Flat Earth Evidence.

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.

You are comparing a bullet that goes from a stationary position to 1,000 mph with something that travels at a constant speed of 1,000 mph.  That's not the same effect. Have you been on an airplane? Once an airplane reaches its cruising speed (around 500 mph) then everything inside it will travel at the same speed. The air you breathe in and out inside the airplane also travels at the same speed.

Do you believe in UA? If so, then the earth and you should by now be travelling upward at a speed nearing the speed of light. Do you feel it?

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.

The centrifugal force depends on the radius. Average Acceleration= change in velocity / TIME. At a constant velocity the bigger the circle the longer it will take to go round the circle and therefor the slower the acceleration is. The theme park disk is far smaller the the earth. For a reasonable sized disk this formula predicts noticeable forces.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 27, 2013, 06:42:39 AM

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.

The centrifugal force depends on the radius. Average Acceleration= change in velocity / TIME. At a constant velocity the bigger the circle the longer it will take to go round the circle and therefor the slower the acceleration is. The theme park disk is far smaller the the earth. For a reasonable sized disk this formula predicts noticeable forces.

Even so, the .34% is not seen on the equator at all.

And, sure everyone in the plane travels at the same speed as the plane, the air contained inside the plane as well.  But the plane consists of an airtight structure, and the people constantly maintain contact with the plane's inner surfaces.

The atmosphere gives an entirely different scenario.  The earth would just rotate leaving behind some air in the process.  Look at the air several miles up, it would always fail to rotate with the earth.  All in all, there should be a gradient of rotational air speed that decreases the higher up one goes.  Because this scenario never occurs, the earth's flat shape remains undebatable .

The airplane does not contain the same amount of sheer space as the atmosphere of earth.  So that stands as a bad example.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 27, 2013, 07:51:26 AM

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 27, 2013, 06:42:39 AM

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.

The centrifugal force depends on the radius. Average Acceleration= change in velocity / TIME. At a constant velocity the bigger the circle the longer it will take to go round the circle and therefor the slower the acceleration is. The theme park disk is far smaller the the earth. For a reasonable sized disk this formula predicts noticeable forces.

Even so, the .34% is not seen on the equator at all.

And, sure everyone in the plane travels at the same speed as the plane, the air contained inside the plane as well.  But the plane consists of an airtight structure, and the people constantly maintain contact with the plane's inner surfaces.

The atmosphere gives an entirely different scenario.  The earth would just rotate leaving behind some air in the process.  Look at the air several miles up, it would always fail to rotate with the earth.  All in all, there should be a gradient of rotational air speed that decreases the higher up one goes.  Because this scenario never occurs, the earth's flat shape remains undebatable .

The airplane does not contain the same amount of sheer space as the atmosphere of earth.  So that stands as a bad example.

You have been provided two sources in this thread showing that your weight does change from the poles to the equator.

Even so, the .34% is not seen on the equator at all.

Actually yes it is. We've already shown you the gnome experiment.

And, sure everyone in the plane travels at the same speed as the plane, the air contained inside the plane as well.  But the plane consists of an airtight structure, and the people constantly maintain contact with the plane's inner surfaces.

And the air is contained on the earth. The losses of atmosphere are so minimal that it will take billions of years to lose it all. As far as people having contact with the surface inside of the plane you could simply imagine one person throwing a ball straight up. It would land precisely back down in their hand so long as they could throw it fairly straight. The ball doesn't get shoved to the back of the plane cause the plane is going a constant speed.

The atmosphere gives an entirely different scenario.  The earth would just rotate leaving behind some air in the process.  Look at the air several miles up, it would always fail to rotate with the earth.  All in all, there should be a gradient of rotational air speed that decreases the higher up one goes.  Because this scenario never occurs, the earth's flat shape remains undebatable .

You keep saying that it's indisputable but every one of your points have been shown to be wrong.

The air is held to the surface of the earth by the gravity force. As I have shown with my calculation earlier, the centrifugal force is very small to throw the air out. And there is virtually nothing in space to stop the air from spinning, therefore it will always rotate with the same speed of Earth.

Any new air produced by anything on earth will also have the same speed as the object that produces it. For example if you fart while standing on a spinning earth, then your fart will stay around you. It's not ejected at 1,000 mph like what you would have expected.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 27, 2013, 07:51:26 AM

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 27, 2013, 06:42:39 AM

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.

