Flat Earth Evidence.

You represent the only deluded individual.  My point received expression at a very simple, understandable level.  Planes which stay up in the air for hours at a time cancel out any form of inertia.  A simple pitch only presents a piss poor example.  Do not back down so quick without looking at all the information.  The inertia would not last that long, if there was any form of rotation.  A plane travels against the direction of supposed rotation, and inertia would be cancelled out.  Relativity would also receive cancellation.  You would still see a shortened arrival time.  You do not though.  The earth is flat and geocentricity is god

Do you understand? The atmosphere itself is also moving at the same speed. There is nothing confusing about this. The plane doesn't cancel out inertia. In an inertial reference frame, object at rest stay at rest and objects in motion stay in motion. A plane, without it's engines and Bernoulli's Principle causing lift would come down to the Earth. The atmosphere causes some friction but it is not going in some drastic speed with or against the plane. It is moving with the earth. The majority of friction is just the moving planes relative speed against the moving atmosphere, which is indicated on its own speedometer.

He did not understand what he was talking about, when the example of relativity involved a pitcher and a baseball.  That relativity argument there only comes as a big "DUH".  I am speaking of a plane that travels 24 hours in the air against the supposed direction of the earth's rotation.  I will be more specific and present the B-2 bomber.  This plane does not experience any gains whatsoever in speed from terrestrial rotation.  It should not possess any more inertia, no more ground contact.  Stop running away from the facts.

Hence, you are a big fat mofo and you change the subject to pretend like you are intelligent.  You actually gave a piss poor example.  It shows you just dont grasp concepts well.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 26, 2013, 04:48:18 PM

You represent the only deluded individual.  My point received expression at a very simple, understandable level.  Planes which stay up in the air for hours at a time cancel out any form of inertia.  A simple pitch only presents a piss poor example.  Do not back down so quick without looking at all the information.  The inertia would not last that long, if there was any form of rotation.  A plane travels against the direction of supposed rotation, and inertia would be cancelled out.  Relativity would also receive cancellation.  You would still see a shortened arrival time.  You do not though.  The earth is flat and geocentricity is god

Do you understand? The atmosphere itself is also moving at the same speed. There is nothing confusing about this. The plane doesn't cancel out inertia. In an inertial reference frame, object at rest stay at rest and objects in motion stay in motion. A plane, without it's engines and Bernoulli's Principle causing lift would come down to the Earth. The atmosphere causes some friction but it is not going in some drastic speed with or against the plane. It is moving with the earth. The majority of friction is just the moving planes relative speed against the moving atmosphere, which is indicated on its own speedometer.

The air cannot move at the same speed sherlock.  The earth does not even rotate.  The centrifugal forces which should be present with that kind of rotation are not there.  Object do not weigh 2 times less at the equator.  Once again, the earth does not rotate at 1000 mph.  No centrifugal forces felt = load of baloney.

Also, air possesses no friction with the ground.  You just lie about how friction keeps things rotating.  You cannot explain how air just rotates like that with no problem.  It is already obvious that gravity fails to hold down air.  Air particles bounce around everywhere due to their high kinetic energy.

I would really like to know what a Naval ship's compass says once it reaches the Coast of Antarctica and then travels around the wall of ice.  Once it stops saying East or West and begins to go North or South again.  There's our evidence.

He did not understand what he was talking about, when the example of relativity involved a pitcher and a baseball.  That relativity argument there only comes as a big "DUH".  I am speaking of a plane that travels 24 hours in the air against the supposed direction of the earth's rotation.  I will be more specific and present the B-2 bomber.  This plane does not experience any gains whatsoever in speed from terrestrial rotation.  It should not possess any more inertia, no more ground contact.  Stop running away from the facts.

Hence, you are a big fat mofo and you change the subject to pretend like you are intelligent.  You actually gave a piss poor example.  It shows you just dont grasp concepts well.

A baseball is a good example. Its an airborne object like a plane. The radar inside the truck shows the 80mph fastball to berecorded at 80 mph. While the pitcher obviously does not have the ability to throw an 150 mph fastball the radar still showed it going 150 mph because the velocity of the truck was added.

