say otherwise. Or I'm a person. if you have an otherwise claim, for example, if you are going to say homo sapiens, you need proof for it, but not "theory", something more than theory.
The eart is stationary, because it seems so. It does not need a proof by itself. If there is another claim, so it has to be proven. The earth's movement has to be proven because it does not seem so. You can not say earth's moving depend on theories. You have to prove it.
Now! You have a claim earth's rotating. Now mister! Stop to be a cry baby, Grow up and prove earth's rotating like an adult, mister Jackinoz!
-
No, it is not a claim.
You denying it being a claim doesn't help your case.
You are rejecting the rotation of Earth and instead claiming it is stationary on the basis that you don't feel it moving, claiming that you should be able to feel it.
That is a claim. That is something that you need to back up.
Please prove technically why rotating of the earth isn't a claim but its being stationary is a claim ?
Theyre both claims.
One baseless.
Other not.
Nope. The earth's being stationary is a fact, not a claim. We are not talking about basement. The earth's rotating has to be proven.
If we assume the sun is stationary then the earth and planets revolve around it.
-
No, it is not a claim.
You denying it being a claim doesn't help your case.
You are rejecting the rotation of Earth and instead claiming it is stationary on the basis that you don't feel it moving, claiming that you should be able to feel it.
That is a claim. That is something that you need to back up.
Please prove technically why rotating of the earth isn't a claim but its being stationary is a claim ?
Theyre both claims.
One baseless.
Other not.
Nope. The earth's being stationary is a fact, not a claim. We are not talking about basement. The earth's rotating has to be proven.
If we assume the sun is stationary then the earth and planets revolve around it.
If you "assume" it so you have to prove it. But the earth's being stationary isn't an assumption because it seems so. Till any of assumption to be proven, stationary is a fact can not change.
-
Nope. The earth's being stationary is a fact, not a claim.
No it isn't a fact.
It is a baseless claim, yet to be supported by a single piece of evidence or rational argument and completely refuted by actual evidence.
If you want to claim Earth is stationary YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!
Stop trying to shift or reject the burden of proof.
The earth's rotating has to be proven.
The rotating Earth has been proven.
Because this is the natural shape. this is called "natural evidence."
No, that is called wild speculation with no justification at all.
The most natural shape is a sphere as it highly symmetrical.
A flat disk is a very unnatural shape.
But even if you want to appeal to "natural shape" you still need to prove it.
The eart is stationary, because it seems so.
Again, there is absolutely no justification for this.
You are yet to establish what it being stationary seems like.
We can clearly observe relative motion.
There is no basis to claim Earth is stationary.
If you want to assert Earth is stationary, or that it "feels" stationary rather than feels like it is moving, YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP!
Otherwise it can easily be dismissed as childish nonsense as you have failed to provide any justification.
If you think that standard is acceptable, then any BS will be "supported" and not need to be proven.
For example, "Earth is round as it seems so." or "Earth is moving, as it seems so".
You have no justification for why your BS is more valid than reality and why your BS has no burden of proof but reality does.
So no, your BS does need proof.
So are you going to prove that Earth is stationary or prove that you should be able to feel Earth moving if it is?
Now! You have a claim earth's rotating. Now mister! Stop to be a cry baby, Grow up and prove earth's rotating like an adult, mister Jackinoz!
How about you follow your own advice?
You are claiming Earth is stationary and that if it was moving you would feel it.
How about you stop being a cry baby and back up your BS.
Especially considering I have already refuted it (here or elsewhere).
But the earth's being stationary isn't an assumption because it seems so.
No, that is an assumption as you have no basis to claim it seems so.
You assume Earth is stationary so you assume what you are feeling while standing on Earth is what being stationary feels like, so you assume that Earth is stationary.
It is all a bunch of irrational assumptions, easily disproven by sitting in a moving car where it "seems" to be stationary.
Again, all that actually seems is to not be applying a significant force across your body other than upwards.
-
Nope. The earth's being stationary is a fact, not a claim.
No it isn't a fact.
It is a baseless claim, yet to be supported by a single piece of evidence or rational argument and completely refuted by actual evidence.
If you want to claim Earth is stationary YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!
Stop trying to shift or reject the burden of proof.
Wise is right.
JackBlack, What you say is just far-fetched.
It is a sense that the earth is not moving.
I don't need to prove my senses.
The same is true of your senses.
In other words, we are individual beings but have common senses.
There is no need to prove the common senses.
But inference, not sensation, requires proof.
Wise, time and space need some explanation.
I will explain it in detail in a book to be published and videos later.
-
Wise is right.
No he isn't, not in the slightest.
If he was right he would be able to justify his claims rather than trying to pretend he doesn't have to.
JackBlack, What you say is just far-fetched.
Again, if it was, you would easily be able to show it is rather than repeatedly asserting it.
It is a sense that the earth is not moving.
Again, HOW?
No matter how many times I have asked, or how many people, no one has every been able to explain just how they sense that Earth isn't moving.
Again, your argument is entirely circle and easily refuted by a car ride.
You assume Earth is stationary. From this assumption, you further assume that what you feel like when you sit at a desk is feeling stationary. From that you then assume that when sitting on Earth you feel stationary.
But you have no justification for your initial assumption.
It is just as unsound as assuming Earth is moving and from that assumption assuming that what you feel like when you sit at a desk is feeling like you are moving and from that assumption assuming Earth is moving.
It is circular garbage.
But more importantly, as I said it is easily refuted by a car ride. You feel the same while in a car cruising down the highway. In that case either Earth is moving while you are stationary in the car, so Earth does move, or you aren't feeling stationary as the car is moving.
Now just what is this nonsense feeling of yours of being stationary?
What does it feel like?
How do you know that that is what being stationary feels like?
There is no need to prove the common senses.
But inference, not sensation, requires proof.
No, you don't need to prove your senses, but you are not feeling stationary.
You need to be careful to distinguish what is actually a sense and what is an inference of that sense, especially as multiple things can cause the same sense. A simple example is sitting in one train and observing another with relative motion. That train could be stationary with you moving beside it, or you could be stationary with the train moving, or you could both be moving, but the sense is all the same.
Another example is riding a bike vs the wind. Going quickly through the air creates a sensation from the air pushing against you and sliding past you and applying a force to slow you down. But that same sensation is felt from air blowing into you such as from the wind or a fan.
The sensation from this is the air flowing against you and forcing you back. But the inference could be that you are moving quickly, or that it is windy, or a combination of both.
You are inferring that you are stationary from what you are feeling (or what you are not feeling) and thus it requires proof.
If you wish to disagree, please tell of this magical sense of yours which allows you to sense if you are moving or stationary. Explain clearly just what each feels like.
-
Nope. The earth's being stationary is a fact, not a claim.
No it isn't a fact.
It is a baseless claim, yet to be supported by a single piece of evidence or rational argument and completely refuted by actual evidence.
If you want to claim Earth is stationary YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!
Stop trying to shift or reject the burden of proof.
Wise is right.
JackBlack, What you say is just far-fetched.
It is a sense that the earth is not moving.
I don't need to prove my senses.
The same is true of your senses.
In other words, we are individual beings but have common senses.
There is no need to prove the common senses.
But inference, not sensation, requires proof.
Wise, time and space need some explanation.
I will explain it in detail in a book to be published and videos later.
Okay, thanks. I'll wait. no need to hurry.
-
<splitted post deleted>
I don't get at all what you ask or what you talk about and what you try when split the post. I know that you are splitting my post when you are cornered.
zorbakim made the necessary statement on this issue. what we see and feel does not need to be proved. you must prove when you claim otherwise. therefore the world does not need proof that it is stationary because our senses tell us so. you make a claim and say the world is spining, rotating and moving. then you have to prove it.
Your childish behaviour is nothing more than proving that you're trying to hide your defeat in the debate you've actually lost through a false argument about it.
-
I don't get at all what you ask or what you talk about and what you try when split the post.
Cut the crap. You know exactly what I am asking and are just looking for whatever pathetic excuse you can to avoid having to defend your BS.