The centrifugal force depends on the radius. Average Acceleration= change in velocity / TIME. At a constant velocity the bigger the circle the longer it will take to go round the circle and therefor the slower the acceleration is. The theme park disk is far smaller the the earth. For a reasonable sized disk this formula predicts noticeable forces.

Even so, the .34% is not seen on the equator at all.

And, sure everyone in the plane travels at the same speed as the plane, the air contained inside the plane as well.  But the plane consists of an airtight structure, and the people constantly maintain contact with the plane's inner surfaces.

The atmosphere gives an entirely different scenario.  The earth would just rotate leaving behind some air in the process.  Look at the air several miles up, it would always fail to rotate with the earth.  All in all, there should be a gradient of rotational air speed that decreases the higher up one goes.  Because this scenario never occurs, the earth's flat shape remains undebatable .

The airplane does not contain the same amount of sheer space as the atmosphere of earth.  So that stands as a bad example.

The atmosphere has had 4.5 billion years to settle down, that's more than enough.

Once again, I must correct you.  Your statements, sadly so, come very inaccurately.  If I had a jet pack and levitated suddenly in the plane, with enough solid air time, I would eventually hit the tail end.  No matter what you say, that relativity wears off.  This truth especially applies to this particular situation.

I suggest making a giant air ship with the top of the plane reaching a few thousands of meters.  Then throw the Nerf ball with a discus thrower to the top of the freakin roof.  Now, that experiment poses a suitable proof of my point.  It will eventually move back.

Fire a cannon ball into the air at a high speed.  It comes down at the exact same point on top of the cannon instead of traveling against the direction of rotation.  A cannon fired in the air takes several minutes to come down.  Those several minutes give sufficient leeway for relativity to wear off.

Once again, I must correct you.  Your statements, sadly so, come very inaccurately.  If I had a jet pack and levitated suddenly in the plane, with enough solid air time, I would eventually hit the tail end.  No matter what you say, that relativity wears off.  This truth especially applies to this particular situation.

I suggest making a giant air ship with the top of the plane reaching a few thousands of meters.  Then throw the Nerf ball with a discus thrower to the top of the freakin roof.  Now, that experiment poses a suitable proof of my point.  It will eventually move back.

Fire a cannon ball into the air at a high speed.  It comes down at the exact same point on top of the cannon instead of traveling against the direction of rotation.  A cannon fired in the air takes several minutes to come down.  Those several minutes give sufficient leeway for relativity to wear off.

Before being shot, the cannon ball already has the same speed as the earth. See my explanation below too:

Any new air produced by anything on earth will also have the same speed as the object that produces it. For example if you fart while standing on a spinning earth, then your fart will stay around you. It's not ejected at 1,000 mph like what you would have expected.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Relative Motion Gun

Notice that in this video a relative motion gun shoots a ball straight up but the ball moves in an arc due to the motion of the gun itself.

Fire a cannon ball into the air at a high speed.  It comes down at the exact same point on top of the cannon instead of traveling against the direction of rotation.  A cannon fired in the air takes several minutes to come down.  Those several minutes give sufficient leeway for relativity to wear off.

Prove it. Prove that it comes down on exactly the same place.

One piece of evidence for a flat earth, as you requested:

The power emitted from a blackbody (i.e., the Sun) is related to the temperature according to: P=a*T^4, where P is the power, a is the stefan-boltzmann constant (8*10^-8), and T is the temperature. Now according to round earth science, the temperature of the Sun is 5778K. This gives a power of 6.8*10^7 (check the math yourself). Now, this is really the power from the whole surface, so the corresponding power we receive on Earth from the Sun is MORE than this because the Earth has a smaller surface area than the Sun. Specifically, the power on Earth is 6.8*10^7 times the ratios of surface areas, which gives a power of 8.2*10^11. What temperature does this correspond to? 56582K. Check the math yourself. In Fahrenheit this about 1*10^5, or 100,000 degrees. Go outside, is it that hot? No, it is not. How do the round earthers explain this? They claim it is because only part of the Earth receives the power form the Sun. Which is true, only half the Earth experiences daytime at any given time (in the RE model). Okay, so cut the Earth's surface area in half, and re-do the calculation. What do you get? I will let you check it yourself, so that you can see the truth with your own eyes. In short, the Earth is NOT that hot. We would all be dead at that temperature.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 27, 2013, 08:07:41 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 27, 2013, 07:51:26 AM

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 27, 2013, 06:42:39 AM

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.

The centrifugal force depends on the radius. Average Acceleration= change in velocity / TIME. At a constant velocity the bigger the circle the longer it will take to go round the circle and therefor the slower the acceleration is. The theme park disk is far smaller the the earth. For a reasonable sized disk this formula predicts noticeable forces.

