If I jump in the air why doesn't the ground move @ 1000MPH?

Quote from: Antonio on January 13, 2014, 11:46:46 AM

Do you agree with my  experimental setup ?
Can you now give some predictions, following your model ?

I'm sill not sure what you are getting at. Go through it clearly.

Quote from: Antonio on January 13, 2014, 11:46:46 AM

On other side :
Do you agree with these observations :

An object when pushed by a force or a bunch of unbalanced forces will start accelerating.

Yes.

Quote from: Antonio on January 13, 2014, 11:46:46 AM

The harder the push, the greater the acceleration

No.

Quote from: Antonio on January 13, 2014, 11:46:46 AM

Heavier objects need more force than lighter ones to achieve the same acceleration.

no.

Quote from: jroa on September 05, 2013, 12:24:40 AM

Quote from: Antonio on September 05, 2013, 12:00:37 AM

The flat earth purportedly accelerates at a 9.8 m/s^2 rate. If I stood there and look up I should feel a stronger and stronger wind coming downwards, as earth is rushing into the atmosphere. But it doesn't

This is all the proof you need to know the Earth cannot possibly be forever accelerating upwards.

I know this point has probably been brought up many times, but thought I would share it.

With a round Earth, now it makes sense. The Earth spins, that is it, simple. No UA, no proof of UA... while it is possible to prove the UA isn't there, you feel the wind and the Earth stays where it is.

The air is pushed upwards at the same rate as the Earth.  This is why we do not feel air rushing downwards.

I have another question. One problem that I have with the flat earth theory is that according to the flat earth theory, the Earth is constantly accelerating upward at 32 feet per second squared (9.8 meters per second squared). If this were true, we would always feel this constant movement since the human body senses acceleration. One example of this is when you drive a car. While accelerating, you can feel that you're moving. However, once you start moving at a constant velocity (i.e., when you're no longer accelerating), it feels as though you're not moving.

EDIT: removed extraneous information

One car will be into the bottle simulating a closed bus, one out of it, as a reference. The two cars will be placed at the same starting location, just over the reference line. I will pull on the cardboard, simulating the bus acceleration.
What does your theory predict ?
What would be the speed direction and a rough estimate of the position of the two cars, related to the reference line ?

An object starts accelerating when a force is applied to it. Conversely, it does not accelerate without one. So If the force raises from 0 to something, the object acceleration raises from 0 to something.
Obviously acceleration and force are linked. Simple logic.
Direct observation says that too. When I hit the brakes of my car, the harder I brake, the greater the deceleration I get.

You agreed in a previous post. Why have you changed your mind ?

Quote from: Scintific Method on January 13, 2014, 02:51:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2014, 11:40:34 AM

How do you measure gravity?

Take a known mass and weigh it; time the swing of a pendulum of known mass; time the fall of a dropped object over a given distance.

EDIT: For the example of the table, the atmospheric pressure on the lower side of the table top (assuming still air and a 5cm thick table top) would be 0.6Pa greater than the atmospheric pressure on the top side. Over a 2m² surface, this would be a total upwards force of 1.2N (about 0.26lb_f).

Oh, so you swing a pendulum and time the fall and that's your gravity sorted, after weighing the object on scales that are calibrated under atmospheric pressure. Oh, ok.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 12:33:16 AM

Quote from: Scintific Method on January 13, 2014, 02:51:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2014, 11:40:34 AM

How do you measure gravity?

Take a known mass and weigh it; time the swing of a pendulum of known mass; time the fall of a dropped object over a given distance.

EDIT: For the example of the table, the atmospheric pressure on the lower side of the table top (assuming still air and a 5cm thick table top) would be 0.6Pa greater than the atmospheric pressure on the top side. Over a 2m² surface, this would be a total upwards force of 1.2N (about 0.26lb_f).

Oh, so you swing a pendulum and time the fall and that's your gravity sorted, after weighing the object on scales that are calibrated under atmospheric pressure. Oh, ok.

I was just listing off 3 independent methods that can (and have) been used to measure gravity. There are probably others, each of which could be used on it's own or cross referenced with any of the others to ensure accuracy.

What is your take on the table having a nett upwards force being applied to it by air pressure?