This is shown quite well by you pulling some other BS when I don't split your posts.
If you want me to not split your posts then start actually addressing what is said.
zorbakim made the necessary statement on this issue.
No, he just spouted more pathetic BS and still failed to justify your claims.
what we see and feel does not need to be proved.
Who cares?
You don't see or feel that Earth is stationary.
Your senses don't tell you that. You incorrectly infer it from what your senses tell you.
As such, you do need to prove it.
Now, going to defend your BS, or just continue acting like a child?
-
<BS deleted>
Cut to insulting. I am not in excusing for anything. You are continuoing to split post because you are in anger and cornered.
Whatever you say your childish behaviour denying the simple mentality can not help you in this case.
Either prove the earth's movement or you have agreed the earth's being stationary.
Grow up.
-
Cut to insulting.
Yes, that is another tactic of yours.
Rather than defend your claims you insult people.
Now going to continue acting like a child or will you prove your claims?
Considering you love this childish BS so much, I can just throw it back at you:
Either prove Earth is stationary or you agree that it is moving.
Feel free to try and explain just what this magical sense of yours is that allows you to sense that Earth isn't moving.
Again, no one has ever been able to do this.
Note: You need to show that it is a direct sense, not an interpretation of a sense.
-
Cut to insulting.
Yes, that is another tactic of yours.
Rather than defend your claims you insult people.
You are talking on a mirror.
There is only one here has to prove something, it is you. I am still waiting you prove the earth's movement. Since you can not prove magically its moving so you have agreed the earth's being stationary.
-
Cut to insulting.
Yes, that is another tactic of yours.
Rather than defend your claims you insult people.
You are talking on a mirror.
There is only one here has to prove something, it is you. I am still waiting you prove the earth's movement. Since you can not prove magically its moving so you have agreed the earth's being stationary.
I suggest you join a mainstream science forum rather than discussing with random individuals here.
-
There is only one here has to prove something
Yes, you.
As you are claiming Earth is stationary and that if it was moving you would feel it.
The more you try and ignore this burden of proof and pretend that you just get to assert whatever BS you want the more pathetic your position is shown to be.
We (rational people) are all still waiting on you to prove that Earth is stationary and that you would feel a moving Earth moving.
You can't even explain this magical feeling of being stationary.
Just what do you think being stationary feels like? How does this differ from not being stationary?
-
There is only one here has to prove something
Yes, you.
As you are claiming Earth is stationary and that if it was moving you would feel it.
No, you.
You are claiming earth is moving that if it was mowing I would feel it. I feel nothing so it is stationary. I have proved it. Look again. I did not feel its moving so it is stationary. Your turn. Prove the opposite.
-
if it was mowing I would feel it
See, this is your claim.
You are yet to substantiate this in any way.
I feel nothing so it is stationary. I have proved it.
Stop lying.
You have proven nothing.
You just repeatedly assert that your magic feels means that it is stationary.
You are yet to explain just what you would expect to feel from Earth's motion, while I have proven that you would not feel it.
So it is you are the one with BS to prove, not me.
-
if it was mowing I would feel it
See, this is your claim.
You are yet to substantiate this in any way.
I feel nothing so it is stationary. I have proved it.
Stop lying.
You have proven nothing.
You just repeatedly assert that your magic feels means that it is stationary.
You are yet to explain just what you would expect to feel from Earth's motion, while I have proven that you would not feel it.
So it is you are the one with BS to prove, not me.
Nope. It is not my claim. You claim we are moving then I replied you "if we would moving (like your claim) I would feel it. You have a claim we move so you have to prove it.
I told you whenever I prove anything you deny it, mister rabblack. I don't feel the earth's movement so it is stationary and this is a proof. Because our sense organs are proving objects by themselves. I don't have a claim, because this is clear fact that we feel it by our senses. You have a claim.
Since you can't prove the earth's movement, that is your claim, it is stationary. Either grow up and prove its moving or give up your childish claims.
-
I replied you "if we would moving (like your claim) I would feel it.
That is your claim.
That is what you need to prove.
Now go and prove that you would feel the motion of Earth.
Again, I have already proven that is not the case.
And no, it wasn't my claim that Earth was moving. That was actually zorbakim.
Since you can't prove the earth's movement it is stationary.
Again, pure BS.
One side being unable to prove their position doesn't magically mean the other side is correct.
You don't get to ignore your burden of proof and just demand the other side proves it.
Otherwise, we can do the exact same.
As you can't prove Earth is stationary, Earth is moving.
If you wish to assert Earth is stationary, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!
-
I replied you "if we would moving (like your claim) I would feel it.
That is your claim.
That is what you need to prove.
Now go and prove that you would feel the motion of Earth.
Again, I have already proven that is not the case.
And no, it wasn't my claim that Earth was moving. That was actually zorbakim.
Since you can't prove the earth's movement it is stationary.
Again, pure BS.
One side being unable to prove their position doesn't magically mean the other side is correct.
You don't get to ignore your burden of proof and just demand the other side proves it.
Otherwise, we can do the exact same.
As you can't prove Earth is stationary, Earth is moving.
If you wish to assert Earth is stationary, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!
It is not claim "I don't feel earth's rotation." Do you feel it? No. So it is a fact.
Now you have a claim its moving so you have to prove it.
Either stop to claim BS, or grow up and agree the earth's being stationary.
-
It is not claim "I don't feel earth's rotation." Do you feel it? No. So it is a fact.
Are you capable of reading what I said?
Did I say that was your claim? NO!
I said your claims was that you would feel it.
No, you can't feel Earth's rotation.
Do you know what else you can't feel? Earth being stationary.
So again, I can play the same game.
I don't feel Earth being stationary, thus it is fact that it is moving.
See how stupid your argument is? You are using a lack of a non-existent feeling to try to assert pure garbage.
Again, what you need to prove is that Earth is stationary and that you would be able to feel the motion of Earth.
You are to even come close to doing either of those.
So, are you going to back up your claims, or just continue with your childish BS.
And in case you have forgotten, I have proven you feel just what a sane person would expect from the RE reality, and you where unable to show anything wrong with that.
Here it is for you again:
Again, everyday experience, such as driving along a highway or sitting in a plane in flight clearly demonstrates that we do not feel motion. Instead what we feel is the acceleration of the object (but not necessarily all). Sitting in a car or a plane travelling along a straight path feels the same as sitting in chair at your desk. You don't feel it. Instead you feel the turbulence when the plane shakes around which causes to accelerate where the plane accelerates you by pushing on part of you, and when the car accelerates again by pushing on you.
So you wouldn't feel Earth moving.
Now we need to consider the acceleration part. Note: acceleration alone is not enough. You need a force being applied across your body.
When you stand "still" on Earth, you feel your feet getting pushed up by Earth. When you are in free fall you initially feel nothing as your entire body accelerates together with no force needing to be transmitted through your body (more technical below).
So the only time you feel "motion" is when you have a force applied through your body. Perhaps what is more important, is that is what you are actually feeling is this force and the motion isn't actually needed. It can be a force applied to accelerate you or slow you down, or simply be a force passing through you. The latter can be shown easily by forcing your hands together. They remain stationary, yet you can feel it, similar to how it would feel if you pressed your hand against the seat in an accelerating car.
So now the question becomes what force would need to be transmitted through your body if Earth was in motion?
Well, from the Earth's orbit around the sun (or the moon's orbit around Earth), you have the tidal force acting on you.
And with several of these forces it can be easier to consider it in terms of acceleration and potentially even jerk.
The tidal acceleration as a good approximation is given by a=2GMr/d3.
To simplify the math, if we consider a human with a height of 2 m, so r is 1 m, then considering the sun at 150 million km with a mass of 2x1030 kg, we end up with an acceleration of ~8x10-14 m/s.
From the moon underestimated at 350 000 km away, with a mass of 7.34x1022 kg, we get an acceleration of 2.3x10-13 m/s.