Even so, the .34% is not seen on the equator at all.

And, sure everyone in the plane travels at the same speed as the plane, the air contained inside the plane as well.  But the plane consists of an airtight structure, and the people constantly maintain contact with the plane's inner surfaces.

The atmosphere gives an entirely different scenario.  The earth would just rotate leaving behind some air in the process.  Look at the air several miles up, it would always fail to rotate with the earth.  All in all, there should be a gradient of rotational air speed that decreases the higher up one goes.  Because this scenario never occurs, the earth's flat shape remains undebatable .

The airplane does not contain the same amount of sheer space as the atmosphere of earth.  So that stands as a bad example.

The atmosphere has had 4.5 billion years to settle down, that's more than enough.

4.5 billion years stands as only a complete and total nonsensical number.  The reason why lies in the Precambrian granite layer.  Not only does granite, after being melted, form rhyolite crystal, but if the earth really existed in a molten state before cooling (for billions of years), there would be even more crystal throughout all those rocks.  An experiment received performance where granite actually melted and re-solidified. 

The longer something remains heated and the slower it cools, the more crystals one gets.  The attractive forces between elements form crystals which are given more time to associate themselves with a slow cooling process.

This stands as the pattern.  Its not the other way around.  Long periods of heating and slow cooling does not un-crystallized matter make.

The granite layer consists of nothing but solid rock.  No crystals whatsoever.  Its like it was super cooled suddenly and with conscious intent.  Created and then super cooled.

In addition, polonium 218 halos are seen throughout the granite rock layers.  Seeing any polonium 218 halos stands as an impossibility if the earth took that long to cool.  The rock would have had to solidify very fast before the element left a scar in the rock.

Please note that alpha decay of differing elements does not explain the halos seen.  The halos lie deeply embedded in the rock structure, and alpha decay only penetrates a few millimeters into the rock.

Also, polonium possesses 218 a half life of 3 minutes.  Even if half lives varied thousands upon thousands of years ago, the possibility of heavy radioactive elements surviving for billions of billions of years comes as only an impossibility.  In other words, a supernova event that long ago would be exhausted of all its heavy elements before it coalesced into a planet.  This fact means no uranium or even polonium.

Another important fact comes into play in regards to the lodes of the earth.  Metal ingots appear all over the globe in concentrations.  However, if the earth came entirely from a molten state  with a super nova being the source of all the heavy elements, all the metals would be mixed throughout the entire crust.  Diffusion in a molten environment appears to have never occurred.

The planets would look all the same as well with the same elemental concentrations throughout all the planets.  However, planet characteristics come all partitioned and unique.  Please remember, a supernova represents a random explosive event which produces equal concentrations of elements at all points in all directions.  If spheres formed in that environment, once again, everything would look the same.

All in all, believe in my words.  See the glory of the flat earth.

One piece of evidence for a flat earth, as you requested:

The power emitted from a blackbody (i.e., the Sun) is related to the temperature according to: P=a*T^4, where P is the power, a is the stefan-boltzmann constant (8*10^-8), and T is the temperature. Now according to round earth science, the temperature of the Sun is 5778K. This gives a power of 6.8*10^7 (check the math yourself). Now, this is really the power from the whole surface, so the corresponding power we receive on Earth from the Sun is MORE than this because the Earth has a smaller surface area than the Sun. Specifically, the power on Earth is 6.8*10^7 times the ratios of surface areas, which gives a power of 8.2*10^11. What temperature does this correspond to? 56582K. Check the math yourself. In Fahrenheit this about 1*10^5, or 100,000 degrees. Go outside, is it that hot? No, it is not. How do the round earthers explain this? They claim it is because only part of the Earth receives the power form the Sun. Which is true, only half the Earth experiences daytime at any given time (in the RE model). Okay, so cut the Earth's surface area in half, and re-do the calculation. What do you get? I will let you check it yourself, so that you can see the truth with your own eyes. In short, the Earth is NOT that hot. We would all be dead at that temperature.

This thread is about FE evidence. Instead of discussing RE model, do you have a model of FE sun that explains the temperature we have now?