Quote from: robertotrevor on January 13, 2014, 12:26:31 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2014, 11:58:35 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 13, 2014, 11:46:46 AM

The harder the push, the greater the acceleration

No.

Quote from: Antonio on January 13, 2014, 11:46:46 AM

Heavier objects need more force than lighter ones to achieve the same acceleration.

no.

Are you serious? I thought your intelligence couldnt surprise me anymore..

Very serious. Instead of getting all frustrated. Look into why I said it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 12:26:17 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on January 13, 2014, 12:26:31 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2014, 11:58:35 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 13, 2014, 11:46:46 AM

The harder the push, the greater the acceleration

No.

Quote from: Antonio on January 13, 2014, 11:46:46 AM

Heavier objects need more force than lighter ones to achieve the same acceleration.

no.

Are you serious? I thought your intelligence couldnt surprise me anymore..

Very serious. Instead of getting all frustrated. Look into why I said it.

What? im not frustrated. As of why you said it, it could be anything, from you simply not understanding what force or acceleration mean (or you making up new concepts of it, which is kind of the same), to you thinking that pushing a car is just as hard as pushing your bike, I would be just guessing.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 12:35:21 AM

One car will be into the bottle simulating a closed bus, one out of it, as a reference. The two cars will be placed at the same starting location, just over the reference line. I will pull on the cardboard, simulating the bus acceleration.
What does your theory predict ?
What would be the speed direction and a rough estimate of the position of the two cars, related to the reference line ?

The car in the bottle will be pushed backwards towards the back of the bottle and the car outside will probably roll back at about, maybe half the distance.
That is a wild guess as I have never tried the experiment.
Anyway, try it and see.
Remember, you aren't fighting against me...you should be looking for the truth if you are a genuine person.

Quote

Let me summarize :
Both cars will go backwards, the outer one about half the distance, correct ?
And this is not a fight, by far.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 12:35:21 AM

An object starts accelerating when a force is applied to it. Conversely, it does not accelerate without one. So If the force raises from 0 to something, the object acceleration raises from 0 to something.
Obviously acceleration and force are linked. Simple logic.
Direct observation says that too. When I hit the brakes of my car, the harder I brake, the greater the deceleration I get.

Agreed for horizontal effort.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 12:35:21 AM

You agreed in a previous post. Why have you changed your mind ?

I haven't changed my mind. I accept it for horizontal movement, but that doesn't always apply to mass in terms of energy to move it, does it?

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.


Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.

Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.

You don't create a force without energy and you don't create energy without a force.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Yes it is, but it doesn't work the same downwards, does it..and this is the argument in truth, because you call this the force of gravity and I call it denpressure.
Your gravity has no real explanation for why all this happens and mine does, yet mine is discarded and yours isn't. Why?
The simple answer is, you are a voice of the mass believers.

Any object that is heavier than the atmosphere it is in, will naturally stay at the bottom. Not because of fake gravity but because of the nature of how elements compact into their dense states.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.

You don't create a force without energy and you don't create energy without a force.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Yes it is, but it doesn't work the same downwards, does it..and this is the argument in truth, because you call this the force of gravity and I call it denpressure.
Your gravity has no real explanation for why all this happens and mine does, yet mine is discarded and yours isn't. Why?
The simple answer is, you are a voice of the mass believers.

Any object that is heavier than the atmosphere it is in, will naturally stay at the bottom. Not because of fake gravity but because of the nature of how elements compact into their dense states.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 05:31:17 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.

You don't create a force without energy and you don't create energy without a force.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Yes it is, but it doesn't work the same downwards, does it..and this is the argument in truth, because you call this the force of gravity and I call it denpressure.
Your gravity has no real explanation for why all this happens and mine does, yet mine is discarded and yours isn't. Why?
The simple answer is, you are a voice of the mass believers.

Any object that is heavier than the atmosphere it is in, will naturally stay at the bottom. Not because of fake gravity but because of the nature of how elements compact into their dense states.

So we agree that force and energy are different concepts.  Maybe linked but different.

I'll still don't see the point. If an object is falling and I add some downward force on it, it will accelerate more. The name of the force doesn't bother me. But the idea is still valid.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 06:14:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 05:31:17 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.