Now you say a plane is different because it has been suspended for hours. But a plane is surrounded by air that is also synchronously moving with the earth.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 26, 2013, 04:56:08 PM

He did not understand what he was talking about, when the example of relativity involved a pitcher and a baseball.  That relativity argument there only comes as a big "DUH".  I am speaking of a plane that travels 24 hours in the air against the supposed direction of the earth's rotation.  I will be more specific and present the B-2 bomber.  This plane does not experience any gains whatsoever in speed from terrestrial rotation.  It should not possess any more inertia, no more ground contact.  Stop running away from the facts.

Hence, you are a big fat mofo and you change the subject to pretend like you are intelligent.  You actually gave a piss poor example.  It shows you just dont grasp concepts well.

A baseball is a good example. Its an airborne object like a plane. The radar inside the truck shows the 80mph fastball to berecorded at 80 mph. While the pitcher obviously does not have the ability to throw an 150 mph fastball the radar still showed it going 150 mph because the velocity of the truck was added.

Now you say a plane is different because it has been suspended for hours. But a plane is surrounded by air that is also synchronously moving with the earth.

If that were the case, a plane which travels against the direction of rotation would get its wings ripped off from shearing winds.  A plane travels at about 400 mph.  If it started to fly against rotational direction, inertia would be cancelled out, but the remaining hundreds of miles per hour of wind would rip the plane like tissue paper in a hurricane.  The statement that the earth rotates only poses ludicrous conundrums.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 26, 2013, 04:54:57 PM

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 26, 2013, 04:48:18 PM

You represent the only deluded individual.  My point received expression at a very simple, understandable level.  Planes which stay up in the air for hours at a time cancel out any form of inertia.  A simple pitch only presents a piss poor example.  Do not back down so quick without looking at all the information.  The inertia would not last that long, if there was any form of rotation.  A plane travels against the direction of supposed rotation, and inertia would be cancelled out.  Relativity would also receive cancellation.  You would still see a shortened arrival time.  You do not though.  The earth is flat and geocentricity is god

Do you understand? The atmosphere itself is also moving at the same speed. There is nothing confusing about this. The plane doesn't cancel out inertia. In an inertial reference frame, object at rest stay at rest and objects in motion stay in motion. A plane, without it's engines and Bernoulli's Principle causing lift would come down to the Earth. The atmosphere causes some friction but it is not going in some drastic speed with or against the plane. It is moving with the earth. The majority of friction is just the moving planes relative speed against the moving atmosphere, which is indicated on its own speedometer.

The air cannot move at the same speed sherlock.  The earth does not even rotate.  The centrifugal forces which should be present with that kind of rotation are not there.  Object do not weigh 2 times less at the equator.  Once again, the earth does not rotate at 1000 mph.  No centrifugal forces felt = load of baloney.

Also, air possesses no friction with the ground.  You just lie about how friction keeps things rotating.  You cannot explain how air just rotates like that with no problem.  It is already obvious that gravity fails to hold down air.  Air particles bounce around everywhere due to their high kinetic energy.

The air cannot move at the same speed? Try taking a balloon full of air and quickly move it across a room. Are you going to suggest to me that all the air in that balloon suddenly shifted to the side of the balloon opposite of the direction that you moved it? No, because it is contained by the boundaries of the balloon walls. Similarly the earth has boundaries caused by a gravitational field. Its not perfect though as it is reported that some atmosphere is lost over time. Luckily, there is a lot of atmosphere.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 26, 2013, 05:02:38 PM

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 26, 2013, 04:56:08 PM

He did not understand what he was talking about, when the example of relativity involved a pitcher and a baseball.  That relativity argument there only comes as a big "DUH".  I am speaking of a plane that travels 24 hours in the air against the supposed direction of the earth's rotation.  I will be more specific and present the B-2 bomber.  This plane does not experience any gains whatsoever in speed from terrestrial rotation.  It should not possess any more inertia, no more ground contact.  Stop running away from the facts.

Hence, you are a big fat mofo and you change the subject to pretend like you are intelligent.  You actually gave a piss poor example.  It shows you just dont grasp concepts well.

A baseball is a good example. Its an airborne object like a plane. The radar inside the truck shows the 80mph fastball to berecorded at 80 mph. While the pitcher obviously does not have the ability to throw an 150 mph fastball the radar still showed it going 150 mph because the velocity of the truck was added.

Now you say a plane is different because it has been suspended for hours. But a plane is surrounded by air that is also synchronously moving with the earth.