From Earth (i.e. if we are in free fall just above the surface) with a distance of 6371 km, and a mass of 6x1024 kg, we get an acceleration of 3x10-6 m/s
If we were to assume our person is 100 kg, with 50 kg of that at the top of their head and 50 kg at their feet, this gives us a force for the tidal due to Earth of a staggering 0.15 mN.
This is equivalent to the weight of 0.016 g or 16 mg.
If you take the slightly more reasonable approach of splitting this 100 kg equally over your body, it drops down to less than 10 mg.
That is comparable to the weight of 2 ants.
Are you suggesting that if an ant stood on your shoe you would feel it when you are walking (feel it from its weight, not from it crawling around)? If so, I'm calling BS.
The only force left to consider is that from the rotation of Earth.
This has the effect of making you feel lighter.
At the equator it amounts to a mere 0.03 m/s or 0.34 % of gravity.
Now this can actually become significant. For our hypothetical 100 kg person, this means they would weigh ~340g less.
But gravity is known to vary by far more than this around Earth, from ~9.7639 to 9.8337 m/s. A variation of ~0.07 m/s, twice that of gravity. So if you claim you can feel that, if you moved around Earth, you would.
So again, going to back up your claims, or just continue with the childish BS of asserting because you are some magical being you don't need to prove any of the BS you spout?
-
It is not claim "I don't feel earth's rotation." Do you feel it? No. So it is a fact.
Are you capable of reading what I said?
Did I say that was your claim? NO!
I said your claims was that you would feel it.
No, you can't feel Earth's rotation.
Do you know what else you can't feel? Earth being stationary.
Nope! Lie again. I don't feel the earth's moving but I feel earth's being stationary. It is simply not moving at all. This is a proof not a claim. You can not feel any movement so it is stationary by itself. You have a claim its moving so you have to prove it.
Being some numbers are not evidences. You need real proof. These efforts just made me laught. How you are cornered so writing more and more and more but all are BS. ;D
Again, stop to behave like a little child and either stop your baseless claims and agree its being stationary, or prove its moving.
-
Nope! Lie again.
Well thanks for summarising your post.
Are you capable of responding without lying?
I don't feel the earth's moving but I feel earth's being stationary.
Again, just what is this magical feeling of yours?
You keep repeating the same BS, but are yet to substantiate it or explain it in any way.
Again, just what is this feeling of being stationary?
Is it like what you feel when you are cruising along in a car?
How do you know that is what it feels like to be stationary?
This is a proof not a claim.
No, it is a claim.
It doesn't matter how you want to dress it up, it remains the same claim, that you apparently have some magical power that lets you feel when you are stationary or moving, a feeling which no one else in the world seems to have, a feeling you are completely unable to explain.
It is no better than just asserting that Earth is stationary.
You can not feel any movement so it is stationary by itself.
Well you started off well.
You don't feel movement, because you don't feel movement.
It isn't a case of moving causes some feeling and you don't feel this for Earth. It is a case of people not feeling movement at all.
So no, your lack of a non-existent feeling is not grounds to conclude Earth is stationary.
So again, the burden of proof is on you.
Being some numbers are not evidences.
It is proof that you would not feel the motion of Earth.
This destroys your BS argument.
It shows that your lack of feeling motion is not grounds to conclude that Earth is stationary, as you wouldn't feel this motion anyway, so your lack of feeling is entirely consistent with the motion of Earth.
Your pathetic dismissal because you have no argument against it doesn't magically make you correct, it doesn't magically refute it. It just shows your position to be pathetic.
Again, stop to behave like a little child and either stop your baseless claims and agree its being moving, or prove its stationary.
-
Well thanks for summarising your post.
No, I did not summoraise your post. You are saying lie like everytime you are saying. I meant you said lie again but you are acting like a little child play word game. If you want to play like this so go to kindergarden, to your friends.
Are you capable of responding without lying?
Again, I've called you say lie, not me. Stop to manipulate my words. Is this all you can do? Oh, surely, your life is a complete scam. Who am I talking to? mister rabblack, jackinoz. Even your personality is a scam.
Again, just what is this magical feeling of yours?
Again, I feel nothing and there isn't a magic here. Magic is your claim earth's moving. Prove your claim.
You keep repeating the same BS, but are yet to substantiate it or explain it in any way.
Nope. You are a liar. I am not repeating any BS. I am just saying I don't feel anything about movement and calling your prove your claim. Instead of proving your claim you are constantly insulting me because I am disclosiring your being a liar mister rabblack!
Again, just what is this feeling of being stationary?
Simple, feeling nothing.
Is it like what you feel when you are cruising along in a car?
Stop to manipulate mister manipulator in the oz. You feel your moving in a car more or less. If you want to more evidence just look out of the window.
Whenever you look ot of the window in a moving car you'll see you are moving. But I am looking to the sky and seing everything is rotating, but I am stationary. If you claim I move so prove it. Your car dreams are not proof mister dreamerinoz.
How do you know that is what it feels like to be stationary?
If I move I feel it. Simple. A man have senses know this. I think you are lack in sense mister chemicalinoz.
No, it is a claim.
Nope. It is fact. You have to prove its opposite first.
You don't feel movement, because you don't feel movement.
This is a claim so you have to prove this.
It isn't a case of moving causes some feeling and you don't feel this for Earth. It is a case of people not feeling movement at all.
This is another claim. You are claiming it so you have to prove.
This destroys your BS argument.
Nope. Writing more and more and I don't get them consider because you are only writing BS isn't an argument. You are constantly writing BS claims, then you deny them being BS, then I don't get them considered , then you declare yourself as a winner.
We are not playina a game here depends on who makes more BS he wins. If it would so, you would definitely in it, mister BSinoz.
Again, stop to behave like a little child and either stop your baseless claims and agree its not moving, or prove its moving, mister rabblack jackinoz, BSinoz.
-
No, I did not summoraise your post.
No, you summarised your own. Your entire post could be summed as you saying nope and spouting a bunch of lies.
No where in your post have actually, honestly and rationally addressed what I have said.
You just keep repeating the same nonsense.
So I will skip the majority of your BS and only bother dealing with the points which have some semblance of sanity.
Again, I feel nothing and there isn't a magic here.
So you don't feel stationary, and that means all your prior claims about feeling stationary are lies.
So thanks for admitting that you have been repeatedly lying.
It is your claim that this feeling of nothing means you are stationary, but you don't feel motion, so even if you were moving, you would still feel nothing.
Again, I have proven that you would not feel the motion of Earth and you just ignore it.
Stop to manipulate mister manipulator in the oz. You feel your moving in a car more or less.
No you don't.
You feel when the car accelerates, forcing you to accelerate with it.
But if it is moving steadily it feels the same as sitting as a desk.
Whenever you look ot of the window in a moving car you'll see you are moving.
No, you can't.
All this tells you is that there is relative motion.
You cannot tell from sight alone if it is the car moving with the surroundings stationary, the surroundings moving with the car stationary or both moving.
If you really think that is enough then look at the sky. We can observe that Earth is rotating as the "fixed" stars appear to move past.
Just like when we are travelling in a car and we see the "fixed" Earth appear to move past.
So I guess that settles it, Earth is moving, and you will admit you were wrong?
Or will you continue with more of this childish BS?
It is fact. You have to prove its opposite first.
Again, that isn't how debate works.
If you make a claim you need to back it up.
You don't just get to assert it is a fact and demand the opposite side disproves it.
But again, I have already shown your claims to be garbage. I have already disproven them and your only repsonse is to just dismiss my arguments (not refute them) and repeat your same lies.
Now grow up.
Either admit you were wrong, prove that you can feel motion, clearly explaining what this feeling is, or shut up.
-
<BS deleted>
Everybody know here that I summorised your being a liar from opening till end. So it is not possible I am calling myself as a liar. This proves your being a manipulation here. Because you know you are wrong so you have no chance but manipulation.
Again and again, stop your BS claims like earth's movement. You have to prove it. Your being lack in sense and can not feel the motion in your car is your own problem. Whenever you get on a car you know it. If you don't know it so you have a problem of understanding.
Now grow up.