You don't create a force without energy and you don't create energy without a force.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Yes it is, but it doesn't work the same downwards, does it..and this is the argument in truth, because you call this the force of gravity and I call it denpressure.
Your gravity has no real explanation for why all this happens and mine does, yet mine is discarded and yours isn't. Why?
The simple answer is, you are a voice of the mass believers.

Any object that is heavier than the atmosphere it is in, will naturally stay at the bottom. Not because of fake gravity but because of the nature of how elements compact into their dense states.

So we agree that force and energy are different concepts.  Maybe linked but different.

I'll still don't see the point. If an object is falling and I add some downward force on it, it will accelerate more. The name of the force doesn't bother me. But the idea is still valid.

How do you add force to a falling object?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 06:21:37 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 06:14:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 05:31:17 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.

You don't create a force without energy and you don't create energy without a force.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Yes it is, but it doesn't work the same downwards, does it..and this is the argument in truth, because you call this the force of gravity and I call it denpressure.
Your gravity has no real explanation for why all this happens and mine does, yet mine is discarded and yours isn't. Why?
The simple answer is, you are a voice of the mass believers.

Any object that is heavier than the atmosphere it is in, will naturally stay at the bottom. Not because of fake gravity but because of the nature of how elements compact into their dense states.

So we agree that force and energy are different concepts.  Maybe linked but different.

I'll still don't see the point. If an object is falling and I add some downward force on it, it will accelerate more. The name of the force doesn't bother me. But the idea is still valid.

How do you add force to a falling object?

By pulling down on it with a string?
By having a jet engine on it pointing down?

Yes it is, but it doesn't work the same downwards, does it..and this is the argument in truth, because you call this the force of gravity and I call it denpressure.
Your gravity has no real explanation for why all this happens and mine does, yet mine is discarded and yours isn't. Why?
The simple answer is, you are a voice of the mass believers.

Any object that is heavier than the atmosphere it is in, will naturally stay at the bottom. Not because of fake gravity but because of the nature of how elements compact into their dense states.

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 14, 2014, 06:26:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 06:21:37 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 06:14:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 05:31:17 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.

You don't create a force without energy and you don't create energy without a force.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Yes it is, but it doesn't work the same downwards, does it..and this is the argument in truth, because you call this the force of gravity and I call it denpressure.
Your gravity has no real explanation for why all this happens and mine does, yet mine is discarded and yours isn't. Why?
The simple answer is, you are a voice of the mass believers.

Any object that is heavier than the atmosphere it is in, will naturally stay at the bottom. Not because of fake gravity but because of the nature of how elements compact into their dense states.

So we agree that force and energy are different concepts.  Maybe linked but different.

I'll still don't see the point. If an object is falling and I add some downward force on it, it will accelerate more. The name of the force doesn't bother me. But the idea is still valid.

How do you add force to a falling object?

By pulling down on it with a string?
By having a jet engine on it pointing down?

Good luck pulling the string on a falling object.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 06:37:46 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 14, 2014, 06:26:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 06:21:37 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 06:14:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 05:31:17 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.

You don't create a force without energy and you don't create energy without a force.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Yes it is, but it doesn't work the same downwards, does it..and this is the argument in truth, because you call this the force of gravity and I call it denpressure.
Your gravity has no real explanation for why all this happens and mine does, yet mine is discarded and yours isn't. Why?
The simple answer is, you are a voice of the mass believers.

Any object that is heavier than the atmosphere it is in, will naturally stay at the bottom. Not because of fake gravity but because of the nature of how elements compact into their dense states.

So we agree that force and energy are different concepts.  Maybe linked but different.

I'll still don't see the point. If an object is falling and I add some downward force on it, it will accelerate more. The name of the force doesn't bother me. But the idea is still valid.

How do you add force to a falling object?

By pulling down on it with a string?
By having a jet engine on it pointing down?

Good luck pulling the string on a falling object.

Tell me why you wouldn't be able to?

Tell me why, if I drop something above my head, I am able to, with the same had that dropped it, reach down and catch that object?

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 14, 2014, 06:59:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 06:37:46 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 14, 2014, 06:26:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 06:21:37 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 06:14:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 05:31:17 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.