If that were the case, a plane which travels against the direction of rotation would get its wings ripped off from shearing winds.  A plane travels at about 400 mph.  If it started to fly against rotational direction, inertia would be cancelled out, but the remaining hundreds of miles per hour of wind would rip the plane like tissue paper in a hurricane.  The statement that the earth rotates only poses ludicrous conundrums.

No because the air is moving with the earth, a point you constantly ignore.

I would really like to know what a Naval ship's compass says once it reaches the Coast of Antarctica and then travels around the wall of ice.  Once it stops saying East or West and begins to go North or South again.  There's our evidence.

What are you even trying to say?

a balloon stands as yet another horrible example.  A balloon comes with rubber walls.  The alleged atmosphere of round earth possesses no such boundaries.  Gravity does not hold the power to hold that much air down.  Even you said that some air is lost.  Gravity does not behave like latex.

Just because some air is lost doesn't mean it isn't sufficient at keeping it in. A balloon with a leak would still work in the example provided. It would just shortly run out of air. Much like the earth would eventually.

Just because some air is lost doesn't mean it is sufficient at keeping it in. A balloon with a leak would still work in the example provided. It would just shortly run out of air. Much like the earth would eventually.

the airplane stands as only one example.  I mentioned centrifugal forces as well.  No such changes in weight are detected as one travels from the north pole to the equator.  The fact that no centrifugal forces exist disproves the possibility of even relativism, inertia.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 26, 2013, 05:16:15 PM

Just because some air is lost doesn't mean it is sufficient at keeping it in. A balloon with a leak would still work in the example provided. It would just shortly run out of air. Much like the earth would eventually.

the airplane stands as only one example.  I mentioned centrifugal forces as well.  No such changes in weight are detected as one travels from the north pole to the equator.  The fact that no centrifugal forces exist disproves the possibility of even relativism, inertia.

Actually Coriolis is precisely the effect you are looking for there.

And according to this you actually do weigh less at the equator.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=310

Perhaps you should head to a pole and then head to the equator and compare the weight of a 10 gram object before claiming this stuff.

In fact a Google search for "less gravity at equator" yields tons of results that say exactly what you are saying.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on September 26, 2013, 04:59:58 PM

I would really like to know what a Naval ship's compass says once it reaches the Coast of Antarctica and then travels around the wall of ice.  Once it stops saying East or West and begins to go North or South again.  There's our evidence.

What are you even trying to say?

I thought you said you are in the Navy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

Another source on the centrifugal force at the Equator.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 26, 2013, 05:12:09 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on September 26, 2013, 04:59:58 PM

I would really like to know what a Naval ship's compass says once it reaches the Coast of Antarctica and then travels around the wall of ice.  Once it stops saying East or West and begins to go North or South again.  There's our evidence.

What are you even trying to say?

I thought you said you are in the Navy.

I sure am, I'm just not sure I understand what you are saying.

If I understand you are saying that some anomolies should happen as you go around the continent and this proves the earth is flat. Well until you do that experiment I don't think you can make this claim.

I think when you go North or South again the compass would indicate you were going North or South. People always sail North from the coast of Antarctica once they stop circling it though Earth.

Well the course a Naval ship takes around the ice wall would determine if the continent is one circular mass or a circular strip around the Earth.

I think when you go North or South again the compass would indicate you were going North or South. People always sail North from the coast of Antarctica once they stop circling it though Earth.

Yes but WHILE they are circling it...I'd like to know if their compass says they are going North around it or South.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2013, 05:40:55 PM

I think when you go North or South again the compass would indicate you were going North or South. People always sail North from the coast of Antarctica once they stop circling it though Earth.

Yes but WHILE they are circling it...I'd like to know if their compass says they are going North around it or South.

You would mostly be going East or West. If you veer towards the South Pole, the compass would point more towards south and vice versa.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2013, 05:40:55 PM

I think when you go North or South again the compass would indicate you were going North or South. People always sail North from the coast of Antarctica once they stop circling it though Earth.

Yes but WHILE they are circling it...I'd like to know if their compass says they are going North around it or South.

I have no idea and I don't see how this is relevant until one of us has done it.