Either prove the earth's movement or you are a liar, you are a manipulator as we see the upside claiming myself calling myself as a liar that clear BS because you are a BS spreater here. Or you have to agree the earth's being stationary.
Again and again, grow up!
Again, again and one more time again, stop to say lie!
-
Again and again, stop your BS claims like earth's movement.
Where have I claimed this in this thread?
Again, I objected to your claim that Earth was stationary backed up by nothing more than your baseless claim that if Earth was moving you would feel it.
As such the burden of proof is on you.
Prove that you would feel the motion of Earth, especially as I have already proven that you would not.
Your being lack in sense and can not feel the motion in your car is your own problem.
No, it is a well established fact of physics that linear motion is relative.
The only justification you had was seeing relative motion. But again, that is observed for Earth.
Your lack of justification for your claims is your problem, not mine.
P.S. are you really so butt-hurt by me calling out your BS that you felt the need to spam all over the forum?
-
Again and again, stop your BS claims like earth's movement.
Where have I claimed this in this thread?
Again, again and one more time again for retards...
You are claiming the earth's rotating.
-
You are claiming the earth's rotating.
Not in this thread.
In this thread I am objecting to your claims that Earth is stationary and that you should feel the motion of Earth.
I have proven you would not feel the motion of Earth.
The best you were able to come up with for feeling the motion of cars was that things appear to move past the car, just like what happens for Earth.
So are you going to explain just what you expect to feel for motion?
-
You are claiming the earth's rotating.
Not in this thread.
In this thread I am objecting to your claims that Earth is stationary and that you should feel the motion of Earth.
I have proven you would not feel the motion of Earth.
The best you were able to come up with for feeling the motion of cars was that things appear to move past the car, just like what happens for Earth.
So are you going to explain just what you expect to feel for motion?
You have not proved I would not feel the motion of Earth. you know it moves when you get into the vehicle. When you look out the window, you move from one place to another. The centrifugal force pushes you out while turning the bends. If the vehicle jumps you jump. you will surely feel it. Even if you ride a vehicle with no friction, you will feel the first acceleration and the brake reverse acceleration during the last stop. but you don't feel any movement in the world at all. down, up, right or left, we're not moving anywhere. if you claim otherwise, you have to prove it. Stop dreaming car, you're not a spacex laborer.
First you have to start with prove how these stones keep stand like this years since years in a world moving, rotating, evolving, spinning, etc...
(https://i0.wp.com/www.nurnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/%C3%BCst-%C3%BCste-ta%C5%9Flar-ve-denge.jpg)
-
You have not proved I would not feel the motion of Earth.
You ignoring the proof doesn't magically mean it doesn't exist.
Again it is right here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78821.msg2175810#msg2175810
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78821.msg2175815#msg2175815
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78821.msg2176026#msg2176026
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78821.msg2176430#msg2176430
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78821.msg2176448#msg2176448
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78821.msg2176865#msg2176865
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78821.msg2176928#msg2176928
But again, the burden of proof is on you.
You are the one claiming you are so magical you can feel the motion of Earth, thus you need to prove you can.
you know it moves
Notice how you now appeal to knowing, not simply feeling?
Yes, I know cars move, just like I know Earth moves. But that doesn't mean you feel it.
When you look out the window
Again, this just shows relative motion. If you looked out the window to a backdrop that was moved you would see the same thing, and with Earth if you look up at the sky you still see this relative motion.
The centrifugal force pushes you out while turning the bends.
No, it doesn't. The car pushes you into the bend, applying a force across you.
In order to notice this yourself the curve needs to be quite significant.
The curving of Earth is far too minor for a human to notice without any equipment (as proven before).
However this has been observed countless times with instruments, such as Foucault's pendulum, and in large scale weather systems.
Even if you ride a vehicle with no friction, you will feel the first acceleration and the brake reverse acceleration during the last stop
Now consider if you have spent your entire life in this vehicle without it stopping.
You wouldn't have been there for the first acceleration and the stop hasn't happened yet, so you feel nothing.
Does that mean it is stationary? NO!
but you don't feel any movement in the world at all.
Again, you don't feel movement.
You feel when a force is transmitted across your body.
And you do feel that when standing on Earth.
Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that you would feel the motion of Earth.
Appealing to knowing that objects are moving will not help you.
Appealing to seeing relative motion will not help you.
Appealing to situations where the forces are much greater will not help you.
Baseless assertions will not help you.
-
<BS deleted>
You have staeted to split my posts "PROVES" that you are cornered and pathetically attacking by spliting my post aim to your only chance to make me anger. Look I am laughting on you because I see a man cornered. What a pathetic man! ;D
Combine them and make your post logically coordinated one post, then try it again. I do not combine your all the BS's.
If you have a proof then prove it. Writing more and more and spliting my posts hopelessly does not help your case at all.
-
You have staeted to split my posts "PROVES"
nothing more than you are still grasping at whatever pathetic BS you can find to avoid backing up your lies.
Again, PROVE THAT YOU CAN FEEL MOTION!
Again, I have already proven you can't.
A simple car trip proves you can't.
-
You have staeted to split my posts "PROVES"
nothing more than you are still grasping at whatever pathetic BS you can find to avoid backing up your lies.
Again, PROVE THAT YOU CAN FEEL MOTION!
Again, I have already proven you can't.
A simple car trip proves you can't.
I have already proved you can not prove you can not feel the motion.
A simple car trip proves you can't. Because I feel motion in also in a car. This is a prove that you can'T prove.
-
I have already proved you can not prove you can not feel the motion.
You repeatedly ignore the proof doesn't magically mean I can't prove it.
It just shows you have no rational response to the proof.
A simple car trip proves you can't.
Well thanks for finally admitting that you were wrong and that people can't feel motion.
Glad we got that out of the way.
-
I have already proved you can not prove you can not feel the motion.
You repeatedly ignore the proof doesn't magically mean I can't prove it.
It just shows you have no rational response to the proof.
A simple car trip proves you can't.
Well thanks for finally admitting that you were wrong and that people can't feel motion.
Glad we got that out of the way.
Your claiming me ignore your proof can not magically be a proof. There is not a proof of anything but you have some fantesies about cars. You can feel motions in car, you can not feel motions in car, but you know you are in a car. The difference here, I don't aware we are being an earth car so you do have to prove it.
-
you can not feel motions in car, but you know you are in a car.
And that's the point. You can't feel the motion. You need to rely upon your knowledge that the car is moving.
Humans do not have a sense to detect absolute motion. All they can feel is a force transmitted through their body.
This allows them to feel when the car pushes them forwards or backwards or sideways, but it can't feel when the car is moving.
The same applies to Earth. You can feel it pushing you upwards, but you can't feel it moving.
As such, you argument for Earth being stationary is refuted.
-
you can not feel motions in car, but you know you are in a car.
And that's the point. You can't feel the motion. You need to rely upon your knowledge that the car is moving.
Humans do not have a sense to detect absolute motion. All they can feel is a force transmitted through their body.
This allows them to feel when the car pushes them forwards or backwards or sideways, but it can't feel when the car is moving.
The same applies to Earth. You can feel it pushing you upwards, but you can't feel it moving.
As such, you argument for Earth being stationary is refuted.
Again, when a car is bend then I feel it. But I don't feel any motion of the earth's bending. If it revolving so we have to feel it. Prove its revolving and we feel it. I feel it in the car. So you car theori is disproven. You can not prove anything with your car dream.
-
Again, when a car is bend then I feel it. But I don't feel any motion of the earth's bending.
Again, we have been over this.
That feeling is a tiny fraction of gravity and is less than the measured variation in gravity.
It is so small you would not be able to feel it.
If you wish to compare it to a car, try having a car turn a corner with a radius of thousands of km and see if you can feel that.
Just because you can feel a massive change doesn't mean you can feel an insignificant one.
As a comparison, if I dropped a 1 tonne weight on your foot, you would feel that. But if I dropped an ant on your foot, you would not as it is too light for you to notice.