You don't create a force without energy and you don't create energy without a force.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Yes it is, but it doesn't work the same downwards, does it..and this is the argument in truth, because you call this the force of gravity and I call it denpressure.
Your gravity has no real explanation for why all this happens and mine does, yet mine is discarded and yours isn't. Why?
The simple answer is, you are a voice of the mass believers.

Any object that is heavier than the atmosphere it is in, will naturally stay at the bottom. Not because of fake gravity but because of the nature of how elements compact into their dense states.

So we agree that force and energy are different concepts.  Maybe linked but different.

I'll still don't see the point. If an object is falling and I add some downward force on it, it will accelerate more. The name of the force doesn't bother me. But the idea is still valid.

How do you add force to a falling object?

By pulling down on it with a string?
By having a jet engine on it pointing down?

Good luck pulling the string on a falling object.

Tell me why you wouldn't be able to?

Tell me why, if I drop something above my head, I am able to, with the same had that dropped it, reach down and catch that object?

Because your arm movement to hand has enough energy to move faster than the ball.

Unfortunately spank he can't answer those questions and that is why he has blocked us. You either let him win or if you beat him he'll block you and say it's because you're an indoctrinated fool. Or maybe he just can't answer the question, and blocking you us just a way of avoiding tough questions.

Good luck pulling the string on a falling object.

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 14, 2014, 06:59:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 06:37:46 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 14, 2014, 06:26:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 06:21:37 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 06:14:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 05:31:17 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.

You don't create a force without energy and you don't create energy without a force.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Yes it is, but it doesn't work the same downwards, does it..and this is the argument in truth, because you call this the force of gravity and I call it denpressure.
Your gravity has no real explanation for why all this happens and mine does, yet mine is discarded and yours isn't. Why?
The simple answer is, you are a voice of the mass believers.

Any object that is heavier than the atmosphere it is in, will naturally stay at the bottom. Not because of fake gravity but because of the nature of how elements compact into their dense states.

So we agree that force and energy are different concepts.  Maybe linked but different.

I'll still don't see the point. If an object is falling and I add some downward force on it, it will accelerate more. The name of the force doesn't bother me. But the idea is still valid.

How do you add force to a falling object?

By pulling down on it with a string?
By having a jet engine on it pointing down?

Good luck pulling the string on a falling object.

Tell me why you wouldn't be able to?

Tell me why, if I drop something above my head, I am able to, with the same had that dropped it, reach down and catch that object?

Because your arm movement to hand has enough energy to move faster than the ball.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 07:08:55 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 14, 2014, 06:59:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 06:37:46 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 14, 2014, 06:26:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 06:21:37 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 06:14:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 05:31:17 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Please don't confuse me with other concepts. We are talking about forces, not energy. I hope we'll agree that these are two different things.
So you agree that there is a relationship between  the acceleration of an object, its mass and the force applied on it. At least for horizontal movements.

You don't create a force without energy and you don't create energy without a force.

Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2014, 05:03:21 AM

Now why is this different with vertical movements ?
The heavier the object, the harder we have to push it upwards to accelerate it at the same rate, isn't it ?

Yes it is, but it doesn't work the same downwards, does it..and this is the argument in truth, because you call this the force of gravity and I call it denpressure.
Your gravity has no real explanation for why all this happens and mine does, yet mine is discarded and yours isn't. Why?
The simple answer is, you are a voice of the mass believers.

Any object that is heavier than the atmosphere it is in, will naturally stay at the bottom. Not because of fake gravity but because of the nature of how elements compact into their dense states.

So we agree that force and energy are different concepts.  Maybe linked but different.

I'll still don't see the point. If an object is falling and I add some downward force on it, it will accelerate more. The name of the force doesn't bother me. But the idea is still valid.

How do you add force to a falling object?

By pulling down on it with a string?
By having a jet engine on it pointing down?

Good luck pulling the string on a falling object.

Tell me why you wouldn't be able to?

Tell me why, if I drop something above my head, I am able to, with the same had that dropped it, reach down and catch that object?

Because your arm movement to hand has enough energy to move faster than the ball.

Now tell me, if there was a string attached from the object I dropped to my finger, why wouldn't the string pull on the object?