The earth does not even rotate.  The centrifugal forces which should be present with that kind of rotation are not there.  Object do not weigh 2 times less at the equator.  Once again, the earth does not rotate at 1000 mph.  No centrifugal forces felt = load of baloney.

How much force do you expect to feel from something spinning at a rate of one revolution per day?

Hello, FE'ers, RE'ers, and noobs alike. After taking some holidays, and thus mathematically proving by 3rd time that Portugal sucks, I came back to the mightiest forah on the net: THE FES!

Back to topic, now with my legendary paint skills:

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 26, 2013, 04:59:48 PM ----
The earth does not even rotate.  The centrifugal forces which should be present with that kind of rotation are not there.  Object do not weigh 2 times less at the equator.  Once again, the earth does not rotate at 1000 mph.  No centrifugal forces felt = load of baloney.

Yep, but that centrifugal force affects earth as well in RE, thus making gravitatorial force stronger at the equator, thus compensating (partially) for the centrifugal force:

a balloon stands as yet another horrible example.  A balloon comes with rubber walls.  The alleged atmosphere of round earth possesses no such boundaries.  Gravity does not hold the power to hold that much air down.  Even you said that some air is lost.  Gravity does not behave like latex.

To be fair, air is lost mostly due to external forces, like solar wind. This only happens above the thermosphere, in which, acording to RE,  the ISS can orbit, due to the minimal influence of friction at that level. Still, the ISS has to do some reorbit maneuvers using the resupply modules. And, as you may know, gravity is about 89% strong at the ISS, compared with 1 G. Strong enough to keep things down.

Fun Wikipedia fact: The temperature of the thermosphere can rise to 1,500 °C (2,700 °F), though the gas molecules are so far apart that temperature in the usual sense is not well defined.

IF the earth really rotated 1000 mph, the centrifugal forces at the equator would be twice as great than at the poles.  This fact results in objects weighing much less at the equator.  This scenario never gets seen.

The air cannot move at the same speed sherlock.  The earth does not even rotate.  The centrifugal forces which should be present with that kind of rotation are not there.  Object do not weigh 2 times less at the equator.  Once again, the earth does not rotate at 1000 mph.  No centrifugal forces felt = load of baloney.

I don't know why you expect object to weigh 2 times less at the equator. Have you calculated yourself using maths the expected centrifugal acceleration at the equator? Here's the equation:

       

R is radius of the round earth in meter and T is the rotational period in seconds (1 day = 86,400 seconds)

You weigh slightly less at the equator than at the poles. Do that experiment yourself for example using the Travelling Gnome Experiment (http://www.gnomeexperiment.com/)

OK, let me calculate the centrifugal acceleration at the equator for you



Only 0.34% that of the gravity.

That equation is totally horse manure.  It presents a complete and utter fallacy.  I have been to a theme park where a disk would spin and I was positioned inside.  The force of the centrifugal motion pushed me with great pressure against the wall.  It most certainly was not spinning at 1000 mph.  I was completely correct about what centrifugal motion does.  It exerted at least 10 pounds of pressure rotating at 15 mph.  I go off of feelings and perceptions, not mundane equations which just speak nothingness.

Have you tried to spin at a angular speed of one full rotation per day? The earth rotates at a speed of one full rotation a day.

For some reason he thinks the speed is relevant when it is entirely dependent on the rate of rotation.

Once per day.

In terms of centrifugal force, that is slow.

If I shot a bullet out of a gun, and I was sitting on it, even though I fired it once a day, I would not be able to maintain my grip.  Bullets travel at about hundreds of miles per hour.  The earth travels in rotation at 1000 mph.  It is the same effect.  Centrifugal motion force does not lie in the amount of revolutions.  It lies in the speed of the outer point.

In addition, if the earth really rotated that fast, then still, windless days would be impossible on the earth.  Air does not behave like soil, it consists of air particles which move rapidly around in the atmosphere.  There would always be some lag in the air moving with the earth, thus resulting in continuous air turbulence.

In essence, air makes friction impossible.  So many examples exist of air creating a friction-less environment.  I will just present the standard air hockey table.

The air on earth, if it really escaped oftentimes from the globe, would be bouncing around a great deal.  Air cannot just leak off the planet and then simultaneously just follow the earth in perfect circles.  One stands mandated to choose only one applicable scenario.  All that leakage = impossible that still air exists on any day.  I did the math.  I performed the equations.