Also note that this is an upwards force which only has the effect of reducing your weight making it even harder to notice and not something you will notice over gravity pulling you down unless you moved around a lot (i.e. to another city on Earth).
If you would like to test your ability to feel this start weighing yourself, but before you do, write down how much you weigh.
See if you can be accurate to within 0.3%. Then go to another city and try again.
Again, see if you can be accurate to within 0.3%.
If you can't then you can't feel the rotation of Earth.
So no, the burden is still on you to demonstrate that you can feel this insignificant force.
-
...
-
Again, when a car is bend then I feel it. But I don't feel any motion of the earth's bending.
Again, we have been over this.
Nope. You have not been over this like you have not been over anything here and denying the facts.
That feeling isn't tiny enough do not fall these stones down.
(https://pembemucize.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10410994_360897340732194_1024466310462426963_n.jpg)
(http://i.hurimg.com/i/hurriyet/75/750x422/56c85c99c03c0e2d7ce99bc7.jpg)
Different altitude of objects get different centrifugal forces. Everybody can get it has simple phsics, but you deny it because your tearchers in kindergarden did not teach enough phsics to you.
According to these images, the earth is not spinning and revolving at all.
It is necessary to not take any force an objects so stay like this. Your imagination of gravity does not magically keeps these object stationary.
You can define every kind of forces and claim try to explain every kind of impossible problems. But those not make your childish claims reality, but just your imagination.
-
You have not been over this
Stop lying.
I posted the math here:
It is not claim "I don't feel earth's rotation." Do you feel it? No. So it is a fact.
Are you capable of reading what I said?
Did I say that was your claim? NO!
I said your claims was that you would feel it.
No, you can't feel Earth's rotation.
Do you know what else you can't feel? Earth being stationary.
So again, I can play the same game.
I don't feel Earth being stationary, thus it is fact that it is moving.
See how stupid your argument is? You are using a lack of a non-existent feeling to try to assert pure garbage.
Again, what you need to prove is that Earth is stationary and that you would be able to feel the motion of Earth.
You are to even come close to doing either of those.
So, are you going to back up your claims, or just continue with your childish BS.
And in case you have forgotten, I have proven you feel just what a sane person would expect from the RE reality, and you where unable to show anything wrong with that.
Here it is for you again:
Again, everyday experience, such as driving along a highway or sitting in a plane in flight clearly demonstrates that we do not feel motion. Instead what we feel is the acceleration of the object (but not necessarily all). Sitting in a car or a plane travelling along a straight path feels the same as sitting in chair at your desk. You don't feel it. Instead you feel the turbulence when the plane shakes around which causes to accelerate where the plane accelerates you by pushing on part of you, and when the car accelerates again by pushing on you.
So you wouldn't feel Earth moving.
Now we need to consider the acceleration part. Note: acceleration alone is not enough. You need a force being applied across your body.
When you stand "still" on Earth, you feel your feet getting pushed up by Earth. When you are in free fall you initially feel nothing as your entire body accelerates together with no force needing to be transmitted through your body (more technical below).
So the only time you feel "motion" is when you have a force applied through your body. Perhaps what is more important, is that is what you are actually feeling is this force and the motion isn't actually needed. It can be a force applied to accelerate you or slow you down, or simply be a force passing through you. The latter can be shown easily by forcing your hands together. They remain stationary, yet you can feel it, similar to how it would feel if you pressed your hand against the seat in an accelerating car.
So now the question becomes what force would need to be transmitted through your body if Earth was in motion?
Well, from the Earth's orbit around the sun (or the moon's orbit around Earth), you have the tidal force acting on you.
And with several of these forces it can be easier to consider it in terms of acceleration and potentially even jerk.
The tidal acceleration as a good approximation is given by a=2GMr/d3.
To simplify the math, if we consider a human with a height of 2 m, so r is 1 m, then considering the sun at 150 million km with a mass of 2x1030 kg, we end up with an acceleration of ~8x10-14 m/s.
From the moon underestimated at 350 000 km away, with a mass of 7.34x1022 kg, we get an acceleration of 2.3x10-13 m/s.
From Earth (i.e. if we are in free fall just above the surface) with a distance of 6371 km, and a mass of 6x1024 kg, we get an acceleration of 3x10-6 m/s
If we were to assume our person is 100 kg, with 50 kg of that at the top of their head and 50 kg at their feet, this gives us a force for the tidal due to Earth of a staggering 0.15 mN.
This is equivalent to the weight of 0.016 g or 16 mg.
If you take the slightly more reasonable approach of splitting this 100 kg equally over your body, it drops down to less than 10 mg.
That is comparable to the weight of 2 ants.
Are you suggesting that if an ant stood on your shoe you would feel it when you are walking (feel it from its weight, not from it crawling around)? If so, I'm calling BS.
The only force left to consider is that from the rotation of Earth.
This has the effect of making you feel lighter.
At the equator it amounts to a mere 0.03 m/s or 0.34 % of gravity.
Now this can actually become significant. For our hypothetical 100 kg person, this means they would weigh ~340g less.
But gravity is known to vary by far more than this around Earth, from ~9.7639 to 9.8337 m/s. A variation of ~0.07 m/s, twice that of gravity. So if you claim you can feel that, if you moved around Earth, you would.
So again, going to back up your claims, or just continue with the childish BS of asserting because you are some magical being you don't need to prove any of the BS you spout?
Again, the force from Earth rotating is far too small and in such a direction that you would not feel it.
If you wish to disagree and repeat your claim that you would feel such motion the burden remains on you to prove that you would feel it.
Proving that you can feel a much larger force in a different direction does not prove that you can feel this tiny force in this direction.
Again, if you would like a simple test, guess how much you weigh, and then weigh yourself.
See if you can get to within 0.3%, as the force you are trying to feel is 0.3% at the equator. Then go to a different latitude and try again.
If you would like a value more appropriate for you (assuming you are still living in Turkey), then try 0.2%.
-
Stop lying.
The only liar here is you are.
I posted the math here:
It is not math, it is BS.
You can claim to prove everything by using numbers. Those can't be evidences of anything but just your imagination.
Again, numbers are not evidences. It is already impossible how an object can resist centrifugal forces to tries it down. As like in this example stones fall down whatever gravity be smalll, even one in end. Grow up, and accept the earth's being motionless. Stop your childish claims.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_spiral
In a graveyard spiral, known to anyone that has undergone flight training, the pilot may not realize they are in a turn as their inner ear adjusts to the constant turn.
"In this kind of turn, the fluid inside the canal starts moving initially, then friction causes it to catch up with the walls of the rotating canal. When this happens, the hairs inside the canal will return to their straight up position, sending an erroneous signal to the brain that the turn has stopped–when, in fact, the turn continues.
If you then start rolling out of the turn to go back to level flight, the fluid inside the canal will continue to move (because of its inertia), and the hairs will now move in the opposite direction, sending an erroneous signal to the brain indicating that you are turning in the opposite direction, when in fact, you are actually slowing down from the original turn."
These turns can have a far bigger acceleration than that of the Earth turning and still your body can stop noticing it.
-
It is not math, it is BS.
You can claim to prove everything by using numbers. Those can't be evidences of anything but just your imagination.
You not liking it doesn't make it BS.
The math is used to show just how small the force is.
Due to how small it is you would not be able to feel it and you showing you can feel a much larger force does not mean you will feel this tiny force.
It is already impossible how an object can resist centrifugal forces to tries it down.
And that is just another baseless claim of yours which makes no sense.
If you want to convince any sane person that Earth is motionless you will need to back up your claim that you are capable of feeling the motion of Earth. You are yet to do so.
-
It is not math, it is BS.
You can claim to prove everything by using numbers. Those can't be evidences of anything but just your imagination.
You not liking it doesn't make it BS.
Stop to talking baseless BS. I told that "It is not matc, it is BS" it doesn't mean I like it or not. There is nothing here includes me liking it or not. I told its being BS but not math.
You can claim everything by playing numbers. It does not make it true or not. You can claim you prove everything by playing numbers. But all these requires more working to become a prove, an evidence or at least a theory.