Quote from: TPMS on January 13, 2014, 10:24:07 PM

I have another question. One problem that I have with the flat earth theory is that according to the flat earth theory, the Earth is constantly accelerating upward at 32 feet per second squared (9.8 meters per second squared). If this were true, we would always feel this constant movement since the human body senses acceleration. One example of this is when you drive a car. While accelerating, you can feel that you're moving. However, once you start moving at a constant velocity (i.e., when you're no longer accelerating), it feels as though you're not moving.

EDIT: removed extraneous information

And yet you don't seem to have any problem not noticing a so called 1038 mph so called equator spinning globe?
The saying is, those who have something to hide, will use any story no matter how outlandish, to keep that something hidden.

While accelerating, you can feel that you're moving. However, once you start moving at a constant velocity (i.e., when you're no longer accelerating), it feels as though you're not moving.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 12:37:51 AM

Quote from: TPMS on January 13, 2014, 10:24:07 PM

I have another question. One problem that I have with the flat earth theory is that according to the flat earth theory, the Earth is constantly accelerating upward at 32 feet per second squared (9.8 meters per second squared). If this were true, we would always feel this constant movement since the human body senses acceleration. One example of this is when you drive a car. While accelerating, you can feel that you're moving. However, once you start moving at a constant velocity (i.e., when you're no longer accelerating), it feels as though you're not moving.

EDIT: removed extraneous information

And yet you don't seem to have any problem not noticing a so called 1038 mph so called equator spinning globe?
The saying is, those who have something to hide, will use any story no matter how outlandish, to keep that something hidden.

Correct, I don't have a problem not noticing the rotation. Since the Earth is rotating at a constant velocity, we do not feel as though we're moving. Refer to the end of example that I included in my previous post:

Quote from: TPMS on January 13, 2014, 10:24:07 PM

While accelerating, you can feel that you're moving. However, once you start moving at a constant velocity (i.e., when you're no longer accelerating), it feels as though you're not moving.

It's not an outlandish concept to understand, especially since it's the same idea as the car example.

Quote from: TPMS on January 14, 2014, 08:40:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2014, 12:37:51 AM

Quote from: TPMS on January 13, 2014, 10:24:07 PM

I have another question. One problem that I have with the flat earth theory is that according to the flat earth theory, the Earth is constantly accelerating upward at 32 feet per second squared (9.8 meters per second squared). If this were true, we would always feel this constant movement since the human body senses acceleration. One example of this is when you drive a car. While accelerating, you can feel that you're moving. However, once you start moving at a constant velocity (i.e., when you're no longer accelerating), it feels as though you're not moving.

EDIT: removed extraneous information

And yet you don't seem to have any problem not noticing a so called 1038 mph so called equator spinning globe?
The saying is, those who have something to hide, will use any story no matter how outlandish, to keep that something hidden.

Correct, I don't have a problem not noticing the rotation. Since the Earth is rotating at a constant velocity, we do not feel as though we're moving. Refer to the end of example that I included in my previous post:

Quote from: TPMS on January 13, 2014, 10:24:07 PM

While accelerating, you can feel that you're moving. However, once you start moving at a constant velocity (i.e., when you're no longer accelerating), it feels as though you're not moving.

It's not an outlandish concept to understand, especially since it's the same idea as the car example.

I'm well aware it's not outlandish to you and others. It's because you stick rigidly to what's been implanted into your minds and never wavering from it.
Your own body balance and your own eyes should tell you their own story, but the problem is, you believed those in the suits and overcoats and like addicts, it's a hard habit to break, but you can be weaned off of it if you want to. It's down to you.
Most addicts will happily carry on being addicts if there's someone to keep feeding them their drug.
The ones that are willing to walk away to cold turkey are the ones that will eventually see the bigger picture.

You still haven't answered my question. The reason that I'm asking you questions is because I'm interested in understanding what your thoughts are on your side. I'm not asking you questions to insult you, and I haven't insulted you like you've been doing to me and some other people. I don't insult or make fun of people that I have debates with since it does not contribute to positive discussion.

Also, I'm not "[sticking] rigidly to what's been implanted into [my] mind." I've evaluated both stances (i.e., Earth is flat, and Earth is spherical) and all of the evidence and arguments that support both sides, and I've chosen the side that I believe has the most compelling evidence, which is that Earth is spherical. As a method of further evaluating my stance, I'm asking you questions on the opposing belief.