One piece of evidence for a flat earth, as you requested:

The power emitted from a blackbody (i.e., the Sun) is related to the temperature according to: P=a*T^4, where P is the power, a is the stefan-boltzmann constant (8*10^-8), and T is the temperature. Now according to round earth science, the temperature of the Sun is 5778K. This gives a power of 6.8*10^7 (check the math yourself). Now, this is really the power from the whole surface, so the corresponding power we receive on Earth from the Sun is MORE than this because the Earth has a smaller surface area than the Sun. Specifically, the power on Earth is 6.8*10^7 times the ratios of surface areas, which gives a power of 8.2*10^11. What temperature does this correspond to? 56582K. Check the math yourself. In Fahrenheit this about 1*10^5, or 100,000 degrees. Go outside, is it that hot? No, it is not. How do the round earthers explain this? They claim it is because only part of the Earth receives the power form the Sun. Which is true, only half the Earth experiences daytime at any given time (in the RE model). Okay, so cut the Earth's surface area in half, and re-do the calculation. What do you get? I will let you check it yourself, so that you can see the truth with your own eyes. In short, the Earth is NOT that hot. We would all be dead at that temperature.

That is the power that the sun radiates in all directions.  We are only able to receive a miniscule amount of that power (something like 0.0001%).  I think you are assuming that the sun is generating that much power/cm^2 or something, which is not the case.

http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html

No one possesses an answer for the above information.  All of that proves a flat earth model.

Randomly exploding supernovas in deep space would just continually expand outwards forever and ever.  They would never coalesce into planets by themselves and pick up rotation over billions of years.

The law of thermodynamics states suggests that the universe heads more and more to disorder.  Scientists contradict themselves by saying an exploding supernova can ascend the energy ladder, concentrate planets, and get them spinning spontaneously in utter perfection.

No one possesses an answer for the above information.  All of that proves a flat earth model.

Randomly exploding supernovas in deep space would just continually expand outwards forever and ever.  They would never coalesce into planets by themselves and pick up rotation over billions of years.

The law of thermodynamics states suggests that the universe heads more and more to disorder.  Scientists contradict themselves by saying an exploding supernova can ascend the energy ladder, concentrate planets, and get them spinning spontaneously in utter perfection.

Entropy generally increases over time, but locally it can vary.  There is nothing spontaneous about the creation of planets, not the conservation of angular momentum, or their coalescence.  It takes millions upon millions of years.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 08:35:18 AM

One piece of evidence for a flat earth, as you requested:

The power emitted from a blackbody (i.e., the Sun) is related to the temperature according to: P=a*T^4, where P is the power, a is the stefan-boltzmann constant (8*10^-8), and T is the temperature. Now according to round earth science, the temperature of the Sun is 5778K. This gives a power of 6.8*10^7 (check the math yourself). Now, this is really the power from the whole surface, so the corresponding power we receive on Earth from the Sun is MORE than this because the Earth has a smaller surface area than the Sun. Specifically, the power on Earth is 6.8*10^7 times the ratios of surface areas, which gives a power of 8.2*10^11. What temperature does this correspond to? 56582K. Check the math yourself. In Fahrenheit this about 1*10^5, or 100,000 degrees. Go outside, is it that hot? No, it is not. How do the round earthers explain this? They claim it is because only part of the Earth receives the power form the Sun. Which is true, only half the Earth experiences daytime at any given time (in the RE model). Okay, so cut the Earth's surface area in half, and re-do the calculation. What do you get? I will let you check it yourself, so that you can see the truth with your own eyes. In short, the Earth is NOT that hot. We would all be dead at that temperature.

That is the power that the sun radiates in all directions.  We are only able to receive a miniscule amount of that power (something like 0.0001%).  I think you are assuming that the sun is generating that much power/cm^2 or something, which is not the case.

http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html

Yes, power is energy per unit area. I did the calculation taking into account the cm^2. Look at the math, and read the website you referred me to.

No, power is energy per unit of time.  Intensity is power transferred per unit of area.

No, power is energy per unit of time.  Intensity is power transferred per unit of area.

Yes yes, you are quite right. The confusion is that it is not really meaningful to discuss power in this context without also addressing the area, so typically the law P=a*T^4 is discussed in terms of "per unit area" without explicitly stating P/cm^2, which is indeed an intensity. The fault is mine of course: when you do this stuff for a while you tend to adopt common colloquial shortcuts in the notation and verbiage, which can be confusing if you're not used to it. This is not an excuse, however, many do not know this, and wrong impressions can be given. To restate, I DO take into account the areas in the calculation.   

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 27, 2013, 09:19:53 AM

No one possesses an answer for the above information.  All of that proves a flat earth model.

Randomly exploding supernovas in deep space would just continually expand outwards forever and ever.  They would never coalesce into planets by themselves and pick up rotation over billions of years.