Your mathematic can show them how small. I can do a math can show them how bigger. You are predicting a force isn't exist, you can claim its being a format can support or deny you. It isn't math, it is BS. Now stop spreading BS and talk a bit scientific.
-
People feel acceleration, not velocity. The acceleration on a person from the earth’s rotation is non detectable.
-
People feel acceleration, not velocity. The acceleration on a person from the earth’s rotation is non detectable.
Your claiming earth's rotation non detectable shows its being imaginated and faked-up. You can fake up numerously every kind of powers and claim its not affecting anything. And you can (so called) prove them not affecting anything by some so called math calculations. But these are not convincing.
-
Read my post slowly.
People detect acceleration.
The acceleration due to rotation has been posted before. It like 0.0001 m/s2. You can’t detect it.
You already agreed you can’t feel velocity.
-
Read my post slowly.
People detect acceleration.
The acceleration due to rotation has been posted before. It like 0.0001 m/s2. You can’t detect it.
You already agreed you can’t feel velocity.
Nope. You can detect 0.0001 m/s2 on a light object in an airless close tube. But you can not, because it is absent.
-
Stop to talking baseless BS.
Good advice, you should follow it.
I told that "It is not matc, it is BS" it doesn't mean I like it or not.
It means you have no rational refutation of it and thus need to dismiss it as BS.
If it was actually BS you would be able to show some problem with it yet you have not done so.
As such, the math remains sound, showing the forces/accelerations involved are negligible and that you would not feel them.
Again, if you want to detect them you will need to use instruments. People have used said instruments and determined that these accelerations do occur.
So no, I am not talking about some imaginary force/acceleration. I am talking about these very real forces which have been shown to be real, which you have no rational refutation for.
Meanwhile you are just baselessly asserting that you can magically feel these tiny forces.
Again, like I said, get yourself a scale that is accurate to within 100 g. Then estimate how much you weigh, and then measure yourself. Do this repeatedly over the course of days/months.
See if you can get to within 100 g. If you can't then you aren't able to feel the force due to the acceleration of Earth.
If you can, then go to a different location on Earth and do the same. If you don't get it straight away then again, you can't feel the force due to the acceleration of Earth.
It isn't a case of the force isn't real. It is a case of you are not sensitive enough to notice it.
If you would like to use a small object instead of yourself, get a few opaque containers and fill them with roughly the same mass of something, so they weigh roughly 1 kg each, but vary by a few grams to 10s of grams.
For this, assuming it has a mass of 1 kg, you would need to be able to tell the difference of a few grams (the centrifugal force will make their apparent weight vary by 3.5 g).
So see if you can accurately guess their weight to within 1 g.
Then go elsewhere on Earth with these containers and see if you still get it correct to within 1 g, making sure you use the same scale. If you mark inside you can also see if the scale (which is likely much more sensitive than you) can pick up the variation of 1 g.
-
Read my post slowly.
People detect acceleration.
The acceleration due to rotation has been posted before. It like 0.0001 m/s2. You can’t detect it.
You already agreed you can’t feel velocity.
Nope. You can detect 0.0001 m/s2 on a light object in an airless close tube. But you can not, because it is absent.
Ok, you are at 41 degrees north.
Your mass is 75 kg.
Gravitational acceleration at 41 degrees north at sea is 9.81825 m / s2
Circumference of the 41st parallel is 29906 km, so tangential speed there is 346 m / s and radius from the Earth's axis is 4759.7 km.
So, the centripetal acceleration is 3462 / 4759700 = 0.02515 m / s2
Total acceleration is 9.81825 - 0.02515 = 9.7931 m / s2
Instead of 75 * 9.81825 = 736.37 N (75.09 kg of force)
your weight is 75 * 9.7931 = 734.48 N (74.9 kg of force).
You feel the same weight all day and night. No change. Which weight it is?
Please tell us how would you know if it was 75.09 kg or 74.9 kg?
And how would you know if you lost 190 grams of weight or the Earth spin permanently reduces it from you?
Thanks for your time.
-
Read my post slowly.
People detect acceleration.
The acceleration due to rotation has been posted before. It like 0.0001 m/s2. You can’t detect it.
You already agreed you can’t feel velocity.
Nope. You can detect 0.0001 m/s2 on a light object in an airless close tube. But you can not, because it is absent.
Ok, you are at 41 degrees north.
Your mass is 75 kg.
Gravitational acceleration at 41 degrees north at sea is 9.81825 m / s2
Circumference of the 41st parallel is 29906 km, so tangential speed there is 346 m / s and radius from the Earth's axis is 4759.7 km.
So, the centripetal acceleration is 3462 / 4759700 = 0.02515 m / s2
Total acceleration is 9.81825 - 0.02515 = 9.7931 m / s2
Instead of 75 * 9.81825 = 736.37 N (75.09 kg of force)
your weight is 75 * 9.7931 = 734.48 N (74.9 kg of force).
You feel the same weight all day and night. No change. Which weight it is?
Please tell us how would you know if it was 75.09 kg or 74.9 kg?
And how would you know if you lost 190 grams of weight or the Earth spin permanently reduces it from you?
Thanks for your time.
I'm talking about the horizontal acceleration caused by angular acceleration. My time is valued, not worthless like all yours. Because you are many and have time to deal all my writings. You have numerical advantage here. If there would only one globularist want to discuss with me then conditions become equal. We've offered a "duel sobforum" allows one to one discussings but denied by rabinoz and his slaves globularist management.
-
Stop to talking baseless BS.
Good advice,
I always advice good but you don't listen me.
-
I'm talking about the horizontal acceleration caused by angular acceleration.
Which is known as the Coriolis effect and is not the 0.036 m/s^2 you are claiming.
It is insignificant at the scale of pouring water.
Again, pouring from 10 cm will result in a displacement of roughly 1 micrometer.
It is nothing.
My time is valued
Then why do you waste by repeatedly posting such garbage, rather than using it constructively by actually making rational arguments to defend your claims or to support reality?
Again, how about you try to back up your claim that you should feel this motion of Earth.
Again, you can easily check if you can. To do so try to guess your weight to within 100 g. If you can't, you wont be able to feel the acceleration of Earth. Try guessing the weight of an object which is roughly 1 kg to within 1 g. If you can't, you wont be able to feel the acceleration of Earth.
-
We've offered a "duel sobforum" allows one to one discussings but denied by rabinoz and his slaves globularist management.
Wise, I am totally sick and tired of your continued lying about me!
I have no "slaves" in any "globularist management". I have nothing to do with any management here so stop you repeated lying!
And I have not the slightest with NASA, FETÖ or any other organisation so if you claim otherwise you are lying and the truth is not in you.
If you expect respect from me you will show some respect to me, get thst Mr Wise!
-
I'm talking about the horizontal acceleration caused by angular acceleration...
There is no horizontal (tangential) acceleration.
The Earth rotates at constant speed.
-
Read my post slowly.
People detect acceleration.
The acceleration due to rotation has been posted before. It like 0.0001 m/s2. You can’t detect it.
You already agreed you can’t feel velocity.
Nope. You can detect 0.0001 m/s2 on a light object in an airless close tube. But you can not, because it is absent.
I was way off on the value. A person using no instrumentation will not detect the value I listed or the real value, which is higher.
-
I'm talking about the horizontal acceleration caused by angular acceleration...
There is no horizontal (tangential) acceleration.
The Earth rotates at constant speed.
So you are telling the earth is not "moving", while revolving, right?
Read my post slowly.
People detect acceleration.
The acceleration due to rotation has been posted before. It like 0.0001 m/s2. You can’t detect it.
You already agreed you can’t feel velocity.
Nope. You can detect 0.0001 m/s2 on a light object in an airless close tube. But you can not, because it is absent.
I was way off on the value. A person using no instrumentation will not detect the value I listed or the real value, which is higher.
have any experiments been done to test it?
-
So you are telling the earth is not "moving", while revolving, right?
No. He is stating that the acceleration is not in a horizontal direction.
