Measure it for us then.
Here's a highschool science fair project to try out for your own:
http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/estimation-speed-earth-rotation/Also, because something isn't explained doesn't mean it isn't observed.
You need to observe it to explain it. Who has observed a bending of space-time or a sub-atomic puller particle?
We can observe gravity, but cannot explain it. Just like you can "observe" Universal Acceleration, but not explain it.
It's the other way around in Flat Earth hypothesis, where things are explained but not observed.
When I get up on a chair and walk off its edge I can observe that the earth accelerates up towards me. A direct observation. An upwardly accelerating earth is directly observable. I can see that the earth is rising upwards.
What you are observing is
evidence that the Earth is accelerating towards you, not that the Earth is accelerating towards you. Empirically speaking, all you observed is you parabolically making your way to the ground.
What I was mainly talking about when I made my point, is that you guys explain things before you can even observe them. Like the ice wall, which is an
explanation for why we can't fall off the Earth, but it has yet to be observed.
I cannot, however, observe sub-atomic puller particles or a bending of space-time. To propose such fantasies and mysterious mechanisms without observation is absurd beyond measure.
Hypocritically, you cannot observe any of the mechanisms described in Flat Earth either. Compromise a little, try using the Scientific Method for once. It actually accomplishes something - what are you typing on?
Flat Earth logic is strange.
Round Earth logic is ridiculous.
I won't even bother.