The law of thermodynamics states suggests that the universe heads more and more to disorder.  Scientists contradict themselves by saying an exploding supernova can ascend the energy ladder, concentrate planets, and get them spinning spontaneously in utter perfection.

Entropy generally increases over time, but locally it can vary.  There is nothing spontaneous about the creation of planets, not the conservation of angular momentum, or their coalescence.  It takes millions upon millions of years.

Millions of millions of years presents a statement that was already explained to be a fallacy.  Millions of millions of years just removes all elements with a short half life.  Millions of years of cooling and heating should remove polonium halos.  I still see them in the bed rock though, and I do not mean the flintstones.

An explosion never coalesces by itself.  An explosion does not possess a central nervous system.  Those statements only present utter fallacies and contrived forces which never can exist.

You saying that something came from nothing only shows that you believe in a deity that produces some order from nothingness.  Yet, this deity just remains silent.  Science only survives because of religious dogma and hocus pocus.

Did you even read my above response.  The response above thermodynamics.  Current science cannot brush away those inconsistencies with statements such as millions and millions...  Only one possibility remains, instantaneous creation.

That chaotic heat never even occurred for one second.  The granite layer completely and totally does not appear as solid kryolite.  That supernova explosion with radioactive residual heat theory could not be further from the truth.

SeekerOfTruth, did you also take into account the amount of radiation reflected back by some layers of our atmosphere (in the RE model of course)? Do you know the temperature in the RE space? Something that looks like this maybe?

SeekerOfTruth, did you also take into account the amount of radiation reflected back by some layers of our atmosphere (in the RE model of course)? Do you know the temperature in the RE space? Something that looks like this maybe?

Yes I know about this. And this is a very good point! I thought of discussing this too, but I fear of making single posts too long and unwieldy.

Typical atmospheric models are rather poor. This is why modeling climate change is so hard! Nevertheless, the majority of radiation from the Sun survives to hit the Earth. This is due to Rayleigh scattering. The photons from the Sun that are reflected back (or scattered) are specific in wavelength (from quantum mechanics) commensurate (approximately) with the size of the molecules they are scattering off of. This does not mean light of different wavelengths CANT scatter, only that they have a small probability of doing so. The upshot is that the relatively small (in terms of energy) scattering of light off of the atmosphere simply cannot account for dissipating enough of the Sun's energy to account for the discrepancy.   

Since things don't look as simple as you made it sound, you can't use your simple calculation as argument.

One piece of evidence for a flat earth, as you requested:

The power emitted from a blackbody (i.e., the Sun) is related to the temperature according to: P=a*T^4, where P is the power, a is the stefan-boltzmann constant (8*10^-8), and T is the temperature. Now according to round earth science, the temperature of the Sun is 5778K. This gives a power of 6.8*10^7 (check the math yourself). Now, this is really the power from the whole surface, so the corresponding power we receive on Earth from the Sun is MORE than this because the Earth has a smaller surface area than the Sun. Specifically, the power on Earth is 6.8*10^7 times the ratios of surface areas, which gives a power of 8.2*10^11. What temperature does this correspond to? 56582K. Check the math yourself. In Fahrenheit this about 1*10^5, or 100,000 degrees. Go outside, is it that hot? No, it is not. How do the round earthers explain this? They claim it is because only part of the Earth receives the power form the Sun. Which is true, only half the Earth experiences daytime at any given time (in the RE model). Okay, so cut the Earth's surface area in half, and re-do the calculation. What do you get? I will let you check it yourself, so that you can see the truth with your own eyes. In short, the Earth is NOT that hot. We would all be dead at that temperature.

The earth only receives a fraction on the sun's energy.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 27, 2013, 08:21:08 AM

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 27, 2013, 08:07:41 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 27, 2013, 07:51:26 AM

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 27, 2013, 06:42:39 AM

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.

The centrifugal force depends on the radius. Average Acceleration= change in velocity / TIME. At a constant velocity the bigger the circle the longer it will take to go round the circle and therefor the slower the acceleration is. The theme park disk is far smaller the the earth. For a reasonable sized disk this formula predicts noticeable forces.

Even so, the .34% is not seen on the equator at all.

And, sure everyone in the plane travels at the same speed as the plane, the air contained inside the plane as well.  But the plane consists of an airtight structure, and the people constantly maintain contact with the plane's inner surfaces.