As plenty of people have pointed out to you, the acceleration from rotation is inwards. For the equator, this is directly inwards with no horizontal component at all.
At other locations, all it does is change the direction of "down" slightly, resulting in Earth being an oblate spheroid instead of a sphere.
So you will not observe any acceleration perpendicular to "down" due to Earth's rotation.
All you would be able to observe is the corriolis effect resulting from an object changing radius. But the effect is tiny until you get to quite large systems.
Again, as I showed, even approximating to your benefit, you get 1 micrometer displacement from pouring from 10 cm.
It is insignificant. You will not notice it.
have any experiments been done to test it?
I provided an example of an experiment you can easily do to test it.
From my own personal experience of trying to guess the weight of things I know I cannot just tell that accurately.
You have already been provided with information about death rolls in aircraft, where even faster rotation is shown to not be noticeable.
Then there are tests of trying to have blindfolded people drive in a straight line, where they are unable to sense the small rotations which send them quite far off their path.
So yes, it has been tested.
A person, without the aid of instruments, is not going to be able to detect the rotation of Earth.
With instruments you easily can (and mankind has, including myself personally).
So will you now admit that YOU CANNOT FEEL THE MOTION OF EARTH?
That you need instruments to detect the motion of Earth?
(and for bonus points, that this motion HAS BEEN DETECTED?)
-
A person, without the aid of instruments, is not going to be able to detect the rotation of Earth.
With instruments you easily can (and mankind has, including myself personally).
So will you now admit that YOU CANNOT FEEL THE MOTION OF EARTH?
That you need instruments to detect the motion of Earth?
(and for bonus points, that this motion HAS BEEN DETECTED?)
Stop to make word salat! It means, a person with the aid of instruments is going to be able to detect the rotation of Earth. Since there isn't a proof so that the earth's being flat is verified. You can not claim magically its being so. You need proof, not word salat.
-
You fail to grasp how science works.
-
Your baseless claim of "my fail being grasp how science works" does not magically do it fail. Reported because of low content.
-
A person, without the aid of instruments, is not going to be able to detect the rotation of Earth.
With instruments you easily can (and mankind has, including myself personally).
So will you now admit that YOU CANNOT FEEL THE MOTION OF EARTH?
That you need instruments to detect the motion of Earth?
(and for bonus points, that this motion HAS BEEN DETECTED?)
Stop to make word salat! It means, a person with the aid of instruments is going to be able to detect the rotation of Earth. Since there isn't a proof so that the earth's being flat is verified. You can not claim magically its being so. You need proof, not word salat.
The earth's rotation has been proven over and over again by the Foucault Pendulum. Read up about it on Wikipedia. Go visit a museum that has one.
If they will let you out.
-
A person, without the aid of instruments, is not going to be able to detect the rotation of Earth.
With instruments you easily can (and mankind has, including myself personally).
So will you now admit that YOU CANNOT FEEL THE MOTION OF EARTH?
That you need instruments to detect the motion of Earth?
(and for bonus points, that this motion HAS BEEN DETECTED?)
Stop to make word salat! It means, a person with the aid of instruments is going to be able to detect the rotation of Earth. Since there isn't a proof so that the earth's being flat is verified. You can not claim magically its being so. You need proof, not word salat.
The earth's rotation has been proven over and over again by the Foucault Pendulum. Read up about it on Wikipedia. Go visit a museum that has one.
If they will let you out.
Fake pendulums does not become neither evidences, nor proof. Get read a bit workings about Foucault Pendulum's being fake. Something may be fake can not be a proof.
Here is one of many discussings: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64024.0
Get read, just read! Because only reading destroys your ignorance.
-
Your baseless claim of "my fail being grasp how science works" does not magically do it fail. Reported because of low content.
It’s not baseless. You ignore evidence and then say because there is no evidence the earth is round, it’s flat.
That is not how science works.
Foucault’s pendulum “debunk” was debunked. Also the Netflix documentary showed ring laser gyroscopes indicate a rotation.
Even the flat earthers agreed it did.
-
Stop to make word salat!
I'm not making word salat.
Stop repeating that as if it makes my arguments null.
You still need to deal with what I have shown.
It means, a person with the aid of instruments is going to be able to detect the rotation of Earth.
Again, this is your baseless claim which has been repeatedly refuted.
If you want to assert that people, without the aid of instruments, are capable of detecting the rotation of Earth, YOU WILL NEED TO PROVE IT!
Repeatedly asserting that you can will not magically make it so.
Since there isn't a proof so that the earth's being flat is verified.
Again, that is not how anything works.
Lack of proof refuting you does not magically make you correct.
If you want to verify Earth being flat you need to provide the proof.
You don't just get to demand people prove you wrong and use your wilful ignorance of proof against you as verification.
You are the one who needs proof here, not us.
Earth's rotation has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
As has the fact that you (a human without the aid of instruments) cannot feel the rotation of Earth.
-
The Earth's motion is unverifiable.
It is against Galileo's relativity if it can be proved.
It is therefore self-contradictory.
Foucault pendulum is a fraud.
Even if the pendulum moves, it's not caused by the rotation.
Allais effect proves it.
According to it, the periodic changes in the sun and moon can be the cause.
The periodic changes is a typical yin and yang effect.
-
The Earth's motion is unverifiable.
Nope. Not only is it verifiable, it has been verified.
It is against Galileo's relativity if it can be proved.
It is therefore self-contradictory.
Care to elaborate on that some more?
Are you sure it isn't just contradicting your understanding of it?
All that relativity states is that the laws of motion are the same in all INERTIAL reference frames.
This does not apply to ROTATING reference frames as they are not inertial reference frames.
The key difference between inertial and non-inertial frames is the existence of inertial or pseudoforces.
Inertial frames have no such forces.
Non-inertial frames do.
A simple thought experiment to show this is to consider a rotating disc with a ball attached which then releases the ball.
First lets consider this in the inertial reference frame. In this frame the disc is rotating, taking the ball with it.
At any point in time the disc is applying a force to the ball to keep it rotating with it, and the ball has a tangential velocity.
When the ball is released, the disc no longer applies a force and the ball thus moves in a straight line, leaving the disc.
Now lets consider what happens in "reality" in the non-inertial reference frame.
Now the disc is stationary and there is a pseudoforce pushing the ball outwards, with the disc resisting this force.
When the ball is released, this pseudo-force pushes the ball outwards, and causes it to follow a curved trajectory.
Now lets consider your hypothetical world where the non-inertial frames are the same as inertial frames.
Now the ball and disc just sit there, with no force needed as the ball and disc are both stationary. This already contradicts reality.
Now the ball is released. As there is no force, the ball continues to sit there, not moving at all. Again, this contradicts reality.
So no, the laws of motion are NOT the same in inertial and non-inertial frames.
They are only the same in inertial frames.
In non-inertial frames additional inertial or pseudoforces need to be used in addition to the normal laws of motion to account for the fact that it isn't an inertial reference frame.
So no, verifying the rotation of Earth is not a violation of relativity (of any form based upon reality).
Foucault pendulum is a fraud.
Even if the pendulum moves, it's not caused by the rotation.
You not liking it doesn't make it a fraud.
The only explanation that matches what is observed for Focault's pendulum is the rotation of Earth.
There is nothing fraudulent about it.
It can even be demonstrated at the small scale with a turntable and pendulum and camera.
It is a result of a rotating system not being an inertial reference frame, causing the pendulum to appear to follow a curved path instead of a straight path.
On Earth, due to the rotation being slow, this curve is so minor you will not see it but will see the effects after enough oscillations.
Allais effect proves it.
The "Allais effect" proves nothing.
It unsubstantiated, self-contradictory nonsense.
In order for you to be able to prove anything using the Allais effect, you would first need to show it is real.
Then you need to demonstrate that it alone accounts for the change in the plane of the pendulum's oscillation, rather than merely being an additional contributing factor. The last part is of special importance because none of those that I have found reporting it (including Allais himself) indicate that it is the route cause of the variation in the plane of oscillation of the pendulum and instead just have it as an additional effect on it.