The atmosphere gives an entirely different scenario.  The earth would just rotate leaving behind some air in the process.  Look at the air several miles up, it would always fail to rotate with the earth.  All in all, there should be a gradient of rotational air speed that decreases the higher up one goes.  Because this scenario never occurs, the earth's flat shape remains undebatable .

The airplane does not contain the same amount of sheer space as the atmosphere of earth.  So that stands as a bad example.

The atmosphere has had 4.5 billion years to settle down, that's more than enough.

4.5 billion years stands as only a complete and total nonsensical number.  The reason why lies in the Precambrian granite layer.  Not only does granite, after being melted, form rhyolite crystal, but if the earth really existed in a molten state before cooling (for billions of years), there would be even more crystal throughout all those rocks.  An experiment received performance where granite actually melted and re-solidified. 

The longer something remains heated and the slower it cools, the more crystals one gets.  The attractive forces between elements form crystals which are given more time to associate themselves with a slow cooling process.

This stands as the pattern.  Its not the other way around.  Long periods of heating and slow cooling does not un-crystallized matter make.

The granite layer consists of nothing but solid rock.  No crystals whatsoever.  Its like it was super cooled suddenly and with conscious intent.  Created and then super cooled.

In addition, polonium 218 halos are seen throughout the granite rock layers.  Seeing any polonium 218 halos stands as an impossibility if the earth took that long to cool.  The rock would have had to solidify very fast before the element left a scar in the rock.

Please note that alpha decay of differing elements does not explain the halos seen.  The halos lie deeply embedded in the rock structure, and alpha decay only penetrates a few millimeters into the rock.

Also, polonium possesses 218 a half life of 3 minutes.  Even if half lives varied thousands upon thousands of years ago, the possibility of heavy radioactive elements surviving for billions of billions of years comes as only an impossibility.  In other words, a supernova event that long ago would be exhausted of all its heavy elements before it coalesced into a planet.  This fact means no uranium or even polonium.

Another important fact comes into play in regards to the lodes of the earth.  Metal ingots appear all over the globe in concentrations.  However, if the earth came entirely from a molten state  with a super nova being the source of all the heavy elements, all the metals would be mixed throughout the entire crust.  Diffusion in a molten environment appears to have never occurred.

The planets would look all the same as well with the same elemental concentrations throughout all the planets.  However, planet characteristics come all partitioned and unique.  Please remember, a supernova represents a random explosive event which produces equal concentrations of elements at all points in all directions.  If spheres formed in that environment, once again, everything would look the same.

All in all, believe in my words.  See the glory of the flat earth.

Every single radioactive isotope with a half life less then 50 million years that exists on earth is formed by the breakdown of isotopes with higher half-lifes. The different planets attracted different masses. The Formation of a planet is a extremely violent event.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 08:35:18 AM

One piece of evidence for a flat earth, as you requested:

The power emitted from a blackbody (i.e., the Sun) is related to the temperature according to: P=a*T^4, where P is the power, a is the stefan-boltzmann constant (8*10^-8), and T is the temperature. Now according to round earth science, the temperature of the Sun is 5778K. This gives a power of 6.8*10^7 (check the math yourself). Now, this is really the power from the whole surface, so the corresponding power we receive on Earth from the Sun is MORE than this because the Earth has a smaller surface area than the Sun. Specifically, the power on Earth is 6.8*10^7 times the ratios of surface areas, which gives a power of 8.2*10^11. What temperature does this correspond to? 56582K. Check the math yourself. In Fahrenheit this about 1*10^5, or 100,000 degrees. Go outside, is it that hot? No, it is not. How do the round earthers explain this? They claim it is because only part of the Earth receives the power form the Sun. Which is true, only half the Earth experiences daytime at any given time (in the RE model). Okay, so cut the Earth's surface area in half, and re-do the calculation. What do you get? I will let you check it yourself, so that you can see the truth with your own eyes. In short, the Earth is NOT that hot. We would all be dead at that temperature.

The earth only receives a fraction on the sun's energy.

The calculation of power (read: intensity -- see posts above) takes into account the rate per unit area. Please show me a calculation if you believe I am wrong: I showed you the same courtesy.

Since things don't look as simple as you made it sound, you can't use your simple calculation as argument.

Alright, so this is a busy plot, showing lots of information. What part of it disagrees with my calculation? And why?

Quote from: Cartesian on September 27, 2013, 10:28:40 AM

Since things don't look as simple as you made it sound, you can't use your simple calculation as argument.

Alright, so this is a busy plot, showing lots of information. What part of it disagrees with my calculation? And why?

That you don't take many factors into a account.