-
I'm not making word salat.
No, you are making. because you are doing nothing other than childish claims those you can not prove any of them.
Stop repeating that as if it makes my arguments null.
Again, It does. Because you can not prove your arguments.
You still need to deal with what I have shown.
Showing something isn't a proof or evidence. I am showing you, whats happened? Nothing.
Again, this is your baseless claim which has been repeatedly refuted.
Again, nope. Refuting something without any evidence like you do childishly does not make that argument weaker or stronger. You can refute everything you want.
If you want to assert that people, without the aid of instruments, are capable of detecting the rotation of Earth, YOU WILL NEED TO PROVE IT!
Talk to a mirror. I've proved technically you have to feel earths motion in laboratuary environment. But there isn't a proof about it. It shows its absent. If you want to prove it, so all laboratuars are yours, not ours. Get prove it.
Repeatedly asserting that you can will not magically make it so.
Repeatedly asserting same BS claims does not make my arguments weaker or stronger. You have to prove earth's rotation if you have that claim. Because it seems it does not.
Again, that is not how anything works.
Lack of proof refuting you does not magically make you correct.
But does not magically make me wrong too.
If you want to verify Earth being flat you need to provide the proof.
Something you see with your eyes does not need extra proof. You need to prove its not being flat.
You don't just get to demand people prove you wrong and use your wilful ignorance of proof against you as verification.
Your claim me being ignorant does not magically make me ignorant but make you a ranter, because evidences shows its opposite. You have a claim so you do have to prove it.
You are the one who needs proof here, not us.
Nope, you.
Earth's rotation has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
I am just laughting on this (so called) argument. Your claiming its being proven does not magically it has proven. If it was so, so where are those evidences but we don't see. Let us to see them.
As has the fact that you (a human without the aid of instruments) cannot feel the rotation of Earth.
So you have agreed we can not feel the earth's rotation. Something we can not feel needs to be exactly proven. You can not do it so it is absent. Now grow up, either prove its rotating in laboratuary environment or accept its being motionless.
-
Skipping through your BS and just focusing on anything which might be relevant.
Because you can not prove your arguments.
Except I have proven my argument, repeatedly, with you unable to show a single problem with it and instead with you resorting to just ignoring it or claiming it's word salat, whatever the hell that is.
I've proved technically you have to feel earths motion in laboratuary environment.
And what do you mean by that?
Do you mean a human would feel it?
If so, no you haven't. Instead you have just repeatedly asserted it.
If you mean instruments can measure, then you still haven't, but plenty of instruments have measured the rotation of Earth.
Something you see with your eyes does not need extra proof. You need to prove its not being flat.
Wrong again.
You don't see Earth as flat with your eyes.
The only way to do that is if you have been to space and observed Earth as a giant disc, preferably from the side so you can see it is flat.
At the small scale, Earth isn't flat at all.
So if you want to assert Earth is flat, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!
Your claim me being ignorant does not magically make me ignorant
No, you choosing to ignore the arguments and evidence provided and then pretending is hasn't been provided makes you ignorant.
You repeatedly spouting the same refuted garbage, after it has already been refuted so many times makes you ignorant.
I'm not the one making you ignorant, you are doing that all by yourself.
So you have agreed we can not feel the earth's rotation
Yes. Note that this isn't me agreeing that Earth isn't rotating.
It is agreeing that we are incapable of feeling the Earth's rotation because the effect is too small for the human body to feel.
As such, your absence of a feeling you can't even have is not proof that Earth is stationary.
As such, if you want to claim Earth is stationary, you need to prove. You can't just rely upon an absence of a feeling you shouldn't even have.
Something we can not feel needs to be exactly proven. You can not do it so it is absent.
Again, PURE BS.
Not feeling something you can't feel doesn't mean it is absent.
I can't feel radio waves. Does that mean they are absent? NO!
There are lots of things humans can't feel or directly sense. That doesn't mean they are absent. All it means is that humans can't sense it.
So again, if you wish to assert that Earth is stationary or that you should be able to feel the motion of Earth, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!
-
Skipping through your BS and just focusing on anything which might be relevant.
If you have skipped only my BS so you have not skipped anything. If I would skip all your BS so I would not answer you at all.
Except I have proven my argument, repeatedly, with you unable to show a single problem with it and instead with you resorting to just ignoring it or claiming it's word salat, whatever the hell that is.
Sorry? I did not see anything you prove but baseless claims .
And what do you mean by that?
I mean, I've proved technically you have to feel earths motion in laboratuary environment.
You don't see Earth as flat with your eyes.
yes I see.
So if you want to assert Earth is flat, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!
No I do not need it. Because it seems so. If you have an objection so have to prove your objection.
No, you choosing to ignore the arguments and evidence provided and then pretending is hasn't been provided makes you ignorant.
I don't think the definion of ignorant is this. It seems something defines you.
You repeatedly spouting the same refuted garbage, after it has already been refuted so many times makes you ignorant.
No you.
I'm not the one making you ignorant, you are doing that all by yourself.
No you. I wonder how many times more you continue to your insults. Being an angry glubularist has to be something like this. If you can't find an argument so insult as an argument. Shame on you. Are you calling yourself as human?
Yes. Note that this isn't me agreeing that Earth isn't rotating.
Nope. Accepting you can't feel the earth's motion means you have not evidence of its rotating by phsical ways.
Again, PURE BS.
I think you are talking about yourself.
Not feeling something you can't feel doesn't mean it is absent.
It means. Stop to fight against phlosophy. If you does not feel anything it means simply there isn't anything. If you start to feel anything then you pass the stage two then you can discuss to define what it is.
So again, if you wish to assert that Earth is stationary or that you should be able to feel the motion of Earth, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!
According to upper statements you have accepted you can not prove earth's having motion but still insisting childishle its moving is an ignorant behaviour. You have to give up yor childish behaviour, have to grow up and deal with flat earth reality.
-
I mean, I've proved technically you have to feel earths motion in laboratuary environment.
You have proven nothing.
You haven't even clarified what you mean by this.
Again, do you mean humans will feel it?
Or do you mean instruments can measure it?
You are yet to demonstrate either of those are true.
I have proven that humans wouldn't feel it.
And plenty of instruments have measured it.
Because it seems so.
You asserting it seems so doesn't magically make it so.
It doesn't seem so.
Again, anyone can play that game.
I can just assert that Earth is round because it seems so, or Earth rotates because it seems so.
Likewise you can assert any other BS and just claim it seems so.
THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT!
Accepting you can't feel the earth's motion means you have not evidence of its rotating by phsical ways.
Stop lying.
I have repeatedly shown that to be a blatant lie.
Why do you insist on repeating it so much?
Do you want to make sure everyone on the forum knows you don't care about the truth?
Again, humans are incapable of feeling the insignificant forces from Earth's motion, however instruments have measured it.
We have plenty of physical evidence of the rotation of Earth.
You just choose to remain wilfully ignorant of this evidence.
Now care to try for a rational response for once in your life?
-
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/IR97x2.png)
:)
-
Hey mum, look I found a new pathetic way to be pathetic on the internet.
Repeating the same refuted garbage wont help your case.
Coming up with new pathetic ways to try and avoid debate wont help your case.
The burden of proof remains upon you.
If you want to claim that Earth is still because you don't feel it moving you need to prove that you would be able to feel it moving.
I have clearly proven that you cannot feel the forces involved, so you not feeling these forces you are unable to feel is proof of nothing.
-
<oops deleted>
You've not replied many statements.
Just a remind:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/IR97x2.png)
What happened? Are not your gsm supporting image viewing? What about only using your computer with one account? You can reply this by your other account, both of us know this very well. If you don't want to deal with this torturing so be one, be real.
-
Your work is done. ;D
Where have all of you gone? ???
Just a remind jackblack. I hope you are fine. Please reply the statements below. Otherwise I'll be sad. :'(
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/IR97x2.png)
-
404 Error
Evidence not found.
-
404 Error
Evidence not found.
We should to raise funds for Jackblack him to buy a computer. :)